Katae v Bay Wholesale Direct Limited - Reference No. MVD 207/11 (Auckland) [2011] NZMVDT 161 (16 November 2011)

Last Updated: 16 December 2011

Decision No. AK 132 /2011

Reference No. MVD 207/11

IN THE MATTER of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003

AND

IN THE MATTER of a dispute

BETWEEN DONNA LEE KATAE

Purchaser

AND BAY WHOLESALE DIRECT LIMITED

Trader

BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

Mr C H Cornwell, Barrister & Solicitor, Adjudicator
Mr S Gregory, Assessor

HEARING at Whakatane on 14 November 2011

APPEARANCES

Miss D L Katae, the purchaser

Mr S Gilder, support person for the purchaser
Mr S R Willetts Managing Director for the trader

DECISION

Background

[1] On 9 August 2010 Miss Katae (“the purchaser”) purchased a 2003 Holden Vectra CD Sedan registration number BSN685 (“the vehicle”) for $10,500 from Bay Wholesale Direct Limited (“the trader”). The purchaser lodged an application with the Tribunal on 23 September 2011 in which she requests the Tribunal to order the trader to pay her the replacement value of the vehicle plus some expenses she has incurred in flights and obtaining reports on the vehicle because she says the vehicle has failed to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality in the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993.

[2] The trader says that it has spent several thousand dollars in replacing the vehicle’s transmission and coil pack over a period of almost 12 months in which the purchaser has used the vehicle to travel over 21,000kms and it does not consider that it has any further responsibility to pay for repairs to the vehicle.

[3] Pursuant to clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 the Tribunal appointed Mr S Gregory, as expert assessor to assist in the determination of the complaint. Mr Gregory took the oath required by clause 10(2) of Schedule 1 to that Act and assisted the Adjudicator but the application was determined by the Adjudicator alone.

Facts

[4] In August 2010 the purchaser who then lived in Wairoa saw the vehicle advertised on TradeMe. She contacted the trader, took the vehicle for a test drive and had it inspected by a friend. She then agreed to purchase the vehicle for $10,500 for her private use. Its odometer was 80,000kms at the time she took delivery of the vehicle on 8 August 2010.

[5] About one week after she purchased it the purchaser says a warning light in the vehicle’s instrument panel lit up intermittently and when it did so the vehicle’s engine lost power and became flat. The purchaser described this as a “miss” but she agrees the engine did not misfire or jolt erratically but simply lacked power and was flat whenever the warning light came on.

[6] On 26 August 2010 after the purchaser had driven the vehicle 2,668kms, she took the vehicle to Max Scott Motors in Hastings who carried out a full service (including replacing the fuel, oil and air filters and the engine oil). The purchaser told Max Scott about the warning light and they apparently enquired of the Holden dealer about the multiple fault codes they found. Max Scott’s invoice records “if further problems will require dealer attention”. The purchaser did not notify the trader about the warning light issue at that time.

[7] The purchaser says that the vehicle drove satisfactorily for a few months but then the warning light started to come on again intermittently with the associated loss of power. On 22 December 2010 after travelling 13,787kms in the vehicle the purchaser took it back to Max Scott Motors for a warrant of fitness and to have the warning light checked out. Max Scott Motors’ invoice records the issue of a warrant of fitness and that they checked the “engine running test systems” and no fault was found. Once again their invoice dated 22 December 2010 records: “If problem reoccurs will have to refer to dealer.” The purchaser still did not notify the trader about the warning light issue because she says she did not think it was serious.

[8] In early January 2011 the warning light came on again and on 7 January 2011 the purchaser took the vehicle to Karamu Holden. The vehicle’s odometer was then 94,908kms showing the purchaser had driven the vehicle 14,908kms in the 5 months she had owned it. Karamu Holden’s invoice describes the faults then present as:-
“Check engine management light on
Vehicle cutting out and surging
Vehicle will die then pick up acceleration and jerk”
Karamu Holden’s invoice lists nine fault codes none of which they considered related to the symptoms the purchaser had described to them. However the Tribunal notes that one of the fault codes; namely Code PO715- input speed no signal- was subsequently found to be still present when the vehicle was returned to Karamu Holden in June 2011, after the fault codes had been cleared by Giltrap Holden on 31 March 2011.

