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 ProvisionsBreached2011/04/04/BC-FTD/742011/02/17/BC-FTD/752011/04/07/BC-FTD/76Consumer Mvs. Company AInstitution Evs. Company BConsumer Nvs. Company BOn 04-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Magainst Company A. The complainant informed FCC that Company A buyspaints in bulk and gets a discount and then retails at a lower price, whereas,Consumer M does not buy in bulk and does not receive any discount, sothey cannot sell at a lower price. FCC carried out its independent analysisand concluded that there was no merit in the case. The Complainant wasinformed of the above and the case was closed.On 17-02-11, the Commission received a complaint from Institution E,regarding unclear receipts from Company B’s supermarket. FCC formallywrote to the Respondent, informing them of the issue and seeking aresponse. A response was received, informing FCC that they hadapologized for the oversight and that they had changed all the printer headswhich were having problems and a copy of a proforma invoice from eachprinter was presented to FCC. The above was conveyed to Institution E andmonitored by FCC and the case was closed.On 07-04-11, the Commission received a complaint against Company B,regarding the increase in bus fares from $0.70 to $1.00 without any noticeby the bus company. The Complainant travels in the same company’s busand according to her, no notice had been issued concerning the increase inbus fare. FCC formally wrote to the transport sector regulator, informing it ofthe issue and seeking a response. A response was received informing FCCthat the actual fare was supposed to be $1.00 while Company B wascharging $0.70. The above was conveyed to the complainant and the casewas closed.No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 75 & 76No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010Page41of236