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 ProvisionsBreached2011/09/09/BC-FTD/2212011/09/09/BC-FTD/222Consumer Ovs. Company QConsumer Pvs. CompanyROn 09-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Oregarding an increase in line rental charges on his account by Company Q.The complainant informed FCC that he has two phone numbers registeredunder his name. The two numbers are paid $15.00 and $19.91 respectivelyevery month but charges have increased recently. FCC formally wrote tothe respondent informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received, informing FCC that according to Company Q’sdefinition and business rules, business customers were subject to thefollowing line rental permutations: Where a customer has 2 or lesser lines; the line rental shall be$15.00 per line per month, and Where a customer has more than 2 lines, the line rental shall be$35 per line per month.FCC after making its assessment and analysis formally conveyed the aboveto the complainant and the case was closed.On 09-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Pagainst Company R, regarding the sale of a Roofing Iron. The complainantinformed FCC that he had purchased the roofing iron worth $575.20 fromthe respondent. After receiving the payments, the respondent informed thecomplainant that they would deliver the roofing iron once the stock arrivesfrom Ba. A week after receiving the payment, the respondent informed thecomplainant that they would not be able to deliver the roofing iron at theprice of $575.20 as the price of roofing had increased and he would have topay an additional $84.00. FCC mediated the matter and the respondentagreed to supply the roofing iron at the price of $575.20.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 75.Section 88Page97of236
Table 2: Cases Successfully Disposed Of in 2011(cont…)Cases Resolved in 2011Case Number Case Name Issues Part of CCD 2010 ProvisionsBreached2011/09/12/BC-FTD/2232011/09/07/BC-FTD/225Consumer Qvs. CompanySConsumer Rvs. InstitutionTOn 12-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Qregarding a faulty drill that he had purchased from Company S. Thecomplainant informed FCC that in September 2011, he bought the drillfrom Company S for $188.00. On 6 September 2011, he lodged acomplaint with the respondent stating that the drill was not operating onreversing mode. On 8 September 2011, the respondent informed thecomplainant that they could not repair the drill. FCC mediated the matterand the respondent replaced the drill at an additional cost of $20 as thedrill was not under warranty.On 07-09-11, the Commission received a complaint from Consumer Ragainst Institution T, regarding a stale personal cheque which was clearedby the bank. The complainant informed FCC that the bank disregarded his‘Stop Payment Notice’ and also overlooked the date on the cheque whichwas stale and proceeded to clear the cheque. It was a mistake by the Bankstaff, which may have been due to negligence by not noticing the stale date,and thus, clearing the cheque. FCC formally wrote to Institution T informingthem of the issue and seeking a response. A response was received,informing FCC that Institution T had clarified with the tax authority that thepayment was used to settle a genuine tax liability and that the bank hadacted in good faith in the transaction. Institution T checked that the previouscheque was issued in the calendar year 2008 and it was unlikely that thecheque was issued in 2006 from the middle of the cheque book becauseother cheques were used two years later. The cheque was issued in 2008with a stale date to the tax authorities and it was not clarified by thecomplainant upon query, through a letter dated 17 July 2008 from InstitutionT. FCC after making its assessment and analysis formally conveyed theabove to complainant and the case was closed.Division 1 -Warranty Section 116No Breach of Commerce CommissionDecree 2010Page98of236
- 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 94 and 95: Table 2: Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 96 and 97: 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
- Page 144 and 145: Table: 6 Cases Successfully Dispose
- Page 146 and 147: Table:6 Cases Successfully Disposed
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>/09/09/BC-FTD/221<strong>2011</strong>/09/09/BC-FTD/222Consumer Ovs. Company QConsumer Pvs. CompanyROn 09-09-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Consumer Oregarding an increase in line rental charges on his account by Company Q.<strong>The</strong> complainant informed FCC that he has two phone numbers registeredunder his name. <strong>The</strong> two numbers are paid $15.00 and $19.91 respectivelyevery month but charges have increased recently. FCC formally wrote tothe respondent informing them of the issue and seeking a response. Aresponse was received, informing FCC that according to Company Q’sdefinition and business rules, business customers were subject to thefollowing line rental permutations: Where a customer has 2 or lesser lines; the line rental shall be$15.00 per line per month, and Where a customer has more than 2 lines, the line rental shall be$35 per line per month.FCC after making its assessment and analysis formally conveyed the aboveto the complainant and the case was closed.On 09-09-11, the <strong>Commission</strong> received a complaint from Consumer Pagainst Company R, regarding the sale of a Roofing Iron. <strong>The</strong> complainantinformed FCC that he had purchased the roofing iron worth $575.20 fromthe respondent. After receiving the payments, the respondent informed thecomplainant that they would deliver the roofing iron once the stock arrivesfrom Ba. A week after receiving the payment, the respondent informed thecomplainant that they would not be able to deliver the roofing iron at theprice of $575.20 as the price of roofing had increased and he would have topay an additional $84.00. FCC mediated the matter and the respondentagreed to supply the roofing iron at the price of $575.20.ConsumerProtection&UnfairPracticesConsumerProtection &Unfair PracticesSection 75.Section 88Page97of236
Change language