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 ProvisionsBreached2011/04/28/BC-FTD/892011/04/26/BC-FTD/902011/04/28/BC-FTD/91Consumer Xvs. Company MConsumer Yvs. Company NCompany Z vs.Company OOn 28-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Xagainst Company M. Consumer X alleged that the two water metersregistered under his name had overstated readings. FCC mediated thematter and Company M changed the water meter and credited thecustomer’s account with $134.24.On 26-04-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Yregarding the purchase of a vehicle that was for sale at Company N’s yard.Consumer Y had informed the Commission of the following: He enquiredabout a vehicle at Company N and the price was told to be $21000 to whichConsumer Y agreed but it was later increased to $23000. The Complainantwas claiming for income loss and a refund of $30. FCC mediated the matterand the respondent refunded a total of $30 and the complainant wasinformed that if he wanted to claim for a loss, he would have to lodge it withSCT.On 28-04-11, the Commission received a Complaint from Company Zagainst Company O for a number of print advertisements by Company Onamely the following: (1) 1 cents Video Calling, (2) 7 cents Overseas Callsand (3) Free Calls. Company Z alleged that there were a number of fineprint conditions attached to each of the promotions and it was alleged to beunfair and misleading to consumers. FCC carried out its assessment andanalysis on the matter and informed both parties of FCC’s outcome. Bothparties were also cautioned to improve their acts and ensure that theytraded and advertised within the requirements of the CCD 2010.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 75 & 76,Sections 75 & 76,78Sections 75 & 76,78Page46of236