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 ProvisionsBreached2011/04/08/BC-FTD/782011/04/08/BC-FTD/792011/03/31/BC-FTD/80Consumer Ovs. Company CComplaint byInstitution EagainstCompany DConsumer Pvs. Company EOn 08-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Oagainst Company C, regarding the absence/incomplete details of CompanyC’s call charges on its invoice and Company C’s electronic billing system.FCC formally wrote to Company C informing them of the issue and seekinga response. A response was received informing FCC that if customerswanted itemised bills, they would have to pay and Company C wouldprovide them. The above was conveyed to the complainant and the matterwas referred to the Telecommunications Regulator for further investigation.On 08-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Institution Eagainst Company D, for misleading consumers by advertising in theNewspaper that their Garlic was a New Zealand product but the productpackaging clearly stated “Product of China”. FCC formally wrote toCompany D, informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received, informing FCC that it was a genuine error onCompany D’s part and an apology was given for the same. The above wasconveyed to Institution E and the case was closed.On 31-03-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Pagainst Company E. The Complainant alleged that Company E wascharging fees on a yearly flat rate and not as per unit which was normally apractice done by overseas and other local tertiary institutions. FCC formallywrote to Company E, informing them of the issue and seeking aConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 76Sections 75 & 76,78No Breach of the CommerceCommission Decree 2010Page42of236