Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v Mezin Hadad and Anor
[2023] QCAT 518
•31 December 2023
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v Mezin Hadad and Anor [2023] QCAT 518
PARTIES:
CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL (applicant)
v
MEZIN HADAD
(FIRST RESPONDENT)AND
BEST BUY AUTO GROUP PTY LTD
(second respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
OCR051-22
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
31 December 2023
HEARING DATE:
On the papers
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member King-Scott
ORDERS:
1. Mezin Hadad pay to the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General a fine of $10,000.00 by 28 February 2024;
2. Mezin Hadad is jointly and severally liable with Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to pay compensation of $67,607.54 to the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General by 28 February 2024;
3. Mezin Hadad be disqualified permanently from holding a licence under the Motor Dealers Chattel and Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld);
4. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd pay to the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General a fine of $50,000.00 by 28 February 2024;
5. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd is jointly and severally liable with Mezin Hadad to pay compensation of $67,607.54 to the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General by 28 February 2024;
6. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd be disqualified permanently from holding a licence under the Motor Dealers Chattel and Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld);
7. The compensation to be distributed to each of the individuals named in the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General’s submissions filed on 31 October 2022 in the respective amounts set out therein.
CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – OTHER PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS AND REPAIRERS – whether grounds for disciplinary action –where conduct significant because of dishonesty – false and misleading representations – failure to comply with documenting transactions – criminal behaviour – declining cooling off period – not honouring warranty – unregistered salesperson – where permanent disqualification needed to protect public – where fines imposed – compensation to multiple victims
Australian Consumer Law (Queensland)
Fair Trading Act 1984 (Qld)
Motor Dealers Chattel and Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld)Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336.
Re Seidler (1986) 1 Qd R 486
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)
REASONS FOR DECISION
This is a referral by the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General under s.194(1)(g) Motor Dealers Chattel and Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) (MDCA Act) to commence disciplinary proceedings against Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and its sole director Mezin Hadad for multiple breaches of various provisions of the MDCA Act.
Both respondents, at the time of the breaches were licensed under the MDCA Act as a motor dealer and corporate motor dealer. The licenses have since expired.[1]
[1]28 February 2022.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and Mr Hadad have not responded to any of the directions made by the Tribunal to progress the matter.
Legislation
Provisions relating to disciplinary proceedings and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are found in Part 7 of the MDCA Act. The relevant provisions are as follows.
194 Grounds for starting disciplinary proceedings
(1) The following are grounds for starting a disciplinary proceeding against a licensee or motor salesperson—
(a) …
…
(g) for a licensee—
(i) the licensee is not a suitable person to hold a licence; or
(ii)the licensee has carried on, or is carrying on, business under a licence with someone who is not a suitable person to hold a licence; or
(iii) the licensee has, in carrying on a business or performing an activity, been incompetent or acted in an unprofessional way; or
(iv)the licensee has failed to ensure that the licensee’s employed licensees or motor salespersons, or employees under the licensee’s supervision—
(A) are properly supervised in the performance of their duties; or
(B) comply with this Act; or
(v)the licensee has failed to comply with a condition of the licensee’s licence; or
(vi)the licensee is an executive officer of a corporation against whom QCAT finds grounds exist to take disciplinary action under section 199; or
(vii) if the licensee is a corporation—
(A)an executive officer of the corporation is not a suitable person to be an executive officer of a corporation; or
(B)an executive officer of the corporation is disqualified under this Act from being an executive officer of a corporation;
195 Starting disciplinary proceedings
The chief executive may apply to QCAT to conduct a proceeding to decide whether grounds exist under section 194 for taking disciplinary action against a licensee or motor salesperson.
199 Orders QCAT may make on disciplinary hearing
(1) QCAT may make 1 or more of the following orders against a person in relation to whom QCAT finds grounds exist to take disciplinary action under this Act—
(a) an order reprimanding the person;
(b) an order that the person pay to the State, within the period stated in the order, a fine of not more than—
(i) for an individual—200 penalty units; or
(ii) for a corporation—1,000 penalty units;
(c) an order that the person pay compensation (inclusive of any commission to which the person is not entitled) to someone else who has suffered loss or damage because of the act or omission that resulted in the finding;
(d) an order that the person’s licence or registration certificate be suspended for the period stated in the order;
(e) an order—
(i) if the person is the holder of a licence or registration certificate when the order is made—that the licence or registration certificate be cancelled; or
(ii) whether or not the person is the holder of a licence or registration certificate when the order is made—that the person be disqualified permanently, or for the period stated in the order, from holding a licence or registration certificate;
(f) an order imposing conditions on, or amending or revoking the conditions of, the person’s licence or registration certificate;
(g) another order QCAT considers appropriate to ensure the person complies with this Act.
(2) QCAT may not make an order under subsection (1)(e)(ii) disqualifying the person from holding a licence or registration certificate if QCAT is satisfied that a court has, in relation to the matter giving rise to the disciplinary proceeding—
(a) been asked to make an order under section 229 (1) or (4) disqualifying the person from holding a licence or registration certificate; and
(b) declined to do so.