[9] The purchaser says that in late January 2011 she obtained a job in Auckland and began to live on Auckland’s North Shore. By that time the warning light and lack of power had become more frequent and in March 2011 she says she took the vehicle to Giltrap Holden who confirmed to her that the transmission was slipping and found fault codes in the transmission and engine. Their invoice dated 31 March 2011 which records the vehicle’s odometer as 99,116kms at that date also notes they found water in the transmission. The purchaser, for the first time since she had purchased the vehicle, contacted the trader who purchased a replacement transmission costing $1,914.75 from G & M Autospares Ltd with a three month warranty and also agreed to pay Giltrap Holden’s repair invoice of $1,893.20 which included the cost of a replacement transmission cooler; a total of $3,807.95.

[10] The vehicle was collected by the purchaser from Giltrap Holden on or about 31 March and on 21 April 2011 she drove the vehicle down to the Hawke’s Bay. By the time the purchaser reached Napier the vehicle‘s automatic transmission was jolting when it changed from 3rd to 2nd gear and the warning light came on. Nevertheless the purchaser decided to continue her journey towards Wairoa. Unfortunately the vehicle lost all drive from the transmission about 20km out of Napier and the purchaser had the vehicle towed back to Hastings.

[11] The vehicle was towed by the AA to Karamu Holden who had the vehicle for a month and a half from 29 April 2011. Karamu Holden’s invoice dated 7 June 2011 records that during that time they carried out a diagnostic check and checked the DTC’s (fault codes). Their invoice records that the speed sensor was giving an incorrect signal. They diagnosed the vehicle’s fault as “internal fault within transmission” and they replaced the transmission with another transmission supplied by G & M Autospares Ltd under the 3 month warranty they gave the trader when it purchased the previous transmission fitted by Giltrap Holden on 31 March 2011. The transmission put into the vehicle by Karamu Holden on 14 June 2011 was, according to a report from G & M Autospares Ltd provided to the Tribunal by the trader, from a 2005 Holden Vectra which had only 50,462kms on its odometer. The cost of Karamu Holden’s work in replacing the transmission was $1,142.12 which was billed to G & M Autospares Ltd.

[12] The purchaser flew to Napier on 27 May and Karamu Holden arranged to deliver the vehicle to the purchaser at Napier Airport. The purchaser then drove the vehicle to Wairoa but the warning light came on again and the vehicle lost power. The purchaser then took the vehicle to Enterprise Holden in Gisborne but they did not have time to assess the fault and told her the vehicle should be safe to drive back to Auckland which the purchaser did.

[13] On 10 June the purchaser took the vehicle to Fredco Motors Archers Rd Ltd. Its odometer was then 101,128kms. Fredco Motors scanned the transmission fault and told the purchaser it was caused by a fault with the coil pack. The coil pack was replaced with a coil pack provided by the trader which Mr Willetts says cost $426. The purchaser agreed to pay the cost of $226 for Fredco Motors to fit it.

[14] The purchaser says she continued to have problems with the vehicle’s transmission and the warning light and lack of power and decided to park the vehicle up from June until November 2011. In response to a request from the Tribunal for a report on the transmission from a transmission specialist and an estimate of the cost of repair she had it towed on 10 November 2011 to A Automotive Ltd who charged the battery, scanned the vehicle and test drove it. A Automotive Ltd wrote a brief report on the vehicle in which they state the vehicle has “slippage in the transmission from second to third gearshift and bad clunk on down shift. The further the car was driven the worse the shifts became, this is usually due to worn out frictions inside the transmission. We scanned the car and there were no fault codes present, this could be due to a low charge level in the battery. Recommendations for repairs, overhauling of transmission.” The cost quoted by A Automotive Ltd to rebuild the transmission is $5,462.50 including GST.

