NZLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Motor Vehicles Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand
You are here:  NZLII >> Databases >> Motor Vehicles Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand >> 2019 >> [2019] NZMVDT 11

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Blue v Motorhome Centre Limited t/a Freedom RV - Reference No. MVD 469/2018 [2019] NZMVDT 11 (29 January 2019)

[AustLII] Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

[Index] [Search] [Download] [Help]

Blue v Motorhome Centre Limited t/a Freedom RV - Reference No. MVD 469/2018 [2019] NZMVDT 11 (29 January 2019)

Last Updated: 19 February 2019

IN THE MOTOR VEHICLE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

I TE RŌPŪ TAKE TAUTOHENGA Ā-WAKA

MVD 469/2018
[2019] NZMVDT 11


BETWEEN DAKOTA BLUE


Purchaser


AND MOTORHOME CENTRE LIMITED T/A FREEDOM RV

Trader


HEARING at Christchurch on 14 December 2018
MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL


J S McHerron, Barrister – Adjudicator

R C Dixon – Assessor
APPEARANCES


D Blue, Purchaser
S Fisher, Purchaser's support person
N Whithear, Director of Trader
B Masters, Salesman for Trader


DATE OF DECISION 29 January 2019

___________________________________________________________________

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

___________________________________________________________________


Dakota Blue's application is dismissed.


___________________________________________________________________


REASONS


Introduction

[1] Dakota Blue was dissatisfied with the 2009 Fiat Ducato Swift Sundance Campervan that she purchased from Motorhome Centre Ltd, trading as Freedom RV, for $95,000 on 19 March 2018.[1] Ms Blue alleges that the campervan had a number of faults. She does not consider Freedom RV acted appropriately in response to her complaints to it about those faults.
[2] In August 2018, Ms Blue asked Freedom RV to refund her the vehicle’s purchase price. It refused to refund her, but the parties instead agreed that Freedom RV would attempt to sell her vehicle on behalf.
[3] However, this arrangement eventually proved unsatisfactory to Ms Blue. In September 2018, her lawyer sent a letter to Freedom RV rejecting the vehicle. Ms Blue also revoked her agreement with Freedom RV to sell the campervan on her behalf. Instead, Ms Blue sold the vehicle herself on Trade Me for $85,000. Ms Blue now seeks damages for what she says is the reduction in value of the vehicle below the price she paid for it, plus compensation for her accommodation and various other expenses.
[4] The following issues arise for determination in this proceeding:

Does the lack of a CIN void the contract to sell the vehicle to Ms Blue?

[5] Ms Blue also raised a preliminary point that the contract for sale of the vehicle to her was void, as the vehicle was sold to her without a consumer information notice (CIN). The Tribunal has jurisdiction to declare a contract for the sale of a motor vehicle void under s 43 of the Fair Trading Act 1986, including for failure to comply with consumer information standards under pt 2 of that Act.
[6] Ms Blue is indeed correct that the sale of any used motor vehicle must be accompanied by a CIN which must be signed by the trader and purchaser.[2] I asked Freedom RV’s Director, Mr Whithear, to comment on Ms Blue’s allegation that there was no CIN. Mr Whithear said that it is not his business’s practice to provide CIN notices because rather all relevant information is disclosed to prospective purchasers in other forms, including on the vehicle offer and sale agreement.
[7] I reject Mr Whithear's excuse for Freedom RV's failure to provide a CIN. Freedom RV must provide CIN documentation with all used vehicles it sells.
[8] However, I agree with Mr Whithear that Ms Blue was unable to point to any information that was not disclosed to her that is likely to have made any difference to her decision to purchase the vehicle. I am therefore unpersuaded that Ms Blue was misled by the absence of the CIN.
[9] Nor did Ms Blue provide any evidence that she had suffered or was likely to suffer any losses due to the absence of a CIN. This was fatal to her claim. For her to succeed in obtaining any remedy for failure to provide a CIN she would need to establish that she suffered, or was likely to suffer, losses as a result.[3]
[10] Accordingly, I reject Ms Blue’s claim that the absence of a CIN rendered the agreement to sell the campervan to her void. It was still a proper and legal sale by a motor vehicle trader.
[11] For Ms Blue to establish that she is entitled to any remedy in respect of the vehicle in this Tribunal, she need to establish a failure to comply with a guarantee in the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (the Act).

Issue one: Did the vehicle fail to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality?

