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 ProvisionsBreached2011/06/27/BC-FTD/1542011/06/28/BC-FTD/155Consumer Svs. Company PConsumer Tvs. Company QOn 27-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Sregarding the repair of a “Skope” single door bottle cooler. The said repairsspecifically involved fitting a new 1/3 hp compressor and services totaling$1144.25. Consumer S informed FCC that the fridge was shipped fromSavusavu at a cost of $150.00 and on 09/03/11, the fridge was shippedback to Savusavu at an additional cost of $150.00. The fridge was runningwell for a week, after which it ceased to cool at all and a local refrigerationtechnician revealed after a visual inspection that the compressor had notbeen changed. An additional cost of $150.00 was incurred to ship the fridgeback to Suva. FCC formally wrote to the respondent informing them of theissue and seeking a response. A response was received, informing FCCthat Consumer S needed to give a written order for the mechanical fault tobe repaired; pay 50% upfront deposit on the quotation, a representative ofConsumer S to inspect the cooler and Consumer S to pay balance of 50%and then take the cooler. The above was conveyed to the complainant, andwith no further correspondence on the issue, the matter was closed.On 28-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Tagainst Company Q regarding a gear box problem. She informed FCC thatshe had bought a car from Company Q and after using it for one month sheexperienced a gear box problem. She approached Company Q asking themto replace the gear box and nothing was done. FCC formally wrote to therespondent, informing them of the issue and sought a response. A responsewas received informing FCC that the vehicle was given out as a privaterental for monetary gains and the complaint regarding the gear box waslodged to them and they could not replace the gear box since the warrantyhad expired. The above was conveyed to the complainant and the case wasclosed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices Section 75No Breach of theCommerceCommissionDecree 20102011/06/28/BC-FTD/155Page69of236
Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreachedCases Closed in 20112011/06/28/BC-FTD/156Consumer Uvs. Company ROn 28-06-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Uregarding the quality of paint that he had bought from Company R.Consumer U informed FCC that he bought a 6 x 4 litre Berger Stop rustGalvanized iron Primer on 08-06-11 from Company R. The painting of theroof was completed by Consumer U on 10-06-11. On 11-06-11, heavy rainin the morning washed away 50% of the paint, despite the fact that it wasleft for more than 10 hours to dry. Upon lodging his concerns, Company R’sSales Officers conducted a site inspection with a Lab Technician andconcluded that there were no remedies or compensation available forConsumer U as the damage was done by the act of nature. FCC formallywrote to respondent, informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received informing FCC that Consumer U had purchasedwater based paints, whereby the drying (curing) depended upon the loss ofwater (by evaporation) as a first process in curing the product. Theapplication of the product in the afternoon might have resulted incondensation (dew formation) on the paint film. The above was conveyed tothe complainant and the case was closedConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 75Page70of236
- 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 and 38: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 39 and 40: 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 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
- Page 88 and 89: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 90 and 91: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 92 and 93: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 94 and 95: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 96 and 97: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 98 and 99: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 100 and 101: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 102 and 103: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 104 and 105: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 106 and 107: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 108 and 109: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 110 and 111: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 112 and 113: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 114 and 115: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 116 and 117: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 118 and 119: 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>/06/27/BC-FTD/154<strong>2011</strong>/06/28/BC-FTD/155Consumer Svs. Company PConsumer Tvs. Company QOn 27-06-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Consumer Sregarding the repair of a “Skope” single door bottle cooler. <strong>The</strong> said repairsspecifically involved fitting a new 1/3 hp compressor and services totaling$1144.25. Consumer S informed FCC that the fridge was shipped fromSavusavu at a cost of $150.00 and on 09/03/11, the fridge was shippedback to Savusavu at an additional cost of $150.00. <strong>The</strong> fridge was runningwell for a week, after which it ceased to cool at all and a local refrigerationtechnician revealed after a visual inspection that the compressor had notbeen changed. An additional cost of $150.00 was incurred to ship the fridgeback to Suva. FCC formally wrote to the respondent informing them of theissue and seeking a response. A response was received, informing FCCthat Consumer S needed to give a written order for the mechanical fault tobe repaired; pay 50% upfront deposit on the quotation, a representative ofConsumer S to inspect the cooler and Consumer S to pay balance of 50%and then take the cooler. <strong>The</strong> above was conveyed to the complainant, andwith no further correspondence on the issue, the matter was closed.On 28-06-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Consumer Tagainst Company Q regarding a gear box problem. She informed FCC thatshe had bought a car from Company Q and after using it for one month sheexperienced a gear box problem. She approached Company Q asking themto replace the gear box and nothing was done. FCC formally wrote to therespondent, informing them of the issue and sought a response. A responsewas received informing FCC that the vehicle was given out as a privaterental for monetary gains and the complaint regarding the gear box waslodged to them and they could not replace the gear box since the warrantyhad expired. <strong>The</strong> above was conveyed to the complainant and the case wasclosed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair Practices Section 75No Breach of the<strong>Commerce</strong><strong>Commission</strong>Decree 2010<strong>2011</strong>/06/28/BC-FTD/155Page69of236
Change language