(3) If QCAT makes an order under subsection (1)(e)(i) in relation to an individual that a licence or registration certificate be cancelled, QCAT must also order that the person be disqualified, for the period stated in the order, from holding a licence of the type to which the order relates or a registration certificate.
(4) The chief executive may recover a fine, ordered by QCAT to be paid by the person to the chief executive, as a debt owing to the chief executive in a court with jurisdiction to recover debts up to the amount of the fine.
Relevant provisions of the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (MDCA Act)
Section 74 (1)
74 Licensee to give statement to buyer of vehicle
(1) A licensee must, immediately after selling a motor vehicle to a person (the buyer) in the course of carrying on the licensee’s business, give the buyer a statement, signed by the licensee, stating the particulars prescribed under a regulation about—
(a) the vehicle; and
(b) the vehicle’s owner immediately before the sale.
Maximum penalty—200 penalty units.
Section 79 (2) (b)
79 Licensee to be in charge of motor dealer’s business at a place
(1) …
(2) A motor dealer that is a corporation and a principal licensee (corporate dealer) must ensure that—
(a)the individual in charge of the corporate dealer’s business at its registered office is a motor dealer; and
(b)if the corporate dealer has more than 1 place of business—at each other place of business an individual who is a motor dealer is in charge of the corporate dealer’s business at the place.
Maximum penalty—
(a)for an individual guilty under the Criminal Code, chapter 2 of an offence—200 penalty units; or
(b) for a corporation—1,000 penalty units
Section 105 (1)
105 Contract must contain cooling-off clause
(1) A contract for the sale of a used motor vehicle by a motor dealer must contain a clause clearly headed ‘COOLING-OFF PERIOD’ stating the following—
(a) the day and time the cooling-off period starts;
(b) the day and time the cooling-off period ends;
(c) property in the motor vehicle does not pass to the buyer until the end of the cooling-off period, unless the buyer takes physical possession of the vehicle for a purpose other than—
(i) a vehicle inspection; or
(ii) a test drive;
(d) the buyer or the buyer’s agent may possess the vehicle during the cooling-off period, but only to have the vehicle independently inspected or to test drive the vehicle;
(e) the buyer may avoid the contract at any time during the cooling-off period by giving written notice to that effect to the dealer in accordance with this Act;
(f) the amount of any non-refundable deposit paid by the buyer if the contract is avoided during the cooling-off period;
(g) if the contract is avoided during the cooling-off period, the motor dealer must return to the buyer—
(i) any trade-in vehicle offered by the buyer that the motor dealer has taken possession of; and
(ii) any deposit paid by the buyer, less the amount of non-refundable deposit.
Section 118 (1)
118 Contract of sale
(1) A motor dealer must ensure that a contract for the sale of a motor vehicle by the motor dealer—
(a) is in writing; and
(b) contains the particulars prescribed under a regulation in the way prescribed under the regulation.
Maximum penalty—200 penalty units.
Section 121(1)
121 Employment of persons in motor dealer business
(1) A motor dealer must not employ, as a motor salesperson, a person the motor dealer knows, or ought to know, does not hold a registration certificate as a motor salesperson.
Maximum penalty—200 penalty units.
Section 194 (1)(g)(iii)
Section 216 (1)
216 False representations about goods
(1) A licensee or motor salesperson must not represent in any way to someone else anything that is false or misleading about the sale or auction of goods.
Maximum penalty—540 penalty units.
Schedule 1 ss. 11 and 12(2)
11. Warrantor to advise whether defect covered by statutory warranty
(1) This section applies if a defect notice is given, and the vehicle is delivered, under section 9.
(2) The warrantor must advise the buyer in writing (warranty advice) whether the warrantor accepts or refuses to accept that the defect is covered by the statutory warranty.
(3) If the warrantor fails to give the warranty advice within 5 business days after receiving the defect notice and delivery of the vehicle, the warrantor is taken to have given a warranty advice accepting that the defect is covered by the statutory warranty.
(4) In this section—
business day, for the giving of a warranty advice by a warrantor, means a day, other than Sunday or a public holiday, when the warrantor’s place of business is open for business.
12 Warrantor’s obligation to repair defects
(1) …
(2) The warrantor must ensure that the defect is repaired within 14 days after the warrantor accepts that the defect is covered by the statutory warranty (repair period), unless the warrantor has a reasonable excuse.
Maximum penalty—200 penalty units.
Background
Following a report from the Queensland Police Service, Senior Investigation Officer Sharon Leonard for the Office of Fair Trading was directed to carry out an investigation of the respondents.
SIO Leonard established that the respondents operated from 4 addresses, namely:
(a)Corner of Lupus St and Ferry Road, Southport Queensland
(b)46 Brisbane Road, Labrador Queensland
(c)Corner of Margaret Street and Manchester Road; Carrara Queensland
(d)50 Compton Road, Woodridge Queensland
During the investigation SIO Leonard interviewed and obtained statements from the following consumers:
(a)Shyanne Flannery
(b)Laura Jones
(c)Amy Bruckner
(d)Robert Richards
(e)Faith Lancaster
(f)Christopher Langley
(g)Virginia Crew
(h)Skye-Maree Wentorf
(i)Elissa Brookes
(j)Luke Megginson
(k)Sam Roberts
A number of the above consumers reported that they were served and had their vehicle sale processed by a salesman Arnaldo Lobo. Searches of the relevant registers confirmed Arnaldo Lobo was not the holder nor had ever been the holder of a motor salesperson registration certificate in Queensland.
