Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Motor Vehicles Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand |
Last Updated: 23 March 2023
IN THE MOTOR VEHICLE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL
I TE RŌPŪ TAKE TAUTOHENGA Ā-WAKA
MVD
330/2022
[2023] NZMVDT 015
BETWEEN GEMMA BERG
Purchaser
AND MONACO MOTORS LIMITED
Trader
MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL
D M Jackson, Barrister – Adjudicator
A Cate – Assessor
DATE OF ORDER 7 February 2023
___________________________________________________________________
ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
___________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
REASONS
[1] In my decision of 22 December 2022, I determined that the vehicle failed to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality in respect of the sunroof leak, which was not durable or effective to prevent moisture ingress. The leak has allowed water to enter the vehicle causing damage, corrosion and odour.
[2] I determined that Ms Berg is entitled to the replacement of the sunroof seal, any water damaged componentry, interior linings, upholstery or carpets. I also determined that Ms Berg is entitled to the reimbursement of any monies spent by her on two reports, which were produced in evidence and which speak to the sunroof leak and its repair. I ordered that those costs are payable by the Trader and directed that Ms Berg furnish proof of her incurring those expenses.
[3] At paragraph [29] of my decision I recorded that I would, if called upon, order payment of these amounts provided proof of payment was provided by Ms Berg. I emphasised that I expected the parties to be able to resolve this between themselves without further reference to the Tribunal. However, I gave Ms Berg permission to call for such orders to be made (should the Trader refuse to reimburse her). The parties cannot agree.
[4] Ms Berg has furnished proof of payment in the form of screenshots recording payments of $122.40 and $184.00 to AA Autocentre and a third-party mechanic. It would appear that one of the payments has been made by Ms Berg’s friend (who assisted her in the dispute and who was mentioned and referred to during the hearing itself). Ms Berg gave evidence that she incurred these costs herself and I am satisfied that those payments were made and incurred by her in furtherance of her claim.
[5] I make this finding over the objection of the Trader who says the screenshots are inadequate evidence and fail to prove payment on a balance of probabilities. I disagree. Having regard to the amounts, the identities of the payees, the dates on which they were paid and the whole of the evidence given during the hearing I find that these are costs incurred by Ms Berg, which are compensable by the Trader as consequential losses. Ms Berg is to be reimbursed these costs incurred within ten working days of the date of this order.
D M Jackson
Adjudicator
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZMVDT/2023/15.html