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 ProvisionsBreached2011/08/26/BC-FTD/2122011/09/05/BC-FTD/215Consumer I vs.Company KConsumer JVs. Company LOn 30-08-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Iagainst Company K, regarding the freezer motor rewinding andreplacement of a leaking seal that was carried out by the respondent. FCCformally wrote to the respondent informing them of the issue and seeking aresponse. A response was received informing FCC that they wouldrelinquish the existing amount owed by the complainant and close thematter. The Supplier of the mechanical seal confirmed that the seals weremade in Taiwan and were of high quality, for which the complainant wouldhave to pay. A copy of the letter from the manufacturer was also received.The above was conveyed to the complainant and he agreed to pay for themechanical seal. Based on the above, the case was closed.On 05-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Jregarding an Advertisement by Company L. The complainant informed FCCthat the advertisement by the respondent stated that for every purchaseworth $20.00 or more, a customer was eligible to buy 500 grams salt at aprice of $0.10. The complainant purchased groceries worth $39.70. Includedin his groceries list were ten packets of salt. Upon enquiry with the cashier,the complainant was charged 10 cents for the first packet, whereas, the restof the nine packets that he had in his trolley were charged at the normalretail price. FCC formally wrote to the respondent informing them of theissue. A response was received from Company L, informing FCC that the$20 purchase condition was imposed to ensure that people who ran smallshops in various communities did not take advantage of such specials anddid not buy in bulk only to resell at a higher price. FCC after making itsassessment and analysis notified the Company to not engage in suchconduct in the future and conveyed the same to the complainant and thecase was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 75 & 76Section 87IPage93of236
Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/09/07/BC-FTD/217Consumer Kvs. Company MOn 07-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Kagainst Company M, regarding the repossession of his vehicle. Thecomplainant informed FCC that he had purchased the vehicle fromCompany M in August 2010 and was advised that any mechanical faults inthe first year of purchase would be repaired free of charge. In May 2011,the vehicle’s gear box experienced some problems and the complainantcontacted the respondent and informed them of his concerns. Therespondent informed the complainant that the gear box could not berepaired and he would have to purchase a new one. The complainantbought a new gear box for his vehicle and within a few days the vehiclestarted to experience the same problem. The vehicle was parked at thecomplainant’s premises from June 2011 to August 2011. On 23 August2011, the respondent towed the vehicle from the complainant’s premises asthe Company was not prepared to rectify the problem. FCC formally wroteto the respondent informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received informing FCC that the respondent had power underthe Bill of Sale Act to repossess/seize the vehicle upon the default ofpayments on any occasions and they could demand for the full sum owing.The respondent informed FCC that the complainant could seek furthernegotiations or a proposal to resolve the debt with them. FCC informed thecomplainant on the above and requested him to visit the office of therespondent, to have further negotiations and the case was closed.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesSection 75 & 76Page94of236
- 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 92 and 93: 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
- Page 142 and 143: 1.4 Summary of Unfair Trading Activ
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>/08/26/BC-FTD/212<strong>2011</strong>/09/05/BC-FTD/215Consumer I vs.Company KConsumer JVs. Company LOn 30-08-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Consumer Iagainst Company K, regarding the freezer motor rewinding andreplacement of a leaking seal that was carried out by the respondent. FCCformally wrote to the respondent informing them of the issue and seeking aresponse. A response was received informing FCC that they wouldrelinquish the existing amount owed by the complainant and close thematter. <strong>The</strong> Supplier of the mechanical seal confirmed that the seals weremade in Taiwan and were of high quality, for which the complainant wouldhave to pay. A copy of the letter from the manufacturer was also received.<strong>The</strong> above was conveyed to the complainant and he agreed to pay for themechanical seal. Based on the above, the case was closed.On 05-09-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Consumer Jregarding an Advertisement by Company L. <strong>The</strong> complainant informed FCCthat the advertisement by the respondent stated that for every purchaseworth $20.00 or more, a customer was eligible to buy 500 grams salt at aprice of $0.10. <strong>The</strong> complainant purchased groceries worth $39.70. Includedin his groceries list were ten packets of salt. Upon enquiry with the cashier,the complainant was charged 10 cents for the first packet, whereas, the restof the nine packets that he had in his trolley were charged at the normalretail price. FCC formally wrote to the respondent informing them of theissue. A response was received from Company L, informing FCC that the$20 purchase condition was imposed to ensure that people who ran smallshops in various communities did not take advantage of such specials anddid not buy in bulk only to resell at a higher price. FCC after making itsassessment and analysis notified the Company to not engage in suchconduct in the future and conveyed the same to the complainant and thecase was closed.ConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 75 & 76Section 87IPage93of236
Change language