[12] Section 6(1) of the Act provides that "where goods are supplied to a consumer there is a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality”. According to s 2 of the Act, “goods” includes vehicles.
[13] "Acceptable quality" is defined in s 7 of the Act (as far as is relevant) as follows:
  1. 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,—

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—

(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:

(ha) the nature of the supplier and the context in which the supplier supplies 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.

...

(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 obtain 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.

[14] Whether a vehicle is of acceptable quality is considered from the point of view of a reasonable consumer who is fully acquainted with the state and condition of the vehicle, including any hidden defects.
[15] Ms Blue alleged a number of faults arose in the campervan in the months after she purchased it. These faults related to an unsecured set of drawers which fell over when Ms Blue applied the vehicle’s brakes firmly, various electrical repairs that were required in the course of which Ms Blue discovered that the vehicle needed to have a new electrical warrant of fitness (eWoF), a leaking toilet cassette, unsuitable gas bottles, and various faults with the campervan’s batteries.
[16] I will describe each of these alleged faults in more detail in the following paragraphs.

Unsecured drawers

[17] Ms Blue complained that a set of drawers in the back of the campervan fell over while she was braking heavily. The drawers were slightly damaged, although it appears they remained usable. Ms Blue alleges that Freedom RV did not tell her that the drawers were not secured to the body of the vehicle and were prone to fall over in the manner they did. Freedom RV denies this allegation. It says that it explained to Ms Blue that the drawers were not secured to the body of the vehicle when it gave her a detailed handover session on 20 April 2018. Its evidence is that the drawers were not designed to be secured to the vehicle but were instead designed to be a relatively lightweight set of furniture which needed to be lifted out of place when the bed was assembled.
[18] I am not persuaded that the fact that the drawers were not secured to the interior walls of the vehicle amounts to a failure of acceptable quality. I accept Freedom RV’s evidence that the drawers were never designed to be attached to the vehicle and that it told Ms Blue how they operated. In any event, as will be explained further below, Freedom RV subsequently modified the drawers to attach them more firmly to the body of the vehicle.

Electrical matters and electrical warrant of fitness

[19] Mr Philip Ashley, a registered electrical inspector who works at K B Electrics, attended to a number of electrical matters on the campervan. Ms Blue alleges that these electrical faults show the vehicle failed to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality.
[20] It was also discovered, in the process of carrying out electrical repairs, that the vehicle needed a new eWoF. Ms Blue alleges that, for this reason, the vehicle never complied with New Zealand legal requirements and was unsafe.
[21] The first electrical repair carried out by Mr Ashley concerned a complaint by Ms Blue that the vehicle’s house battery was losing power. Mr Ashley found that the battery charger had stopped working as items were being stored around its vents causing it to overheat and fail. However, this fault cannot be described as a failure of acceptable quality, as the evidence from Mr Ashley indicates that the battery charger was used in a manner that was inconsistent with the way in which a reasonable consumer would use it.[4]
[22] On 13 August 2018, Mr Ashley carried out a number of electrical repairs. These repairs included replacing a blown heater switch, covering the back of a socket under the bed which had its terminals exposed, replacing a faulty inverter and replacing the campervan's residual current device (RCD) with the correct type.
[23] Replacing the RCD was necessary because the vehicle had been imported from the UK and so it had a 20 amp AC RCD. Mr Ashley’s evidence was that this RCD worked fine and was safe but it did not have the rating that the New Zealand standards require (16 amp with pulsating DC current). Ms Blue had asked Mr Ashley to check the vehicle to ensure it complied with all requirements for a valid eWoF. As part of that eWoF inspection, Mr Ashley needed to replace the RCD with one that complied with New Zealand standards.
[24] Mr Ashley indicated in a letter produced to the Tribunal that the vehicle has at all times had a current eWoF issued by a registered electrical inspector. Mr Ashley said there was no reason to doubt the integrity of the inspector who issued the original eWoF.
[25] I consulted with the Tribunal’s Assessor, Mr Dixon, who agreed with the evidence of Mr Ashley that the existing RCD would not have been unsafe and that it only needed to be replaced in order to comply fully with New Zealand standards. This was only required because Ms Blue had requested a new eWoF check, which she paid for at the cost of $75.
[26] The blown heater switch, the exposed terminals on the socket under the bed and the fault inverter were all minor defects that a reasonable consumer would not find acceptable. However, having regard to Mr Ashley's evidence, I do not consider that the RCD in the vehicle as supplied was either defective or unsafe.
[27] Accordingly, I am not prepared to find a failure of the guarantee of acceptable quality in respect of the RCD.

