|Haidong Chen, Jinming Chen, Top Sky Holdings Ltd and Kiwi Wool Ltd||Fair Trading Act 10 and 13(j)||Two companies and two individuals fined a total of $259,000 for manufacturing and selling to visiting Asian tourists a range of high-priced souvenir items that were not what they claimed to be. Made misleading representations that the alpaca rugs were New Zealand made, when they were imported, and that the duvet wool content was 100% alpaca or merino when it was not.||Judgement||2013|
|Marac Finance Limited||Marac Finance Limited is a finance company providing vehicle finance to consumers and businesses through a dealer network. It is a subsidiary of Heartland Bank Limited. The Commerce Commission has settled with Marac Finance Limited following the finance company’s decision to refund 1,000 customers a total of about $567,000. The refunds are to borrowers who paid their loans back early between 2006 and 2010 but were not refunded premiums for their loan repayment insurance.||Settlement||2013|
|Forsyth Barr Limited, Forsyth Barr Group Limited, Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank, Credit Sail Limited and Calyon Hong Kong Limited||Fair Trading Act s9||Credit SaILS were sophisticated debt securities marketed and sold to the New Zealand public in 2006 with the prospect of 8.5% interest income and capital protection. $91.5 million was raised through the offer. Credit SaILS failed in 2008 and the notes are now virtually worthless. On the information available, the Commission estimates the total loss for those eligible for a share of the settlement fund is around $70 million. As part of the settlement, the companies have agreed to create a settlement fund of $60 million to be distributed to investors who lost money when Credit SaILS failed in 2008.||Settlement||2012|
|Vodafone New Zealand Limited||Fair Trading Act 11||Misleading representations in relation to the following three of Vodafone’s advertising campaigns: 1. Broadband everywhere - these charges related to the extent of the coverage of Vodafone’s 3G mobile broadband service, made between October 2006 and April 2008; 2. Supa Prepay Connection Pack - these charges related to the availability of a $10 free airtime credit for those customers who registered their details on Vodafone’s website between May 2007 and September 2008; and 3. Largest 3G Network - these charges related to the comparative size of Vodafone’s mobile phone network between September 2008 and February 2009.||Judgment||2012|
|Chrisco Hampers Limited||Fair Trading Act 10 and 13(i)||Misleading conduct and misrepresentations relating to customers cancellation rights.||Judgment||2012|
|IAG New Zealand Limited||Fair Trading Act 9, 11, 13||IAG discovered an error in August 2011 while assessing Canterbury earthquake claims and advised the Commission in October 2011. The problem affects some house and contents insurance policies offered by NZI, Lantern, ASB, BNZ and Co-operative Bank. IAG miscalculated the sum insured in 643 previously paid out total loss insurance claims. The same error will also affect the renewal of 150,755 current policies. As part of the settlement, IAG estimates that it will make payments of up to $3.48 million to affected customers who have previously been paid out on total loss insurance claims, and those with total loss claims, to reflect what they should have received, or are due to receive. IAG will also offer the more than 150,755 current policyholders the option of either accepting an increased sum insured amount and therefore a higher insurance premium or agreeing a different value.||Settlement||2012|
|Barry Hunt||CCCF Act 17, 103||Mr Hunt was prosecuted by the Commerce Commission in relation to 15 loan contracts he entered into between September 2006 and August 2007 with 11 different debtors. The contracts did not meet crucial conditions under the CCCF Act. Barry Hunt was fined $18,532 and ordered to pay $1,461.79 in court costs.||Judgment||2012|
|Panasonic New Zealand Limited||Fair Trading Act 11 and/or 17||In November and December 2010 Panasonic ran a ‘Million Dollar Summer’ two tier prize draw promotion. The headline implied that the prize valued at $1,000,000 which featured in four separate ‘Million Dollar Summer’ promotions, would actually be won. Two-tier competitions tend to feature prizes which have very little chance of being won by anyone. This is because you have to be a winner of the first draw to earn the opportunity to make a selection from a number of options to win the final prize. In this case, the four winners (one from each of the four separate retail groups that carried the promotion) of the first draw then chose their prize randomly from 300 envelopes. Only 1 of the 300 envelopes contained the million dollar prize, with all others containing a $10,000 Panasonic prize pack. So, the odds that the million dollars would be won were remote.||Settlement||2012|
|GE Money||Fair Trading Act 11||Misleading advertising of the benefits of a debt consolidation loan||Settlement||2011|
|Pulse Utilities New Zealand Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(g)||Trader breached the Fair Trading Act by misleading customers about the amount they were required to pay when they sought to terminate their supply agreement with Pulse by failing to carry over a prompt payment discount to the customer's final invoice.||Settlement||2011|
|Vodafone New Zealand Limited||Fair Trading Act 11||Misleading representations that its Vodafone Live! mobile phone internet browsing service was "free to browse" and customers would be warned before incurring any charges. What consumers could and could not use for free was unclear and customers were not warned before incurring expensive data charges.||Judgment||2011|