[15] The trader represented by Mr Willetts says that he did not hear from the purchaser after selling her the vehicle until March 2011 by which time she had travelled 19,000kms in the vehicle. He says he suggested that the purchaser and the trader share the cost of repairing the transmission which Giltrap Holden found to be faulty but the purchaser would not agree to that and the trader ended up paying to replace the transmission and the transmission cooler. When that transmission failed within a month of being fitted by Giltrap Holden, the supplier, G & M Autospares Ltd, replaced the transmission again at their cost. Mr Willetts says the trader also paid $426 for a coil pack which Fredco Motors found to be faulty. Mr Willetts says that the three month warranty provided by G & M Autospares on the second transmission has now expired. He says that the trader considers it unreasonable to have to pay a further $5,400 to repair the transmission again given the time that has elapsed since the purchaser bought the vehicle and the distance the purchaser has driven in it since she purchased it.

The issues before the Tribunal

[16] Having considered the facts, the Tribunal concludes that the following issues require consideration:
[a] Whether the problem with the vehicle is a failure in the guarantee of acceptable quality?
[b] If so, whether the purchaser required the trader to remedy the fault and whether the trader did so within a reasonable time?
[c] Whether the failure is one of substantial character?
[d] Has the purchaser rejected the vehicle, and if so, has she rejected the vehicle within a reasonable time?

Legal Principles

[17] In terms of s.89 of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 the Tribunal has jurisdiction to inquire into and determine applications or claims between a Motor Vehicle Trader and the purchaser of a motor vehicle. In doing so, it may apply the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1908, the Fair Trading Act 1986, the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 or the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, as is applicable to the circumstances of the case. In this case the facts and the issues raised require consideration of the Consumer Guarantees Act.

The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (“the Act”)

[18] Section 6 of the Act imposes on a supplier (in this case the trader) "a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality." Section 2 of the Act defines "goods" as including "vehicles.”

[19] The expression "acceptable quality" is defined in Section 7 as follows:

“7 Meaning of acceptable quality

(1) For the purposes of section 6, goods are of acceptable quality if they are as –

(a) fit for all the purposes for which goods of the type in question are commonly

supplied; and

(b ) acceptable in appearance and finish; and

(c) free from minor defects: and

(d) safe; and

(e ) durable, ¾

as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the

goods, including any hidden defects, would regard as acceptable, having

regard to ¾

(f) the nature of the goods:

(g ) the price (where relevant):

(h) any statements made about the goods on any packaging or label on the

goods:

(i) any representation made about the goods by the supplier or the

manufacturer

(j) all other relevant circumstances of the supply of the goods.

(2) Where any defects in goods have been specifically drawn to the consumer’s

attention before he or she agreed to the supply, then notwithstanding that a

reasonable consumer may not have regarded the goods as acceptable with

those defects, the goods will not fail to comply with the guarantee as to

acceptable quality by reason only of those defects.

(3) Where goods are displayed for sale or hire, the defects that are to be treated

as having been specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention for the purposes

of subsection (2) of this section are those disclosed on a written notice

displayed with the goods.

(4) Goods will not fail to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality if—

(a) The goods have been used in a manner, or to an extent which is

inconsistent with the manner or extent of use that a reasonable consumer

would expect to maintain from the goods; and

(b) The goods would have complied with the guarantee of acceptable quality if

they had not been used in that manner or to that extent.

(5) A reference in subsections (2) and (3) of this section to a defect means any

failure of the goods to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality.”

[20] Section 18 of the Act provides as follows:

“18. Options against suppliers where goods do not comply with guarantees

(1) Where a consumer has a right of redress against the supplier in accordance with this Part in respect of the failure of any goods to comply with a guarantee, the consumer may exercise the following remedies:

(2) Where the failure can be remedied, the consumer may ¾
(a) require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time in accordance with section 19:
(b) where a supplier who has been required to remedy a failure refuses or neglects to do so, or does not succeed in doing so within a reasonable time, ¾
(i) have the failure remedied elsewhere and obtain from the supplier all reasonable costs incurred in having the failure remedied; or
(ii) subject to section 20, reject the goods in accordance with section 22.

(3) Where the failure cannot be remedied or is of a substantial character within the meaning of section 21, the consumer may-

(a) subject to section 20, reject the goods in accordance with section 22; or

(b) obtain from the supplier damages in compensation for any reduction in value of the goods below the price paid or payable by the consumer for the goods.