Leaking toilet cassette

[28] Soon after Ms Blue purchased the vehicle, a broken tank valve plate was replaced by Freedom RV on the campervan’s toilet cassette. It does not seem to be disputed that this amounted to a further minor defect that a reasonable consumer would not find acceptable. However subsequent complaints regarding the toilet cassette were attributed by Freedom RV to Ms Blue’s incorrect use of the toilet cassette.
[29] As Ms Blue did not rebut Freedom RV's explanation, I do not consider she established any further defect existed with the toilet cassette amounting to a failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality.

Gas bottles unsuitable for purpose

[30] Ms Blue alleged that the gas bottles supplied with the vehicle had faulty gauges on them. Freedom RV explained that the gauges to which Ms Blue referred, were “notoriously unreliable” and that it had explained to her a more accurate way of finding out how much gas was left in the bottles. Ms Blue did not present adequate information to the Tribunal establishing any failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality.
[31] The second problem Ms Blue alleged with the gas bottles was that the gas inside had a tendency to freeze. Freedom RV denied that there was any fault with the gas bottles themselves. It advised Ms Blue not to let the bottles run low on gas as that was more likely to cause the gas inside to freeze. Freedom RV also added insulation to the campervan's gas locker to help keep the bottles warmer in winter.
[32] Ms Blue did not produce any evidence showing the gas bottles were faulty and I conclude that she has not established any failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality in respect of the gas bottles.

Faulty battery

[33] Ms Blue alleged there were problems with the campervan's battery. These included an intermittent failure of the vehicle to start. This issue was acknowledged by Freedom RV to be a failure of the guarantee of acceptable quality. The offending battery was replaced at Freedom RV's expense by Euromarque.
[34] A separate battery issue was alleged when Ms Blue took the vehicle camping in Akaroa. She found the campervan's fridge was switching over to the vehicle battery causing the battery to run down. Freedom RV disputed that this indicated a fault. It said that while the vehicle had been displayed for sale at Freedom RV’s yard, the battery was fine and never failed to start the campervan over four weeks and that the fridge did not switch to the vehicle battery. Freedom RV put this down to an unstable power supply at the camping ground in Akaroa. The limited evidence made it difficult for the Tribunal to assess whether the battery was faulty. However, the installation of a voltage sensing relay at Freedom RV's expense in September 2018 appears to have been intended to address this issue.[5]

Conclusion

[35] To summarise my findings above, I have found that Ms Blue has established that the vehicle failed to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality because it had several minor defects, including a blown heater switch, terminals exposed on a socket under the bed, a faulty inverter, a broken valve plate on the toilet cassette, and a faulty vehicle battery that needed to be replaced. I do not uphold Ms Blue’s complaints that the vehicle failed to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality in respect of any of the other matters she has alleged.

Issue two: Was the failure of a substantial character?

[36] As Ms Blue has alleged that she is entitled to reject the vehicle or obtain damages and compensation for its reduction in value, I need to assess whether the failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality was of a substantial character. Section 21 of the Act defines the circumstances in which a failure to comply with a guarantee is of a substantial character. It provides:
  1. Failure of substantial character

For the purposes of, a failure to comply with a guarantee is of a substantial character in any case where—

(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.

[37] The only paragraphs of s 21 that could potentially apply, to make the failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality one of a substantial character, are paras (a) and (d) (above).
[38] In respect of s 21(a) of the Act, the matters that I have held amount to failures to comply with the guarantee of acceptable are all minor matters that were relatively easily and inexpensively fixed at Freedom RV's expense. None of them affected the operability of the campervan or its ability to be used as accommodation.
[39] Even relatively expensive vehicles, such as this one, are liable to have various minor faults. That is especially so when the vehicle is second-hand. This vehicle was nine years old as at the date of purchase. A reasonable consumer would expect it to have various minor matters arising that required attention from time to time. A reasonable consumer would not have been deterred from purchasing the campervan by any of the minor defects that Ms Blue has established. Accordingly, I do not consider that s 21(a) of the Act applies.
[40] Ms Blue argues that the fact that the vehicle needed to have a new RCD installed in order to get a valid eWoF made the vehicle unsafe. For that reason, she argues s 21(d) of the Act applies.
[41] I do not accept this allegation either. As I have mentioned, Mr Ashley’s evidence, which was accepted as correct by Mr Dixon, was that the existing 20 amp RCD was safe, even though it did not comply with New Zealand standards.
[42] Ms Blue has not established that any other aspect of the vehicle was unsafe. Accordingly, I do not consider that she has established a failure of a substantial character under s 21(d) of the Act.