On 16 October 2020 SIO Leonard and Principal Investigations Officer (PIO) Carolyn Morgan attended the respondents’ business address at that time, at the corner of Margaret Street and Manchester Road, Carrara. Upon arrival they became aware that Arnaldo Lobo had decamped in a vehicle after being advised of their attendance by the receptionist. A number of documents were seized and photographs taken.
Mr Hadad was not present but telephoned the business and spoke to the inspectors whilst they were on the premises.
On 18 February 2021 Mr Hadad was offered an interview. There were 35 alleged offences. Mr Hadad declined to be interviewed but provided a written statement.
Breaches of the MDCA Act and Australian Consumer Law
The alleged breaches of the Australian Consumer Law (Qld) and Motor Dealers and Chattels Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) were particularised as follows:
Shyanne Flannery
Breach 1
Australian Consumer Law (Qld) – False or misleading representations about goods or services s. 151(1)(m) making a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 1 facts: On 9 August 2019 the affected consumer Shyanne Flannery attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd, Woodridge and purchased a Holden Commodore bearing Queensland registration 715ZCQ. The sale of the Commodore included a 12 month warranty which was issued by the dealership and administered by Integrity Car Care Pty Ltd reference 525072.
On 15 July 2020 Ms Flannery was advised that the warranty she purchased for 12 months between 9 August 2019 and 8 August 2020 had been cancelled on 30 March 2020 due to non-payment by the dealer. It is alleged that the warranty that was included as part of the purchase by Ms Flannery was misleading and false. At no stage was Ms Flannery advised that the warranty was no longer being paid for by Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. Ms Flannery's right to claim repairs under the warranty was denied due to non-payment by Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd.
Breach 2
Motor Dealers and Chattels Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) – False representation about goods – s.216(1) a licensee or motor salesperson must not represent in anv way to someone else anything that is false or misleading about the sale or auction of goods.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 2 facts: On 9 August 2019 the affected consumer Shyanne Flannery attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd, Woodridge and purchased a Holden Commodore bearing Queensland registration 715ZCQ. At this time Ms Flannery was provided with a Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers form 12 which had documented that there was no cooling off period.
On the form 12 it was recorded as the buyer taking possession of the vehicle on 9 August 2019, however the buyer did not take possession of the vehicle on that day after Ms Flannery was advised by Best Buy Auto Group that it was no longer ready for collection. It is alleged the vehicle was delivered to Ms Flannery's home about 5 days later.
Laura Suzanne Jones
Breach 3
Australian Consumer Law (QLD) - False or misleading representations about goods or services — section 101(1)(m)
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 3 facts: On 1 July 2020 Ms Jones attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to pay for and collect a vehicle bearing Queensland registration 237ZUO which she was purchasing from Best Buy Auto. During this time Ms Jones was provided with an Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers form 12 by the motor dealer Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. Ms Jones was advised at this time that the vehicle did not come with a cooling off period and was documented on the form 12.
Breach 4
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — False representations about goods - section 216(1) A licensee or motor salesperson must not represent in any way to someone else anything that is false or misleading about the sale or auction of goods.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 4 facts. On 30 June 2020 the affected consumer, Laura Jones attended Cars Always Wanted to collect and pay for a vehicle sold to her by Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. The vehicle was a Holden Captiva. During discussions about the vehicle Ms Jones was advised by Best Buy Auto that the vehicle had recently had a service and the vehicle was all good. Arrangements were made for Ms Jones to collect the vehicle the following day.
On 1 July 2020 Ms Jones attended Best Buy Auto to pay for and collect the vehicle. Ms Jones requested to be able to pay for the vehicle via eftpos, however she was advised that if she paid via eftpos that her funds would not clear and she would not be able to collect her funds that day. It is alleged this information was misleading to make Ms Jones pay for the vehicle by cash.
During this time Ms Jones was provided with an invoice by motor dealer Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. The kilometres recorded on the invoice and form 12 was 230,718kms. Ms Jones was advised that the safety certificate was not available for her at that time to view and was later sent via MMS. The safety certificate recorded the kilometres as 231,445 and was dated 1 July 2020. It is alleged the information recorded on the documents for the sale of the vehicle were misleading.
Breach 5
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Warrantor’s obligation to repair defects - section 12(2) - The warrantor must ensure that the defect is repaired within 14 days after the warrantor accepts that the defect is covered by the statutory warranty (repair period), unless the warrantor has a reasonable excuse.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 5 facts: On 7 July 2020 Ms Jones returned to Best Buy Auto to report that there was something wrong with the vehicle. It is alleged at this time she was advised that the Holden Captiva was a large vehicle and the noise was normal.