|Telecom Corporation of NZ Ltd||Fair Trading Act 13(b) & 13(g)||Alleged false or misleading representation as to the price of broadband services in that Telecom had overcharged customers due to a problem with the data usage meter.||Settlement||2011|
|Compass Communications Limited||Fair Trading Act 11||Alleged misleading representations in that there is a lack of disclosure regarding the existence of a daily administration fee.||Judgment||2011|
|eFeMCee Finance Limited (FMC) and Albert Loots||CCCF Act 41, 51, 69 and Fair Trading Act 11||Trader has admitted charging unreasonable fees and misleading customers.||Judgment||2011|
|Wenatex New Zealand Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(i)||Trader breached the Fair Trading Act by misleading customers about their cancellation rights under the Door to Door Sales Act.||Judgment||2011|
|Tel.Pacific New Zealand Limited||Fair Trading Act 11||Misleading representations as to calling rates of prepaid phone cards.||Judgment||2011|
|Vodafone New Zealand Limited||Fair Trading Act||Alleged misrepresentations concerning various broadband and mobile phone promotions.||Judgment||2011|
|Morrison Car Company Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(g) and 28(1)||Misleading representations that vehicles were available on Trade Me for $1 reserve when trader was bidding on his own auctions (shill bidding). Vehicles were also advertised and supplied without CIN notices.||Judgment||2011|
|Contact Energy Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(g)||Misleading consumers as to amount owed on accounts.||Settlement||2011|
|Takarunga Management Limited and Trevor Allan Ludlow||CCCF Act 45 and 30(1)(e), Fair Trading 13(i)||Charging a third party fee that exceeded the actual amount payable, charging a cancellation fee not for reasonable expenses related to the contract and its cancellation. False and misleading representations as to rights.||Judgment||2011|
|Takarunga Management Limited and Trevor Allan Ludlow||CCCF Act 45 and 30(1)(e) and Fair Trading Act 13(i)||Charging a third party fee that exceeded the actual amount payable, charging a cancellation fee not for reasonable expenses related to the contract and its cancellation. False and misleading representations as to rights.||Judgment||2011|
|Honey New Zealand (International) Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(j)||Trader imported Chinese powered royal jelly and sold it in capsules claiming it was "made in New Zealand".||Judgment||2011|
|The Home Finance Company||Fair Trading Act 14(1)(b)||Misleading advertising of sale by instalment scheme.||Judgment||2011|
|Sung Yub Paik trading as Healthways Products Corporation Limited||Fair Trading Act 10||Trader was misrepresenting the amount of mg in a capsule of its royal jelly products and the country of origin of product.||Judgment||2011|
|Vodafone New Zealand Limited||Fair Trading Act 40(1), 11||Vodafone New Zealand Limited was fined $81,900 after being found guilty of breaching the Fair Trading Act in relation to its $1 a day mobile phone internet data charges||Judgment||2011|
|Vodafone New Zealand Limited||Fair Trading Act 40(1), 11||Vodafone New Zealand Limited was fined over $400,000 in the Auckland District Court today after pleading guilty to breaching the Fair Trading Act in relation to its Vodafone Live! mobile phone internet service||Judgment||2011|
|Carter Holt Harvey Limited||Fair Trading Act||Civil action brought by Commission where it was alleged that CHH claimed that its Laserframe timber had the structural characteristics of MGP10 timber, meaning it complied with the requirements of AS/NZS Standard 1748:1997. The Commission alleged some of the timber did not comply with the Standard. As a result of the settlement of the case CHH will make a voluntary ex gratia payment of $1.5 million to a project relating to the restoration and rebuilding of Christchurch following the earthquakes. No admissions by CHH
|Spazio Casa Limited||Fair Trading Act 10, 13(a),13(j)||Spazio Casa made a number of false and misleading representations on its website and in brochures regarding the country of origin of a number of the products it supplied, that its products were unique and not sold by other retailers in New Zealand,and claims about price||Settlement||2011|
|Balmoral Homes Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(f), (i), 14||Misleading representations that building contracts came with a Master Build Guarantee. Guilty pleas. Day and Jones both convicted and ordered to pay fines of $15,000 each. Total reparation ordered of $127,000 ($30,000 of which for emotional harm for 6 victims).||Judgment||2010|
|Affinity Car Rental New Zealand Limited, Euro Car Rental New Zealand Limited, Kylee Harris, Gary Harris||Fair Trading Act 13(b), (d), (f), (g), (h) (i)||Alleged misleading representations that rental car hirers responsible for damage and that some cars were late model. Also charges levied which had not been disclosed in rental agreement. Fined a total of $37,960. $5,750 reparation to affected consumers.||Judgment||2010|
|Prokiwi International Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(j)||Alleged misleading representation as to the country of origin of soap. Fined $48,000.||Judgment||2010|
|Shim's International Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(a)||Alleged misleading claims on the labels of the products. Fined $6,000.||Judgment||2010|
|Korea Health Limited and Sang Rae Kim||Fair Trading Act 13(a)||Alleged misleading claims on the labels of the products. Korea Health Limited fined 16,000, Sang Rae Kim fined $12,000, plus costs.