(4) In addition to the remedies set out in subsection (2) and subsection (3), the consumer may obtain from the supplier damages for any loss or damage to the consumer resulting from the failure (other than loss or damage through reduction in value of the goods) which was reasonably foreseeable as liable to result from the failure.”

[21] Section 19 of the Act provides as follows:

“19 requirement to remedy
(1) A supplier may comply with a requirement to remedy a failure of any goods to comply with a guarantee-
(a) by-

(i) repairing the goods (in any case where the failure does not relate to title); or

(ii) curing any defect in title (in any case where the failure relates to title); or
(b) by replacing the goods with goods of identical type; or
(c) where the supplier cannot reasonably be expected to repair the goods, by providing a refund of any money paid or other consideration provided by the consumer in respect of the goods.

(2) Where a consumer obtains goods to replace defective goods pursuant to subsection (1), the replacement goods shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be supplied by the supplier and the guarantees and obligations arising under this Act consequent upon a supply of goods to a consumer shall apply to the replacement goods.

(3) A refund referred to in subsection (1)9c) means a refund in cash of the money paid or the value of any other consideration provided, or both, as the case may require.”

[22] Section 21 of the Act defines the circumstances in which a failure to comply with the guarantee as to acceptable quality will be regarded as being a failure of substantial character for the purposes of section 18(3). Section 21 provides as follows:

“ 21 Failure of substantial character
For the purposes of section 18(3), a failure to comply with a guarantee is of a substantial character in any case where ¾
(a) the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure; or

(b) the goods depart in 1 or more significant respects from the description by which they were supplied or, where they were supplied by reference to a sample or demonstration model, from the sample or demonstration model; or

(c) the goods are substantially unfit for a purpose for which goods of the type in question are commonly supplied or, where section 8(1) applies, the goods are unfit for a particular purpose made known to the supplier or represented by the supplier to be a purpose for which the goods would be fit, and the goods cannot easily and within a reasonable time be remedied to make them fit for such purpose; or

(d) the goods are not of acceptable quality within the meaning of section 7 because they are unsafe."

[23] In Stephens v Chevron Motor Court Limited [1996] DCR1, the District Court held that the correct approach to the Act was first to consider whether the vehicle was of “acceptable quality”. If the vehicle was not of acceptable quality, the next point to consider was whether the purchaser required the trader to remedy any faults within a reasonable time in accordance with section 19 of the Act. If the failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality was of a “substantial character” within the meaning of section 21, or if the faults cannot be remedied, the Tribunal is directed to ask whether the purchaser has exercised his/her right to reject the vehicle within a reasonable time.

Application of Legal Principles to Facts

Issue (a): Whether the problems with the vehicle are failures in the guarantee of acceptable quality
[24] The guarantee of acceptable quality is in three parts. A set of quality elements set out in s. 7(1)(a) to (e), a reasonable consumer test which applies a consumer’s objective evaluation of those quality elements and a set of factors in s.7(1)( f) to (j) which are to be taken into account by the reasonable consumer to modify his or her assessment of the quality of the goods.

[25] The vehicle sold to the purchaser is a 7 year old Holden Vectra which had travelled 80,000kms and was sold for $10,500. Within a week of it being supplied to the purchaser she noticed that intermittently at first a warning light would come on in the instrument panel and the vehicle would lose power. On 26 August 2010 after driving 2,668kms the purchaser took the vehicle to be serviced by Max Scott Motors. She told them about the problem but it appears to the Tribunal that Max Scott Motors did not attempt to remedy the fault. When the purchaser took the vehicle back to Max Scott for a warrant of fitness four months and 11,119kms later they still failed to address the problem. Their invoice merely states “No fault found. If problem reoccurs will have to refer to dealer”. The following month the purchaser took the vehicle to a Holden dealer in Hastings, Karamu Holden and they listed nine fault codes none of which they thought related to the symptoms described to them by the purchaser. The purchaser did not contact the trader to require it to remedy the fault because she says she did not consider it was serious.