Conclusion

[43] Ms Blue has failed to establish that the vehicle's defects amounting to a failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality were of a substantial character.

Issue three: Did Freedom RV remedy the failures within a reasonable time?

[44] Freedom RV’s submission was that it had fixed all the campervan's defects. Indeed, Mr Dixon's and my assessment of the evidence is that Freedom RV went "above and beyond" in providing assistance to Ms Blue, both during the handover process for the vehicle as well as when subsequent issues arose.
[45] In relation to the specific items that I have found amounted to a failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality, all of the electrical repairs mentioned above were carried out by K B Electrics at Freedom RV's expense. The only expense faced by Ms Blue was $75 for a new eWoF check. She did not ask Freedom RV to reimburse her for this sum.
[46] Freedom RV has now adopted a process of getting new eWoFs for its used vehicles before advertising them for sale. Mr Ashley commented that this is a good process, but he did not think it was legally necessary. He concluded that Freedom RV had done everything it needed to do in respect of Ms Blue's vehicle. Mr Dixon and I agree with Mr Ashley. Freedom RV was not obliged to obtain a new eWoF for the vehicle before selling it to Ms Blue as it already had a current eWoF. Freedom RV was not responsible for any errors by the previous electrical inspector in certifying compliance with the necessary requirements (despite the RDC that did not comply with New Zealand requirements) and in issuing the eWoF supplied with the vehicle.
[47] It is also noteworthy that Freedom RV has paid for all the repairs on the vehicle, even where the matters complained about have ultimately been attributable to user error by Ms Blue. For example, the replacement battery charger that overheated and failed because its vents had been covered by Ms Blue’s belongings and the alleged leaking toilet cassette which Freedom RV spent considerable time and money endeavouring to repair before finding that it had been used incorrectly.
[48] The faulty battery diagnosed by Euromarque was replaced at Freedom RV’s expense, and subsequently a voltage sensing relay was installed at Freedom RV’s expense to better integrate the fridge with the house and vehicle batteries. Mr Dixon advised that the installation of this device would have been likely to address the issues Ms Blue was experiencing at the Akaroa camping ground.
[49] In respect of the drawers that were not attached to the interior of the vehicle, Freedom RV attached a bolt-locking mechanism on 23 April 2018 and subsequently a chain was also attached to the drawers to fully secure them to the interior of the vehicle.
[50] Finally, in relation to the complaint that the gas was freezing, Freedom RV insulated the gas bottle locker at its expense and advised Ms Blue not to let the gas bottles run low on gas as that was more likely to result in the gas freezing. Freedom RV advised Ms Blue that it was unable to replace the gas bottles with larger bottles as the gas locker was not big enough to hold larger bottles.

Conclusion

[51] Accordingly, I conclude that Freedom RV has remedied all of the failures to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality that Ms Blue has established, within a reasonable time.

Issue four: Is Ms Blue entitled to a remedy?

[52] The remedies that are available under the Act are set out in s 18, which provides:
  1. 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—

(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,—

(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.