On 14 July 2020 the vehicle was taken for an independent inspection by Ms Jones. There was a diagnosis that there was faults with the vehicle. Ms Jones sent a letter in compliance with the act advising of the fault providing a copy of the report. Ms Jones was not contacted via writing within the required 5 business days, nor repaired within the required 14 days of warrantor ensuring the defect is fixed.
On 27 August 2020 Ms Jones contacted via mobile phone. During this conversation Ms Jones advised you she had reported her complaint about the purchasing of the vehicle and its faults. It is alleged you advised Ms Jones, ‘If you have, I am not legally allowed to talk to you. So if you have I cannot legally talk to you”. This conversation was electronically recorded.
About 1 October 2020 Ms Jones received a letter from Cars Always Wanted - Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd advising “We want to assure you that your complaint will be handled”.
The vehicle was never repaired as required under the provisions of the statutory warranty.
Skye-Maree Wentorf
Breach 6
Australian Consumer Law (QLD) - False or misleading representations about goods or services — section 151(1)(m) - makes a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 6 facts: On 20 July 2020 the affected consumer Skye-Maree Wentorf attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. At this time Ms Wentorf was interested in purchasing a vehicle, a Ford Territory. Ms Wentorf was advised that if she agreed to purchase the vehicle that she would be able to enter into a payment plan with the dealer. Ms Wentorf was advised to enable the purchase of the vehicle under the payment plan she would be required to pay a deposit of $4,500 and trade-in her own vehicle a Mitsubishi Mirage for the amount of $2,000. Ms Wentorf agreed to the purchase of the vehicle under this agreement.
Breach 7
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Obligation to give clear title — section 96(2)(a) - must ensure the buyer has clear title to the motor vehicle at the time property in the vehicle passes to the buyer — if the selling agent owns the motor vehicle or is appointed to sell the vehicle on consignment for someone other than another motor dealer or chattel auctioneer—the selling agent.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 7 facts: On 27 July 2020 Ms Wentorf attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to collect and pay the remainder of the deposit for the purchase of the Ford Territory. Ms Wentorf collected the Ford bearing Queensland registration 587ZSX at Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd on 31 July 2020. At this time Ms Wentorf was not provided with any documentation showing the vehicle had a clear title. To date Ms Wentorf has not been able to register her vehicle into her name.
Breach 8
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — - Licensee to give statement to buyer of vehicle - section 74(2) A licensee must, immediately after selling a motor vehicle provide the buyer a statement, signed by the licensee, stating the prescribed particulars.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 8 facts: On 27 July 2020 Ms Wentorf attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to collect and pay the remainder of the deposit for the purchase of the Ford Territory. Ms Wentorf collected the Ford at Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd on 31 July 2020. At this time Ms Wentorf was not provided with any documentation including a statement to the buyer providing the details about the Ford Territory and the vehicle's owner. To date Ms Wentorf has not been provided a statement to the buyer from the licensee.
Breach 9
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Harassment or coercion section 108 A motor dealer or other person must not harass or coerce a person for the purpose of dissuading or preventing the person from exercising a right conferred on the person by this division.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 9 facts: On 31 July 2020 Ms Wentorf in company with her mother attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd with the intent to obtain a refund to enable her to buy a vehicle she could have on the same day. Ms Wentorf requested a refund and was advised that the vehicle would be ready that day after an 11 day wait. Ms Wentorf felt she was in a position she was unable to get out of and was coerced to continue through with the purchase of the Ford or she would never receive a refund of her $4,500 or get her Mirage back.
Breach 10
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Contract of sale - section 118(1) A motor dealer must ensure that a contract is in writing and detailed.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 10 facts: On 27 July 2020 Ms Wentorf attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to collect and pay the remainder of the deposit for the purchase of the Ford Territory. Ms Wentorf collected the Ford at Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd on 31 July 2020. At this time Ms Wentorf was not provided with any documentation including a contract in writing for the sale of the Ford Territory. To date Ms Wentorf has not been provided a contract by the motor dealer.
Breach 11
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Contract of sale - section 118(1) The motor dealer must promptly give the buyer, prospective buyer or option holder a receipt that is headed 'Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014’ and states the particulars detailed in the provision.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 11 facts: On 20 July 2020 Ms Wentorf attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and paid a cash amount of $500 to the motor dealer. At this time the motor dealer did not complete and supply a receipt for the deposit payment of $500 for a Ford Territory.
On 27 July 2020 Ms Wentorf attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to collect and pay the remainder of the deposit for the purchase of the Ford Territory. The motor dealer issued a receipt reference 0131 to Ms Wentorf that failed to have headed 'Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014' on the receipt and failed to contain the following information on it as required:
(h) the vehicle's body model;
(i) the vehicle's colour;
(j) the vehicle's engine number
(k) the vehicle’s identification number;
(n) the name of the person giving the receipt.
Amy Bruckner
Breach 12
Australian Consumer Law (Qld) – False or misleading representations about goods or services s. 151(1)(m) making a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 12 facts: On 19 August 2020 Ms Brucker attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to collect a vehicle she had purchased. The vehicle was a Subaru Liberty bearing Queensland registration 536XQR. Ms Bruckner was provided with a Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers form 12 by motor dealer Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. The cooling off period was documented as included. The cooling off period was recorded on the contract as commencing at 9am on 20/8/20 and ending at 5pm 21/8/20. The vehicle was not collected until approximately 5pm on 21/8/20.
