Reference No. MVD 145/06 (AK) [2006] NZMVDT 215 (21 December 2006)

Last Updated: 5 March 2008

Decision No. AK 143/2006

Reference No. MVD 145 /06

IN THE MATTER of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003

AND

IN THE MATTER of a dispute

BETWEEN XXXX

Purchaser

AND XXXX

Trader

BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

C H Cornwell, Barrister & Solicitor, Adjudicator.
Mr R G Lewis, F.A.I.N.Z. R.E.A. M.S.A.E. (International), Assessor.

HEARING at AUCKLAND on 19 December 2006

APPEARANCES
The Purchaser appeared in person
Mr A. XXXX appeared on behalf of the Trader
Mr W. XXXX witness for the Trader

DECISION

[1] Pursuant to Section 82(3) of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 (“the Act”) the Tribunal appointed Mr R. G. Lewis, as its expert assessor to assist in its determination of this complaint, and Mr Lewis took the oath referred to in Clause 10(2) of Schedule 1 to the Act.

[2] This was a further hearing of an application for the Tribunal to implement a promise made by the Trader to the Purchaser contained in the Vehicle Offer and Sale and Sale Agreement between the parties dated 29 March 2004 under which the Trader agreed to supply the Purchaser with a spare key and security remote control for a 2001 Toyota Duet vehicle.
[3] The Application was lodged on 30 June 2006 and heard by the Tribunal on 2 November 2006 at which time the Trader acknowledged its responsibility to provide the spare key and security remote control.

[4] The Trader informed the Tribunal that Manukau Toyota Botany had attempted to programme the spare key provided to them but were unable to do so and produced a letter dated 18 December from Mr W. XXXX the Service Manager at Manukau Toyota Botany explaining the steps taken by that firm to get the information necessary to do the programming work.

[5] The Tribunal spoke to Mr XXXX by conference call and he said that part of the difficulty in programming the spare key supplied by the Trader or in replacing the whole ignition system was due to the fact that the vehicle was badged as a Toyota but it was really a Daihatsu, and the information necessary to reprogram the key to make it operate the engine management system in the vehicle was only available in Japan and was written in Japanese. This information- for this particular type and year of vehicle had to be sourced from Japan, translated into English by Toyota New Zealand staff in Palmerston North, and then sent to the Toyota dealer to implement.

[6] Mr XXXX also said that he was not sure that the original key supplied with the vehicle was a master key. This may be resolved when further information is received from Toyota. Mr XXXX said that he had also asked Toyota to see if a new ignition key unit was available as a replacement part for the vehicle which would have two keys provided with that assembly. Mr XXXX was unable to say how long this process might take and whether or not it would be successful or what it might cost.

[7] The Tribunal considered that, at this stage whilst the Trader continues to attempt to fix the problem for the Purchaser, it would be inappropriate to do other than grant a further adjournment sine die to allow a further reasonable period of time to have the reprogramming of the key undertaken. The parties were recommended to keep in contact with Mr XXXX the Service Manager at Manukau Toyota Botany to ensure that progress continues. The Trader agreed to continue to provide a courtesy vehicle to the Purchaser when the Purchaser’s vehicle is required for further reprogramming work.

The Order

[8] That the application is adjourned sine die. The Purchaser’s application may be brought back before the Tribunal on the written request of either party after a further reasonable period of time is allowed the Trader to have the key reprogrammed.

DATED at AUCKLAND this day of December 2006

C H Cornwell
Adjudicator