[26] It was not until the vehicle was taken to Giltrap Holden in March 2011 that a fault with the vehicle’s transmission was first identified and the trader was required by the purchaser to remedy it. The trader agreed to bear the considerable cost of $5,462.50 to replace the transmission. However the replacement of the transmission did not cure the fault. The supplier of the transmission then provided the purchaser’s repairer Karamu Holden with a second transmission which Karamu Holden fitted in June 2011. That transmission has not worked properly either. It seems evident to the Tribunal from the purchaser’s evidence that the problem with the vehicle that she first identified in August 2010 has not been rectified by replacing the transmission twice.

[27] The Tribunal’s Assessor considers that it is highly likely that the transmission in the vehicle supplied to the purchaser was not faulty- as was diagnosed by Giltrap Holden in March 2011 and nor was the replacement transmission installed by Karamu Holden in June 2011. Furthermore the Tribunal does not believe that the second replacement transmission which A Automotive Ltd now thinks requires a soft rebuild is faulty. Rather, the Tribunal’s Assessor believes that the reappearing fault code P0715- a fault with the input speed sensor, wiring or the TCM which does not appear to have been addressed properly, is the most likely cause of the three transmissions repeatedly going into “limp home mode” and causing the vehicle to display the warning light.

[28] However, although the Tribunal doubts that the fault is attributable to faulty transmissions it still accepts that there has been a fault in the vehicle which has caused it to show a warning light and go into limp home mode with associated flatness and loss of power. That fault has been present in the vehicle from the time it was supplied to the purchaser and has reoccurred intermittently. The Tribunal therefore considers the vehicle was probably not free from minor defects at the time of sale and has certainly not been as durable as a reasonable purchaser paying $10,500 for a 7 year old Holden Vectra with 80,000kms on its odometer would regard as acceptable. Accordingly the Tribunal finds that the vehicle did not comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality in s6 of the Act.

Issue (b): Whether the purchaser required the trader to remedy the fault and whether the trader did so within a reasonable time?

[29] When the purchaser was told by Giltrap Holden that there was a problem with the transmission she contacted the trader in March 2011 who agreed to have the transmission replaced. The replacement transmission supplied by the trader’s supplier was supplied with the benefit of the guarantees and obligations arising under s 19(2) of the Act. Hence although the vehicle had travelled 19,116kms when the trader agreed to supply the replacement transmission to the purchaser in March 2011 that replacement transmission still came with an obligation on the trader that it be as free of minor defects and as durable as a reasonable purchaser of the vehicle would regard as acceptable. The replacement transmission was itself replaced in June 2011 because it was thought to be faulty and in turn the transmission now fitted to the vehicle carries with it the same guarantees and obligations on the trader because s 19(2) applies to the second transmission as well. The consequence of this is that the trader remains liable under the Act to repair or replace the second transmission if it is faulty.

Issue (c) Whether the failure is one of substantial character?

[30] The Tribunal refers to the decision of His Honour Judge MacDonald in Stephens v Chevron Motor Court Limited [1996] DCR 1 in which Judge MacDonald noted “whether the fault was one of a “substantial character” is a matter of degree in any given case.” The Tribunal’s view is that the fault with the vehicle’s transmission (if the transmission is indeed faulty) is a failure of substantial character because no reasonable purchaser of a $10,500 vehicle would have bought the vehicle knowing it had a transmission which required repairs costing $5,400 as A Automotive Ltd say it needs. In terms of s21(a) of the Act the Tribunal therefore considers the vehicle ‘s failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality was a failure of substantial character. As a consequence the remedy of rejection may be available to the purchaser under s 18(3)(a) of the Act. (see paragraph 20 above).

Issue (c) Did the purchaser reject the vehicle and if so did she do so within a reasonable time?

[31] Section 22 of the Act sets out the manner in which a consumer must exercise the right to reject. The relevant subsection to this application is subsection (1) which provides:

“22 Manner of rejecting goods

(1) The consumer shall exercise the right to reject goods under this Act by notifying the supplier of the decision to reject the goods and of the ground or grounds for rejection.”

[32] The purchaser has not sent the trader a letter rejecting the vehicle and the closest the purchaser has come to doing so is in her application dated 14 September 2011 filed on 23 September 2011 in which she states:

“I would ask for a replacement value for the vehicle plus reasonable expenses, because, as I have incurred hotel bills and flights as well as petrol. I, myself, no longer feel safe driving with my children in the Holden Vectra.”