The form 12 included statutory B warranty expiring on either the vehicle travelling more than 1,000kms since taking possession. The kilometres were recorded on the form 12 as 165,496 dated 21/8/20. The safety certificate supplied on the same date has the kilometres for the same vehicle recorded as 165,885.
The vehicle was sold with a safety certificate advising that the vehicle had passed an inspection. The following day the vehicle was inspected by a qualified mechanic which identified major and minor faults with the vehicle. The cost of repairs was quoted as $4,718.15.
On Friday 22 August 2020 Ms Bruckner returned the vehicle under the cooling off period and was told to go away by Best Buy Auto and return the vehicle Monday 25 August 2020, dismissing and misleading Ms Bruckner’s right to return the vehicle under the cooling off period.
Breach 13
Australian Consumer Law (Qld) – False representations about goods - section 216(1) A licensee or motor salesperson must not represent in any way to someone else anything that is false or misleading about the sale or auction of goods.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 13 facts: On 19 August 2020 the affected consumer, Ms Amy Bruckner attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd T/A Cars Always Wanted and purchased a Suburu Liberty, Ms Bruckner paid for the purchase in full. Ms Bruckner was advised that the vehicle would be provided with a tyre and side mirror prior to her collecting the vehicle. This was also documented on the receipt reference 0150 issued by Best Buy Autos.
On 21 August 2020 Ms Bruckner attended Cars Always Wanted to collect her car. She was advised that the vehicle was ready for collection and all repairs had been completed. The following day the vehicle was inspected by a qualified mechanic which identified major and minor faults with the vehicle. The cost of repairs was quoted as $4,718.15.
Breach 14
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Warrantor’s obligation to repair defects - section 12(2) - The warrantor must ensure that the defect is repaired within 14 days after the warrantor accepts that the defect is covered by the statutory warranty (repair period) unless the warrantor has a reasonable excuse.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 14 facts: On 22 August 2020 Ms Bruckner attempted to return the vehicle to Best Buy Auto in less than 24 hours after purchasing the vehicle. Ms Bruckner returned to Best Buy Auto on 25/8/20 as requested, with the vehicle she purchased from Best Buy Auto. The vehicle was left with Best Buy Auto. On 24/8/20 Ms Bruckner provided a letter to Best Buy Autos advising she was exercising her rights to return the vehicle. At this time a letter was provided to Ms Bruckner advising that the vehicle was being left “in regard to mechanical issues as per the request of our company”.
On 9 October 2020 Ms Bruckner located the vehicle she had returned to Best Buy Auto outside the front of her house. There was no correspondence left. The fault identified had not been repaired under statutory warranty. On the same day Ms Bruckner received a letter in the post from Best Buy Auto advising “we want to assure you that your complaint will be handled’.
Breach 14
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Motor dealer receipts - section 16(2) - The motor dealer must promptly give the buyer, prospective buyer or option holder a receipt that is headed 'Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014’ and states the particulars detailed in the provision.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 15 facts: On 19 August 2020 Ms Brucker attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and paid the full price for the purchase of a Suburu Liberty for the amount of $5,990. Ms Bruckner paid the full amount by Eftpos. The motor dealer provided a receipt reference 0150 however failed to have the receipt headed 'Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014’ on the receipt and failed to contain the following information on it as required:
(h) the vehicle's body model;
(i) the vehicle’s colour;
(j) the vehicle's engine number
(k) the vehicle's identification number;
(n) the name of the person giving the receipt.
Robert Richards
Breach 16:
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 - False or misleading representations about goods — section 216(1) - must not represent in any way to someone else anything that is false or misleading about the sale or auction of goods.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 16 facts: On 24 August 2020 the affected consumer, Mr Robert Richards attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to look at a Holden Cruze and take it for a test drive. At this time Mr Richards observed that the engine light was on and brought it to the attention of the motor salesperson. Mr Richards agreed to purchase the Holden Cruze on the condition that the engine light was rectified, the vehicle was registered in Queensland and that he could collect the vehicle prior to the 31 August 2020. Mr Richards was advised that the vehicle would be ready for collection, registered in Queensland and the engine light rectified by 27-28 August 2020.
On 28 August 2020 Mr Richards attended Best Buy Auto and was advised that the Holden Cruze engine light was not repaired and was not registered in Queensland and to return on 31 August 2020 to collect the vehicle.
On 31 August 2020 Mr Richards was advised by Best Buy Auto that the engine light was repaired and had been registered in Queensland. It is alleged the engine light had not been repaired and this information is misleading and false. Mr Richards drove to the dealership and was advised the outstanding amount of $8,750 would be required to be paid by cash as the amount would not be cleared in the bank if paid via eftpos that day. This information is alleged to be false and misleading causing Mr Richards to pay the amount in cash of $8,750.
