11.07.2015 Views

2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission

2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission

2011 Annual Report - The Commerce Commission

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

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>/05/23/BC-FTD/121<strong>2011</strong>/05/24/BC-FTD/122<strong>2011</strong>/05/25/BC-FTD/123Consumer Tvs. Company NConsumer Uvs. Institute CConsumer Vvs. Company OOn 23-05-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Consumer Tregarding an unfair trade practice for the sale of a printer ink. <strong>The</strong><strong>Commission</strong> was informed that normally ink is sold for $5.90 but when thereis a short supply of the item, the price is increased to $9.60 by Company N.FCC after making its assessment and analysis informed the complainantthat the price of Ink was not controlled by the <strong>Commission</strong> nor was there amark-up control on the item. <strong>The</strong> complainant was also advised thatconsumers were free to switch to other suppliers for a better deal.On 24-05-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Consumer Uregarding an increase in the taxi base renewal fees from $5.63 to $57.00.<strong>The</strong> complainant informed FCC that the increase was considered to beexorbitant and proprietors were finding difficulties in paying the increasedamount. FCC formally wrote to Institute C, informing them of the issue andseeking a response. A response was received, informing FCC that the feesand charges were a one off payment for 3 years compared to previousmonthly payments. <strong>The</strong> above was conveyed to complainant and the casewas closed.On 25-05-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Consumer Vregarding the repair services for his phone. <strong>The</strong> phone was repaired andthe complainant paid $160 for the change of screen and a verbal warrantyfor 3 months was given but the phone kept on experiencing problems. FCCmediated the matter and the respondent refunded $100 to the complainant.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSections 76 & 83Sections 76 & 89Sections 76 & 84Page56of236

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!