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 ProvisionsBreached2011/08/25/BC-FTD/2062011/08/26/BC-FTD/207Consumer Evs. Company GConsumer Fvs. Company HOn 25-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer E.Consumer E informed FCC that they had purchased a piece of land inOlosara Sigatoka in 2009 and started the construction of a house in 2010.During April 2011, the couple came to Fiji and gathered quotes foraluminum works for the house. The contract was given to Company G. Thetotal cost of the aluminum works was $23,800.00. An initial deposit of$11,900.00 was made via a cheque and they were assured that thealuminum works would be completed by the first week of June 2011. Uponreturn from Canada, the couple realized that the respondent had beenmisleading them, as there was no aluminum installed or any sign ofmaterials. The justifications provided by the respondent was that thewindow frames (plaster works) were not ready. A response was received,informing FCC that he would not be able to refund the deposit. FCCmediated the matter and he agreed to refund $2000.00 to the complainant.The above offer was discussed with the complainant and the complainantrefused to accept the offer. The complainant informed FCC that she wouldbe taking the matter to court through her lawyer. Based on the above, thecase was closed by FCC.On 26-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Fagainst Company H regarding Company H’s Broadband. The complainantinformed FCC that on the night of 4 August 2011, telephone cables werestolen from the Tavua area resulting in disruptions to internet services.Internet services were later restored on 23 August 2011 after telephonelines were repaired. Internet services were not available for 22 consecutivedays. The complainant requested for an adjustment to be made to thecurrent bill to reflect the internet usage and fairness. FCC formally wrote tothe respondent informing them of the issue and seeking a response.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSection 75 & 76 &77Section 75Page91of236
Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreachedA response was received informing FCC that the cable theft was deemedan event beyond Company H’s control and as such, they would not be ableto refund for services not provided during the outage period. The above wasconveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.2011/08/29/BC-FTD/2092011/08/30/BC-FTD/210Consumer Gvs. Company IConsumer Hvs. Company JOn 29-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Gagainst Company I, regarding the billing of the complainant’s account. Thecomplainant informed FCC that he was billed by Company I on Commercialrates from 1999 till May 2011. The Company I bill received by Consumer Gin June 2011 showed the tariff description as Domestic while previously itwas stated as COM Step 1. Consumer G requested Company I for therefund of the sum overpaid. FCC formally wrote to Company I informingthem of the issue and Company I after making necessary adjustments,credited the complainant’s account with $745.60 as rebate. The above wasconveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.On 30-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Hregarding the repair of a vehicle by Company J. The complainant informedFCC that Consumer H purchased a Mitsubishi Pajero V78, from Company Jfor $57,875.00 in 2010. After 87 days from the date of purchase, thevehicles gauges (fuel, temperature, speed and mileage) were notfunctioning and the concern was lodged with Company J but the matter wasnot attended. FCC formally wrote to the respondent informing them of theissue and seeking a response on the matter. A response was received,informing FCC that the vehicle was in good running condition whenpurchased by the complainant in 2010 and the electrical related problemswere not covered under the warranty and as such, repairs could not bedone FOC. The above was conveyed to the complainant and the case wasclosed.Restrictive TradePracticesDivision 1 -WarrantySection 66Section116Page92of236
- 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 70 and 71: 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 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
- Page 120 and 121: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 122 and 123: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 124 and 125: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 126 and 127: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 128 and 129: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 130 and 131: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 132 and 133: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 134 and 135: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 136 and 137: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 138 and 139: Table 4: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 140 and 141: Table 4: 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 ProvisionsBreachedA response was received informing FCC that the cable theft was deemedan event beyond Company H’s control and as such, they would not be ableto refund for services not provided during the outage period. <strong>The</strong> above wasconveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.<strong>2011</strong>/08/29/BC-FTD/209<strong>2011</strong>/08/30/BC-FTD/210Consumer Gvs. Company IConsumer Hvs. Company JOn 29-08-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Consumer Gagainst Company I, regarding the billing of the complainant’s account. <strong>The</strong>complainant informed FCC that he was billed by Company I on Commercialrates from 1999 till May <strong>2011</strong>. <strong>The</strong> Company I bill received by Consumer Gin June <strong>2011</strong> showed the tariff description as Domestic while previously itwas stated as COM Step 1. Consumer G requested Company I for therefund of the sum overpaid. FCC formally wrote to Company I informingthem of the issue and Company I after making necessary adjustments,credited the complainant’s account with $745.60 as rebate. <strong>The</strong> above wasconveyed to the complainant and the case was closed.On 30-08-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Consumer Hregarding the repair of a vehicle by Company J. <strong>The</strong> complainant informedFCC that Consumer H purchased a Mitsubishi Pajero V78, from Company Jfor $57,875.00 in 2010. After 87 days from the date of purchase, thevehicles gauges (fuel, temperature, speed and mileage) were notfunctioning and the concern was lodged with Company J but the matter wasnot attended. FCC formally wrote to the respondent informing them of theissue and seeking a response on the matter. A response was received,informing FCC that the vehicle was in good running condition whenpurchased by the complainant in 2010 and the electrical related problemswere not covered under the warranty and as such, repairs could not bedone FOC. <strong>The</strong> above was conveyed to the complainant and the case wasclosed.Restrictive TradePracticesDivision 1 -WarrantySection 66Section116Page92of236
Change language