Breach 17
Australian Consumer Law (Qld) – False or misleading representations about goods or services s. 151(1)(m) making a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 17 facts: On 31 August 2020 Mr Richards attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. Mr Richards was provided with a tax invoice reference 000629 and had a date recorded as 24/08/2020. Mr Richards also received a contract for the purchase of a used car with the deal date being recorded as 24/08/2020. The kilometres recorded were 102,767kms. On page 5 the cooling period was documented as being included and commenced at 12:38pm on 24/08/2020 and ended at 5:00pm on 25/08/2020. It is alleged this information was false and misleading as the vehicle was not collected until 31 August 2020. Mr Richards was provided with a Motor Dealer and Chattel Auctioneers form 12 which was documented with the same cooling off period.
Breach 18
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Warrantor’s obligation to repair defects - section 12(2) - The warrantor must ensure that the defect is repaired within 14 days after the warrantor accepts that the defect is covered by the statutory warranty (repair period), unless the warrantor has a reasonable excuse.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 18 facts: On 18 September 2020 Mr Roberts sent a letter to the warrantor Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd outlining the repairs that were required to be completed under the statutory warranty with a copy of the invoice supplied from a qualified repairer. Mr Roberts attended the warrantor's business delivering the vehicle in person for repairs. To date the warrantor has not responded via writing and has failed to repair the vehicle under the statutory warranty.
Breach 19
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Motor dealer receipts - section 16(2) - The motor dealer must promptly give the buyer, prospective buyer or option holder a receipt that is headed 'Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014’ and states the particulars detailed in the provision.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 15 facts: On 24 August 2020 Mr Richards attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and paid the deposit for the purchase of a Holden Cruze for $500. Mr Richards paid the deposit by eftpos. The motor dealer provided a receipt reference 0156 however failed to have the receipt headed ’Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014’ on the receipt and failed to contain the following information on it as required:
(h) the vehicle's body model;
(i) the vehicle’s colour;
(j) the vehicle's engine number;
(k) the vehicle's identification number.
Faith Lancaster
Breach 20
Australian Consumer Law (Qld) – False or misleading representations about goods or services s. 151(1)(m) making a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 20 facts: On 29 August 2020 the affected consumer Mrs Faith Lancaster attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd in company with her partner and father in-law to collect a vehicle, a Lancer Queensland Registration 260WAQ which she had already paid for through a financial institution. During her attendance Ms Lancaster was provided with a Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers form 12 and Contract for the purchase of a used car that recorded the vehicle as not having a cooling off period. The vehicle was required to have a cooling off period. It is alleged the documentation provided to Ms Lancaster was false and misleading.
The Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers form 12 further documented that the vehicle Ms Lancaster purchased did not come with any warranty. Page 3 of the form 12 included highlighted information stating that the vehicle was not covered by statutory warranty as it was a written-off vehicle. The PPSR dated 28/08/2020 for the Lancer recorded the vehicle as a repairable write-off with the repairs inspected on 8 October 2015. The vehicle was sold with registration. It is alleged that the information provided to Ms Lancaster about warranty for the vehicle was false and misleading.
Breach 21
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — False representations about goods - section 216(1) A licensee or motor salesperson must not represent in any way to someone else anything that is false or misleading about the sale or auction of goods.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 21 facts. On 28 August 2020 Ms Lancaster was contacted by Best Buy Auto and informed that the Lancer that she had purchased had been fitted with new tyres and the car was ready to go in good condition.
On 29/09/2020 Ms Lancaster's Lancer was inspected by an authorised safety examiner. The vehicle's tyres failed the inspection carried out. Other items that failed the inspection included the seats, restraints, steering, suspension, brakes, engine, driveline, and emissions. It is alleged the information provided to Ms Lancaster that the tyres had been replaced and the vehicle was in a good condition was false and misleading.
On 29 August 2020 the licensee provided a copy of the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers form 12 Contract for the purchase of a used car and tax invoice reference 000626. All documents were dated 29/08/2020. The kilometres of the Lancer were recorded as 159,253 kms on each document. The safety certificate provided to Ms Lancaster was dated 28/08/2020 with the kilometres recorded as 160,250. It is alleged the information recorded by the licensee to Ms Lancaster about the kilometres was false and misleading.
Breach 22
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Warrantor’s obligation to repair defects - section 12(2) - The warrantor must ensure that the defect is repaired within 14 days after the warrantor accepts that the defect is covered by the statutory warranty (repair period) unless the warrantor has a reasonable excuse.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 22 facts: On 8 September 2020 Ms Lancaster contacted the warrantor via writing to advise of the Lancer having a list of problems. Ms Lancaster lived more than 200 kms from the warrantor's place of business. Ms Lancaster was never contacted by the warrantor to organise the repairs on Ms Lancaster's Lancer. It is alleged the warrantor Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd failed to comply with the statutory warranty requirements under the act.
Sarah Wilson
Breach 23
Australian Consumer Law (Qld) – False or misleading representations about goods or services s. 151(1)(m) making a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 23 facts: On 11 September 2020 the affected consumer Ms Sarah Wilson attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. Ms Wilson purchased a Holden Commodore bearing Queensland registration 723ZDN.