|GM Car Wholesalers Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(a), 28(1)||Alleged that trader is providing false information in CINs||Settlement||2010|
|Propertyfinance Securities Limited, New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited||CCCF Act 51, Fair Trading Act 13(g)||Alleged misleading representation as to the full prepayment formula applied in that the creditor stated in the disclosure it would use the safe harbour formula when in fact it applied a formula based on bank swap rates||Settlement||2010|
|Avanti Finance Limited||CCCF Act 51, 54||Alleged that creditor was charging debtors an unreasonable estimate of creditorâ€™s loss upon full prepayment of their consumer credit contracts, and made misleading representations as to the characteristics of the formula used to calculate the estimate of loss. Creditor found not guilty in District Court in 2009. Commission appeal to High Court dismissed.||Judgment||2010|
|Sunrise Motor Group Limited and Surya Kumar||Fair Trading Act 27||Trader advertised vehicle for sale on Trade Me and at car yard that was imported damaged and this information was not disclosed on CIN.||Judgment||2010|
|Shell New Zealand Limited||Fair Trading Act 10, 13(e)||Alleged misleading representation re fuel economy formula||Judgment – all charges dismissed||2010|
|Progressive Enterprises Limited||Fair Trading Act 17(a)||Alleged that offer made of prize with no intention to supply||Judgment – Court of Appeal dismissed charges||2010|
|TMG Asia Pacific Pty Limited||Fair Trading Act 11, 13(g)(b)||Failure to disclose terms and conditions of text to win competition, misleading consumers. Fined $125,000, court costs $1040.
|Mainfeeds Limited formerly t/a PCL Industries Limited||Fair Trading Act 10, 13(a)||Trader produced calf feed that did not comply with nutritional specifications on packaging. Fined $125,000, court costs of $1040.||Judgment||2010|
|Tristram European Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(g)||Misleading representations about the price of motor vehicles particularly that vehicles could be purchased on 0% interest when 0% interest terms were not available on a lower negotiated price. Alleged misrepresentation about the price of vehicles, particularly that the amount of establishment fees had not been disclosed in advertising. Fined $18,000, court costs $650, solicitor costs $750.
|New Zealand Natural Care Products Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(j)||Misrepresentation as to country of origin of product. Fined $15,000, court costs $260.
|Larry Roger Binns||Fair Trading Act 11, 13(a)||Misrepresentation of quality of timber. Fined $15,000, court costs $130.
|Foundation Custodians Limited||CCCF Act 54||Alleged that creditor is charging an unreasonable estimate of its loss upon full prepayment and is in fact charging a different formula to that disclosed||Settlement||2010|
|Dolbak Finance Limited||CCCF Act 17 and Fair Trading Act 13(i)||Alleged breach of s13 Fair Trading Act (continued enforcement of contracts where full disclosure has not been made) and ss17 and/or 32 of the CCCF Act. Litigation resolved. Guilty pleas to representative charges and sentencing. Convictions entered on 2 charges (one each act) and fined $1000 on each charge.