[53] Section 18(2)(a) provides that where a failure can be remedied the consumer may require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time. In respect of issue three (above), I found that Freedom RV has remedied all of the failures Ms Blue established within a reasonable time. It follows that she is not entitled to any other remedy under s 18 unless she can prove reasonably foreseeable consequential losses under s 18(4) (above).
[54] In particular, Ms Blue was not entitled to reject the vehicle, or to obtain damages and compensation for any reduction in value of the vehicle below the price paid or payable. These remedies, which are provided under s 18(3), depend on the consumer establishing that the failure cannot be remedied or is of a substantial character. Ms Blue has not established either of these prerequisites.
[55] On 18 August 2018, Ms Blue advised Freedom RV that she no longer wanted the vehicle. She asked it to refund the purchase price or purchase the campervan from her.
[56] Freedom RV advised Ms Blue that it was not willing to refund her or purchase or trade the vehicle, but it did offer to sell the vehicle on her behalf at a reduced commission.
[57] Ms Blue agreed that Freedom RV could attempt to sell the vehicle on her behalf. She told Freedom RV that she wished to recover $98,000 ($3,000 more than she paid for the vehicle, even though she had by then driven it about 4,000 km). In an attempt to achieve Ms Blue's asking price, Freedom RV initially offered the vehicle for sale at $106,990, which it later reduced to $105,990.
[58] The campervan did not sell.
[59] On 17 September 2018, Ms Blue’s lawyer sent a letter of rejection to Freedom RV. Following this letter, the on-behalf sale agreement was terminated and Freedom RV ceased cleaning the vehicle.
[60] Ms Blue eventually sold the vehicle herself for $85,000 on Trade Me. She seeks $11,649.14 in damages from Freedom RV, comprising:
[61] I do not accept that Ms Blue is entitled to recover any of these costs. The $10,000 she claims reflecting the difference between the purchase price of the vehicle and the amount she later sold it for would only be recoverable under s 18(3)(b) (above). I have found that Ms Blue was not entitled to recover any damages under that provision because the failure could be (and was) remedied and was not of a substantial character. In any event, Ms Blue did not persuade me that the $10,000 difference in price was anything other than normal and expected depreciation on the campervan. Moreover, Freedom RV argues validly that it was not responsible for the price that Ms Blue sold the vehicle for. It also argues that if she had left it for sale on its yard she is likely to have recovered more than $85,000.
[62] I do not consider Ms Blue is entitled to recover the fee for the eWoF check. That check was not strictly speaking required. Ms Blue obtained the check voluntarily, and she never asked Freedom RV to reimburse her.
[63] Nor is Ms Blue entitled to recover her listing or grooming fees associated with the vehicle. Those fees are not Freedom RV’s responsibility. Rather, it was Ms Blue’s own choice to incur these expenses when she revoked the on-behalf sale agreement.
[64] Nor is Ms Blue entitled to recover her accommodation costs. Accommodation costs would only be payable if Freedom RV had agreed to pay Ms Blue those sums as part of the on-behalf sale agreement. Those costs are not reasonably foreseeable consequential losses in terms of s 18(4).
[65] Finally, Ms Blue is not entitled to recover the costs involved in filing her application in the Tribunal or preparing for the hearing. Those costs are only recoverable under sch 1 of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 in the limited circumstances provided there, such as where the trader fails to turn up at the hearing or fails to engage in settlement discussions.[6] To the contrary, the evidence was that Freedom RV engaged constructively in settlement discussions in relation to this dispute and that it made Ms Blue a reasonable settlement offer, which she decided not to accept.

Conclusion

[66] I have found that Ms Blue’s campervan failed to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality in various limited respects. However, in respect of each of the matters in which I have upheld Ms Blue’s claim, I have found that Freedom RV remedied the failure within a reasonable time. For that reason I have concluded that Ms Blue is not entitled to any other remedy under the Act. Accordingly, her claim must be dismissed.

J S McHerron
Adjudicator

[1] The Tribunal only has jurisdiction to hear and determine claims concerning the sale of motor vehicles: Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003, s 89(1)(a). However, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider claims in respect of heavy motor vehicles with a gross vehicle mass (GVM) of more than 3,500 kg.

That is because the Motor Vehicle Dealers (Exclusion of Heavy Vehicles) Order 1988 provides that "Heavy motor vehicles having a manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight of 3 500 kg or more" are not motor vehicles. The definition of "motor vehicle" in the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 expressly excludes "a vehicle of any other class or description declared by the Governor-General, by Order in Council, not to be a motor vehicle for the purposes of this Act".

However, the expression “heavy motor vehicle” is defined slightly differently in the Heavy Motor Vehicle Regulations 1974 as "a motor vehicle ... the gross vehicle mass of which exceeds 3 500 kg" (emphasis added).

In my view, the best way to reconcile the apparent minor inconsistency between the definition in the 1988 Order and that in the 1974 Regulations is to treat the 1974 Regulations’ definition of “heavy motor vehicle” as impliedly incorporated into the 1988 Order’s exclusion of "Heavy motor vehicles having a manufacturer’s gross vehicle weight of 3 500 kg or more".

The GVM for Ms Blue's vehicle is exactly 3,500 kg. As a vehicle with a GVM of exactly 3,500 kg is not a "heavy motor vehicle" it is therefore not excluded from the definition of "motor vehicle" and is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. However, a vehicle with a GVM of 3,501 kg would be outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction because it would be deemed not to be a motor vehicle.

[2] Freedom RV confirmed to the Tribunal that there was no consumer information notice (CIN) on the campervan at the time of purchase. This was contrary to Consumer Information Standards (Used Motor Vehicles Regulations) 2008, reg 6(1), which requires the CIN to be “firmly attached to the motor vehicle in a prominent position” and s 28(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1986.

[3] Fair Trading Act 1986, s 43(1).

[4] Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, s 7(4) (above).

[5] A voltage sensing relay senses input voltage and automatically connects or disconnects an appliance or circuit at preset voltages.

[6] Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003, sch 1, cl 14.

NZLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZMVDT/2019/11.html