On 18 September 2020 Ms Wilson took her vehicle for an inspection to an authorised mechanic due to a loud noise coming from the vehicle. Ms Wilson was provided with a list of repairs the vehicle required including 2 rear tyres, 2 front engine mounts, oil leaking from the engine, front right wheel bearing, left rear wheel bearing and the nut lock was missing to remove the wheel nuts.
On the same day Ms Wilson sent the report to Best Buy Auto to exercise her right to the warranty. Ms Wilson was not responded to via writing about the warranty and repairs.
On 25 September 2020 Ms Wilson again sent a further email via writing and attached the repairs list again provided by the mechanic to Best Buy Auto. To date Ms Wilson has not been responded to and the her right to exercise the vehicle warranty has been denied. It is alleged the information provided to Ms Wilson about the warranty and her rights was not complied with by Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd.
Hannah Megginson
Breach 24
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — False representations about goods - section 216(1) A licensee or motor salesperson must not represent in any way to someone else anything that is false or misleading about the sale or auction of goods.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 24 facts. On 23 September 2020 the affected consumer, Mrs Hannah Megginson attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and agreed to the purchase of a Kia Carnival bearing Queensland registration 201YWL. Mrs Megginson paid a deposit amount of $1,000 to Best Buy Auto for the purchase of the Kia Carnival. Prior to collecting the Kia and paying the outstanding amount of $1,990 and trade-in of Mrs Megginson's own vehicle. Best Buy Auto agreed to attend to repairs of the Kia. These repairs included the rear driver's side door, 2 x new tyres, a vehicle service and 6 months registration. The collection date was agreed as 24 September 2020.
On 25 September 2020 Mrs Megginson in company with her husband attended Best Buy Auto due to no communication to arrange pick up of the Kia. During their attendance it was noted that none of the repairs had been completed on the Kia. They were further advised that the mechanic was unable to fix the hinge on the door as agreed and they would be required to take the vehicle to Kia. They were further advised that the spark plugs now required replacing.
Mrs Megginson advised that she no longer wished to purchase the vehicle and would like her deposit back as Best Buy Auto were unable to deliver the vehicle in the agreed condition. Mrs Megginson was advised that she would receive a full refund.
On 30 September 2020 Mr Megginson attended Best Buy Auto as there had been no refund processed. Mr Megginson was asked to complete a refund form so the refund of $1,000 could be processed. To date a refund has never been processed by Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd of $1,000. It is alleged the information provided by Best Buy Auto during the sale process was false and misleading.
Breach 25
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Motor dealer receipts - section 16(2) - The motor dealer must promptly give the buyer, prospective buyer or option holder a receipt that is headed 'Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014’ and states the particulars detailed in the provision.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 25 facts: On 23 September 2020 Mrs Megginson attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and paid the deposit for the purchase of a Kia Carnival for the amount of $1,000. Mrs Megginson paid the deposit by cash. The motor dealer provided a receipt reference 0909 however failed to have the receipt headed ‘Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014’ on the receipt and failed to contain the following information on it as required:
(h) the vehicle’s body model;
(i) the vehicle's colour;
(j) the vehicle’s engine number;
(n) the name of the person giving the receipt.
Christopher Langley
Breach 26
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — False representations about goods - section 216(1) A licensee or motor salesperson must not represent in any way to someone else anything that is false or misleading about the sale or auction of goods.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 26 facts. On 15 September 2020 the affected consumer Mr Christopher Langley attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to view an Audi bearing Queensland registration 092JIO that had been advertised on Facebook Marketplace. Mr Langley attended in the company of his son. Mr Langley agreed to purchase the Audi and was requested to leave the vehicle there for repairs to be completed on the vehicle. These included repair of the dry engine noise, spare tyre, rear left side rubber door seal, broken glass in the rear hatch door panel and the front driver’s side door rubber seal. Mr Langley was advised that the rest of the vehicle was in good condition.
On 25 September 2020 Mr Langley took delivery of the vehicle from Best Buy Auto. On 29 September 2020 Mr Langley took the vehicle to a qualified mechanic for a safety inspection and report on any defects. A very extensive list of repairs on the Audi were identified by the mechanic, including a recommendation for the vehicle not to be driven due to the engine noise in the head. It is alleged that the information provided by Best Buy Auto about the vehicle being in good condition was misleading and false.
Breach 27
Australian Consumer Law (Qld) – False or misleading representations about goods or services s. 151(1)(m) making a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 27 facts: On 25 September 2020 Mr Christopher Langley attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to pay for and collect an Audi bearing Queensland registration 092JIO. Mr Langley was provided with a copy of the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers form 12 and a contract for the purchase of a used car. Page 5 of the contract recorded the cooling off period as commencing 9.21am on 16/9/2020 and ending 5:00pm on 17/9/2020 which was prior to the vehicle being paid for and collected on 25/9/2020. Page 2 of the form 12 has documented the cooling off period as commencing 9.21am on 16/9/2020 and ending 5:00pm on 17/9/2020 which was prior to the vehicle being paid for and collected on 25/9/2020. This document was signed by the dealer and Mr Langley on 25/9/2020.
