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 >> 2023 >> [2023] NZMVDT 15

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

Berg v Monaco Motors Limited - Reference No. MVD 330/2022 [2023] NZMVDT 15 (7 February 2023)

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

___________________________________________________________________


  1. Within ten working days of the date of this order Monaco Motors Limited is to pay Ms Berg the sum of $306.40 by way of reimbursement for costs incurred by her.

___________________________________________________________________


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