[33] Even if this meets the requirements of s 22(1) of the Act, which the Tribunal doubts, the Tribunal has concerns regarding the long period of time which has elapsed between the supply of the vehicle on 8 August 2010 and the purchaser’s application being filed on 23 September 2011 a copy of which was sent to the trader the same day. Section 20(1)(a) of the Act provides that the right to reject goods shall not apply if it is not exercised within a reasonable time from the time of supply. The term “reasonable time” is defined for the purposes of s. 20(1)(a) in s. 20(2) as a period of time from the time of supply of the goods in which it would be reasonable to expect the defect to become apparent having regard to four factors; the type of goods, the use to which a consumer is likely to put them, the length of time for which it is reasonable for them to be used and the amount of use which it is reasonable for them to be put to before the defect becomes apparent.

[34] In Nesbit v Porter [2000] NZCA 288; [2000] 2 NZLR 465 the issue of what is a reasonable period was addressed by the Court of Appeal in the context of a $10,990 11 year old used motor vehicle which had been purchased on 14 July 1995. The vehicle was rejected 9 months later after it had been driven 16,000 kilometres and after failing its warrant of fitness test because of rust which had existed for some time. The head note encapsulates the Court’s decision on this point:

“A reasonable time under s.20 must be one which suffices to enable the consumer to become fully acquainted with the nature of the defect which, where the cause of the breakage or malfunction is not apparent, the consumer can be expected to do by taking the goods to someone, usually and preferably the supplier, for inspection. In this context, therefore a defect is not “apparent” until its cause has been identified and the buyer knows what has to be done to fix it, and what that will cost; in other words, until the buyer is in a position to determine whether the defect is substantial.”
[35] The Court of Appeal in Nesbit v Porter decided (paragraph 50) after looking at the relevant factors in section 20(2) and allowing some tolerance for the time needed to react to the discovery of the defects in the vehicle, that a reasonable time within which the purchasers should have rejected the vehicle in that case was 7 months from the time of supply.

[36] The Tribunal considers having regard to the facts of this application and the factors in s 20(2), that her application to the Tribunal on 23 September 2011 was some 13 months after the purchaser first experienced a fault with the transmission and after the purchaser has used the vehicle to travel over 21,000kms The Tribunal has, with regret decided that even if the purchaser’s application to the Tribunal were to be treated as a notification to the trader of her rejection of the vehicle, the purchaser has lost her right to reject the vehicle because she did not do so within a reasonable time.

[37] The purchaser is however still entitled to obtain damages from the trader in compensation for any reduction in value of the vehicle below the price paid for it under s 18(3)(b) of the Act. No evidence was received from the parties as to what such damages might be. The Tribunal believes that the most efficient and reasonable method of dealing with this matter now is for the trader, at its cost, to arrange to uplift the vehicle from A Automotive Ltd at 167 Archers Road Takapuna Auckland and have it transported to a reputable transmission specialist such as The Gearbox Factory or Kaspa Transmissions Ltd and, most importantly to provide such specialist with the invoices for the work done on it by Karamu Holden and Giltrap Holden. The trader should have one month from the date of this order in which to have the vehicle’s transmission fault assessed and repaired and the vehicle returned to the purchaser in good working order. If the trader fails to do so leave is granted to the purchaser to refer the application back to the Tribunal for further orders.

[38] The Tribunal considers that the costs the purchaser incurred in flying from Gisborne to Auckland on 25 April 2011 of $255 after the vehicle broke down and on 27 May from Auckland to Napier of $169.50 to collect the vehicle after it was repaired the second time were reasonably foreseeable. It will also order the trader to pay the purchaser the sum of $193.58 paid to A Automotive Ltd for its assessment; a total of $618.08.
Orders

1 The trader shall within one month of the date of this order collect the vehicle and have it assessed and repaired by a transmission specialist and returned to the purchaser in good working order.

2. Leave is reserved to the purchaser to refer this application back to the Tribunal for further orders if the vehicle is not repaired and returned to her within a month of the date of this order.

3. The trader shall pay the purchaser the sum of $618.08 immediately.

DATED at AUCKLAND this 16th day of November 2011.

C.H.Cornwell
Adjudicator