Decisions from the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal – August 2024
Complainant vs Mr Wycherley
The complainant wanted to reject the 2021 Mercedes-Benz they bought from Mr Alan Wycherley trading as BB Auto Parts. Mr Wycherley was held to be the supplier of the vehicle for the purposes of the CGA because he acted as an agent for the owner of the vehicle in the sale to the complainant.
The Tribunal stated “motor vehicle traders who sell a vehicle on behalf of another are subject to the guarantees in the CGA. They effectively stand in the shoes of the owner of the vehicle by providing a guarantee that the vehicle is unencumbered, will be delivered within a reasonable time, will be of acceptable quality and be reasonably fit for a particular purpose.”
This serves as a reminder that traders who decide to sell on behalf of others must take such steps as are necessary to comply with their obligations under the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA).
The Tribunal has found the vehicle’s defects is in breach of s7 of the CGA ‘guarantee of acceptable quality’ It was found that the issues identified by the Complainant had, for the most part, been rectified by the Trader. The only issues remaining was found to be the remaining key blade to be cut, and the rental fees incurred by the complainant during the repairs. The Tribunal ruled that the complainant is not entitled to reject the vehicle and within ten working days of the date of the decision Mr Wycherley was to provide the remaining key blade and to contribute towards the complainants incurred rental fees with a payment of $1,500.
Complainant v Vehicles Under $8,990 Limited
The complainant wanted to reject the 2006 Mazda MPV they bought from Vehicles Under $8,990 Limited. The complainant had nothing but trouble with the vehicle’s performance, including brakes, temperature regulator and taking an excessive amount of oil (some 8 or so litres in a 15-day period). The complainant complained to Vehicles Under $8,990 Limited, and some repairs were carried out by Vehicles Under $8,990 Limited during multiple trips.
While the Trader has not refused to repair the vehicle, the trader has failed to repair the vehicle within a reasonable time.
The Tribunal has found the vehicle’s defects is in breach of s18 of the CGA ‘guarantee of acceptable quality’ and found the further repairs required to remedy the performance would involve the overhaul or replacement of an entire engine. The Tribunal ruled that within 10 working days of the date of this decision Vehicles Under $8,990 Limited is to refund the complainant $4,990, pay them $74.75 (for diagnostic costs incurred, and pay them an additional $500 for their consequential losses incurred (a total of $5,564.75)
On 10 June 2024, the Registrar received a complaint that the MVDT order had not been complied with. Although this was a first instance of non-compliance for Vehicles Under $8,990 Limited, it was determined it was a second instance of non-compliance with a MVDT order for the director as a person concerned in the management of a company that had failed to comply with an order of the Tribunal. Following correspondence with the trader, the director, Hamish Colin Cross, was banned from motor vehicle trading for a period of 5 years from 5 April 2024 to 4 April 2029. Vehicles Under $8,990 Limited registration as a motor vehicle trader was cancelled as the director was disqualified.