2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission
2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission 2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission
Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/03/24/BC-FTD/622011/03/18/BC-FTD/63Consumer Cvs. Company MSupplier D vs.Company N,O,P,Q & ROn 24-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer C. TheComplainant bought a 15hp Yamaha Outboard Engine from Company M on13-12-10 and after using it for approximately 2 hours, the Engine did notstart. On 29-12-10, the complainant took the Engine to have it replaced andhe was advised that a replacement would be made in two weeks, however,3 months went past but the replacement was not done. FCC mediated thematter and Company M agreed to repair the engine FOC and the same wascompleted and the matter resolved.On 17-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Supplier D againsta total of 5 supermarkets. FCC was informed that these supermarkets werenot allowing Supplier D to access their shelves in the supermarkets and thereason given by these supermarkets was that they had exclusive deals withCompany X. FCC formally wrote to all 5 supermarkets informing them of theissue and seeking a response. A response was received from the 5supermarkets, informing FCC that the company offered more than 500cartons of products which were not commercially viable, the price offeredwas not competitive compared to other competitors and there was nostandard pricing and Supplier D offered different prices to differentsupermarkets. That is, Supplier D was offering preferential pricing to sometraders and this distorted the market in terms of the final retail prices. The 5supermarkets informed the Commission that they were willing to trade withSupplier D provided that everyone was treated equally by the supplier. Theabove was conveyed to the complainant and the case was closed as nofurther correspondences were received.Division 1 -Warranty Section 116Restrictive TradePracticesSection 69Page37of236
Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/03/25/BC-FTD/642011/03/25/BC-FTD/652011/03/29/BC-FTD/66Consumer Evs. Company SConsumer Fvs. Company TConsumer Gvs. Company UOn 25-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Eagainst Company S for charging incorrect, inaccurate and high bills to her.She also alleged that Company S charged her for a Company S meterwithout informing her and without any valid justification. After the new meterwas installed, the bill went up as high as $800 a month. Later her powersupply was disconnected without any notice. FCC mediated the matter andCompany S reconnected the electricity and the complainant made anarrangement with Company S to pay her bills via installments.On 25-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer F forthe supply of a faulty “thermo switch”. He went to have the product replacedbut he was advised that the Company could not replace nor refund themoney, since the product had been opened from the sealed packet. FCCmediated the matter and the respondent refunded the full amount of $38and a settlement was signed and the matter was resolved.On 29-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Gagainst Company U, regarding the memory card of his mobile. TheComplainant informed FCC that Company U had asked the Complainant topay $10 and leave the phone with them to be checked by their techniciansand they were to inform the Complainant of any actions to be taken.Company U charged $20 to release the phone, informing the complainantthat they had to open and clean the phone. FCC mediated the matter andthe respondent agreed not to charge anything.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 75 & 76Section 75Sections 75 & 76Page38of236
- Page 2: LETTER TO THE MINISTERHonorable Aiy
- Page 9 and 10: 5. Legal DepartmentThe department
- Page 11 and 12: 1.0 FAIR TRADING DEPARTMENT1.1 Over
- Page 13 and 14: Figure 1: FTD Cases - Breakdown in
- Page 15: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 18 and 19: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 20 and 21: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 22 and 23: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 24 and 25: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 26 and 27: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 28 and 29: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 31 and 32: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 33 and 34: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 35 and 36: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 37: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 41 and 42: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 43 and 44: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 45 and 46: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 47 and 48: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 49 and 50: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 51 and 52: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 53 and 54: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 55 and 56: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 57 and 58: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 59 and 60: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 61 and 62: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 63 and 64: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 65 and 66: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 67: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 70 and 71: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 72 and 73: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 74 and 75: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 76 and 77: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 78 and 79: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 80 and 81: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 82 and 83: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 84 and 85: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 86 and 87: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in <strong>2011</strong>(cont…)Cases Resolved in <strong>2011</strong>Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached<strong>2011</strong>/03/25/BC-FTD/64<strong>2011</strong>/03/25/BC-FTD/65<strong>2011</strong>/03/29/BC-FTD/66Consumer Evs. Company SConsumer Fvs. Company TConsumer Gvs. Company UOn 25-03-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Consumer Eagainst Company S for charging incorrect, inaccurate and high bills to her.She also alleged that Company S charged her for a Company S meterwithout informing her and without any valid justification. After the new meterwas installed, the bill went up as high as $800 a month. Later her powersupply was disconnected without any notice. FCC mediated the matter andCompany S reconnected the electricity and the complainant made anarrangement with Company S to pay her bills via installments.On 25-03-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Consumer F forthe supply of a faulty “thermo switch”. He went to have the product replacedbut he was advised that the Company could not replace nor refund themoney, since the product had been opened from the sealed packet. FCCmediated the matter and the respondent refunded the full amount of $38and a settlement was signed and the matter was resolved.On 29-03-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Consumer Gagainst Company U, regarding the memory card of his mobile. <strong>The</strong>Complainant informed FCC that Company U had asked the Complainant topay $10 and leave the phone with them to be checked by their techniciansand they were to inform the Complainant of any actions to be taken.Company U charged $20 to release the phone, informing the complainantthat they had to open and clean the phone. FCC mediated the matter andthe respondent agreed not to charge anything.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 75 & 76Section 75Sections 75 & 76Page38of236
Change language