|Budget Loans Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(i)||Misleading representations that creditor has the right to charge undisclosed credit fees, to charge default interest and fees after the sale of repossessed secured items, which is prohibited under the Credit (Repossession) Act, that it has the right to attach its security interest to after-acquired consumer goods without specific appropriation despite section 44 of the Personal Property Securities Act. Creditor fined $30,750. The creditor reversed or refunded around $500,000 in overcharged interest and fees. During the Commission's investigation Budget Loans also voluntarily reversed or refunded an additional $571,000 to its debtors in relation to credit fees that were not the subject of the current charges.||Judgment||2010|
|ANZ National Bank Limited (ANZN) and ING (NZ) Limited (ING)||Fair Trading Act 10, 13(a), 13(b), 13(e)||Misleading representations about the degree of risk when when promoting and marketing the ING Diversified Yield Fund (DYF) and the ING Regular Income Fund (RIF). Questions and answers published on 21 July 2010 are available at Fair Trading/Enforcement Outcomes||Settlement, $45 million in refunds to affected investors||2010|
|Telecom New Zealand Limited||Fair Trading Act 11||Misleading advertising statements in relation to its broadband at dial-up prices promotion, particularly the disclosure of the 12 month contract term and data allowance associated with the basic broadband plan.||Settlement||2010|
|Methven Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(e)||Misleading advertising statements over conventional shower water flow being 20L per minute, when majority of NZ showers have a water flow of between 6-10ml per minute.||Judgment||2010|
|Kenneth James Ross||Fair Trading Act 13(i)||Alleged that some aircraft and performers stated in advertising will not be apearing at the airshow. Criminal charges also laid by Police.||Judgment||2010|
|Southern Cross Finance Limited||CCCF Act 42||Creditor is charging and unreasonable full prepayment fee.||Settlement||2010|
|Telecom Corporation of NZ Limited and Xtra Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(g)||Alleged misleading consumers by wrongly billing over 130,000 new broadband customers||Settlement, $9.5 million in refunds paid to affected customers||2010|
|A) Invercargill Property Management Limited (IPM), B) Newfoundland Limited, C) Southern Housing Limited, D) CMA Property Investments Limited||Fair Trading Act 14(1)(b)||Alleged breaches of section 14(1)(b) by IPM by making representation that were false or misleading as to the nature of the interest that the IPM scheme occupiers acquire in the properties. A) Fined $38,500 and $25,000 reparation B) Fined $13,500 and $10,955 reparation C) Fined $10,500 and $5,000 reparation D) Fined $40,000 and $42,290 reparation||Judgment||2010|
|Telecom New Zealand Limited||Fair Trading Act 11||Misrepresentation concerning Go Large plan and the speed available for broadband users. Fines $500,000.||Judgment||2010|
|A) Discount Premium Holidays Limited B) Devang Parikh||Fair Trading Act 13(a) (A), Commerce Act 103 (B)||A) False and misleading claims surrounding a holiday voucher scheme. Fined $209,000; court costs $4,940; solicitor fees $7,500.
B) Attempting to mislead the Commerce Commission. Fined $7000; costs $260.
|Beneficial Finance Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(e)(i)||Alleged misleading representation as to the terms and conditions of a credit related insurance policy||Settlement||2010|
|Cash Converters||CCCF Act 41||Alleged that the creditor is charging unreasonable credit fees, including a data management fee||Settlement||2010|
|Medical Mortgages Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(i)||Alleged that trader discloses that it uses the safe harbour formula, but actually charges the swap break cost.||Settlement||2010|
|Southern Cross Finance Limited||CCCF Act 41, 42||In a settlement with the Commerce Commission, Southern Cross Finance Limited has admitted charging unreasonable loan establishment fees and will refund just under $700,000 to 250 customers it overcharged between July 2006 and October 2009.||Settlement||2010|
|Eden Office Seating||Fair Trading Act 13(j)||Misleading representations concerning the place of origin of goods. Fine $5000, costs $2500, court costs $130.||Judgment||2009|
|Farmers Trading Company Limited||Fair Trading Act 10||Misleading conduct that a television was new when in fact it had been returned for repair by a previous customer a year earlier. Fine $10,000, costs $130.||Judgment||2009|
|Redpaths Furniture Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(g)||Represented 'wasâ€™ price was not true and had not been charged for six months or more. Recent price established, before sale, was less than represented â€˜wasâ€™ price. Fine $28,000 ($1,000 per charge), court costs $3640 ($130 per charge).||Judgment||2009|
|Peter Linton t/a Charitables Op Shop||Fair Trading Act 11||Misleading consumers about the nature of a charity shop. Reparation $10,000.||Judgment||2009|
|The Pawn Shop||CCCF Act 17, 42||Alleged that creditor is charging unreasonable credit fees and not providing initial disclosure on payday loans||Settlement||2009|
|TrustPower Limited||Fair Trading Act 11||Misleading its customers about the nature of a power bill review service. Fined $17,000.||Judgment||2009|
|Brownlie Brothers Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(a), 13(j)||Misleading representations as to the country of origin of fruit juice. Fined $45,000, costs ordered $6780.||Judgment||2009|
|The Warehouse Limited||Fair Trading Act 10, 13 (a), 19(2)||Trader pleaded guilty to multiple breaches of the Fair Trading Act and has been fined a total of $209,600. The charges related to The Warehouse misleading consumers about the advertised price of goods, using bait advertising, making false claims that certain products were 'exclusive to The Warehouse' and false labelling on some of their duvets.||Judgment||2009|
|Big Blue Limited||Fair Trading Act 13(a), (e)||Misleading customers by claiming its product was '100% Pure New Zealand Mineral Water' and making false scientific claims about the benefits of its supposedly 'energised mineral water', which was really just processed tap water||Judgment||2009|
Informed Consumers Enforcement Actions Register
The enforcement actions register contains all litigation and settlements since July 2009 under the Fair Trading Act and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. We will add the actual documents shortly. The register does not list investigations resulting in warnings, compliance advice or no further action.