Decisions from the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal – December 2024
Complainant v Gazley Motors Cambridge Limited t/a Gazley Mitsubishi & Gazley Mercedes Benz Wellington
The Complainant purchased a 2021 Mazda CX-5 (“the vehicle”) from Gazley Motors Cambridge Limited (“Gazley”) on 7 May 2024 on behalf of their company. The vehicle was purchased for $30,990 and had travelled 52,000 km at the time of purchase.
A vehicle inspection carried out by Automobile Association NZ (“AA”) after the purchase said the vehicle showed signs it had been in a minor accident. The Complainant claimed that Gazley engaged in deceptive and misleading conduct by selling a vehicle that was in an accident despite knowing the Applicants’ requirements. Noting that during the sale, Gazley had told the Complainant’s son that: “The car as we are aware hasn’t been in any accident.”
Gazley offered to fix the panel and paint issues identified by the Applicants but would not allow them to return the vehicle. After the claim was filed, Gazley made inquiries with the previous owner who advised that the vehicle had suffered damage to the front passenger door which was replaced by an authorised repairer. The previous owners classed this as a minor repair and the vehicle was not put up for sale as an accident repaired vehicle.
The Tribunal noted that it can be expected that most 3-year-old second-hand vehicles with 52,000 km will have some panel damage and body scratches through wear and tear resulting from general use. This would not lead the Tribunal to find that the vehicle is not of acceptable quality. However, under s 7(1)(i) of the CGA, the Tribunal noted that it must consider what the supplier says about the goods. In this case, the supplier said the vehicle had not been in an accident before. Based on this, the damage around the front passenger door and front guard should not have been there.
The Tribunal found that the vehicle was not of acceptable quality for the above reasons. It also found that failures in the vehicle were not of substantial character, and accordingly, the Complainant was not allowed to return the vehicle. The Tribunal found that repairs under s 18(2)(a) of the CGA were appropriate.
Read the full decision:
Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal(external link) - New Zealand Legal Information Institute
Complainant v ISEECARS Limited
The complainant wanted to reject the 2014 Nissan Skyline (“the vehicle”) he purchased for $15,000 from ISEECARS Limited on 19 July 2024 as ISEECARS failed to deliver the vehicle to the Complainant.
The Director for ISEECARS wrote to the Tribunal saying he did not accept rejection and the Complainant needed to wait as the vehicle would take “an indeterminate time for repairs”. This was after nearly a month where ISEECARS had not repaired the vehicle. The Complainant rejected the vehicle 3 times before the Tribunal hearing.
The Tribunal found that by not delivering the vehicle to the Complainant, the Complainant never had any possession to date. This is a breach of s 5(1)(c) of the CGA. ISEECARS also breached s 5(1)(b) of the CGA as the vehicle was not delivered in a reasonable time frame. The vehicle was also not of an acceptable quality and there were major. The Tribunal noted that “The inability to deliver the vehicle and to not be able to give clear title, are substantial breaches.”
It was also identified that the company that ISEECARS purchased the vehicle off before selling it to the Complainant, had provided the funds for the refund of the vehicle to ISEECARS so that ISEECARS could refund the complainant. When the company realised this had not been done, it registered a financial interest over the vehicle. The company believed that by refunding the money to ISEECARS, for the purposes of providing a refund to the Complainant, it was purchasing the car back from ISEECARS.
The Tribunal found that there had been major failures all round. ISEECARS sold a car with major mechanical faults. It then failed to deliver the vehicle to the purchaser. There was also another security interest registered against the vehicle, so the Complainant could not enjoy undisturbed possession even if the vehicle came into his possession.
The Complainant was found to be entitled to reject the vehicle for a full refund pursuant to s 18(3)(a) of the CGA.
Read the full decision:
Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal(external link) - New Zealand Legal Information Institute