Mr Langley was provided with a tax invoice reference 000667 by the dealer documenting the date as 16/09/2020 when the sale transaction was completed on 25/9/2020. The contract for the purchase of the vehicle was documented as deal date: 16/09/2020 when the sale transaction was completed on 25/9/2020.
It is alleged that Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd has provided misleading and false information to Mr Langley relating to the cooling off period and the purchase date of the vehicle.
Breach 28
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Warrantor’s obligation to repair defects - section 12(2) - The warrantor must ensure that the defect is repaired within 14 days after the warrantor accepts that the defect is covered by the statutory warranty (repair period) unless the warrantor has a reasonable excuse.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 28 facts: On 30 September 2020 Mr Langley sent a letter via email to the warrantor Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd with the list of repairs required that had been provided by the mechanic. Mr Langley did not receive a response from the warrantor.
On 8 October 2020 Mr Langley returned the vehicle to the warrantor with another copy of the letter. To date the vehicle was never repaired and no remedy was offered to Mr Langley. The vehicle was located by the Queensland Police in Carrara. Police seized the Audi and later returned the vehicle to Mr Langley. It is alleged that the warrantor failed to comply with the act.
Breach 29
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Motor dealer receipts - section 16(2) - The motor dealer must promptly give the buyer, prospective buyer or option holder a receipt that is headed 'Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014’ and states the particulars detailed in the provision.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 29 facts: On 15 September 2020 Mr Langley attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and paid the deposit for the purchase of an Audi for the amount of $500. Mr Langley paid the deposit by cash. The motor dealer provided a receipt reference 0907 however failed to have the receipt headed ‘Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014' on the receipt and failed to contain the following information on it as required:
(i) the vehicle's colour;
(j) the vehicle’s engine number;
(n) the name of the person giving the receipt.
Bethany Rogers
Breach 30
representations about goods or services — section 151(1)(m) misleading or False - (QLD) Law Consumer Australianmaking a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 30 facts: On 6 October 2020 the affected consumer, Bethany Rogers saw a Ford Falcon advertised on Facebook Marketplace for $1,990. The ad stated that “all vehicles are sold with road worthy certificates” and “our quality pre-owned vehicles have undergone mechanical inspections and come with a wide range of warranty options”.
The same day Ms Rogers attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to look at the Ford Falcon that she had seen on Facebook Marketplace. Ms Rogers inspected the vehicle bearing Queensland registration 459MFH. Ms Rogers noticed that there was no sign stating that the vehicle did not come with warranty. Ms Rogers purchased the Ford Falcon for the agreed amount of $1,500. Ms Rogers was advised the only form of payment that was accepted was cash. Ms Rogers paid Best Buy Auto $1,500 in cash. Ms Rogers was issued a receipt and no other documents.
Breach 31
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 - Contract of sale - section 118(1) (1) A motor dealer must ensure that a contract for the sale of a motor vehicle by the motor dealer is in writing and contains the particulars prescribed by the regulations.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 31 facts: On 6 October 2020 the affected consumer, Bethany Rogers attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and paid for the purchase of a Ford Falcon. The motor dealer issued a receipt of payment for the vehicle. The motor dealer failed to provide a contract to Ms Rogers for the sale of the Ford.
Elissa Brookes
Breach 32
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 – Contract of sale – section 118(1) (1) A motor dealer must ensure that a contract for the sale of a motor vehicle by the motor dealer is in writing and contains the particulars prescribed by the regulations.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 32 facts: On 5 November 2020 the affected consumer Elissa Brookes attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. Ms Brookes agreed to the purchase of a Holden Cruze bearing Queensland registration 794VJF. Ms Brookes was not provided with a contract of sale or a form 12 under the Motor Dealers Chattel Auctioneers Act. It is alleged that Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd failed to comply with the act.
Breach 33
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 – Harassment or coercion section 108 a motor dealer or other person must not harass or coerce a person for the purpose of dissuading or preventing the person from exercising a right conferred on the person by this division.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 33 facts: On 5 November 2020 the affected consumer Elissa Brookes attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. Ms Brookes agreed to the purchase of a Holden Cruze bearing Queensland registration 794VJF. The agreed purchase price was $7,800. Ms Brookes paid for the Holden and was told to drive the car to Queensland Transport to transfer the registration of the vehicle from the trader to her name. Ms Brookes commenced driving the Holden to Queensland Transport. During the journey Ms Brookes noticed that there was something wrong with the Holden as it was shuddering. Ms Brookes drove the vehicle straight back to Best Buy Auto and told them she wished to return the vehicle as there was something seriously wrong with the car. Ms Brookes was advised that she could not return the vehicle and that Best Buy Auto would repair the vehicle for her. It is alleged that Best Buy Auto coerced Ms Brookes from exercising her right to return the vehicle in compliance with the act.
Breach 34
services — section 151(1)(m) or goods about representations misleading or False– (QLD) Law Consumer Australianmaking a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy.
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 34 facts: On 12 November 2020 Ms Brookes attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and provided a copy of the report from the authorised mechanic who had inspected the Holden. Ms Brookes left the Holden with the dealership and was advised that they vehicle would be fixed, and she would be contacted when the car was ready for collection.
Between 13 November 2020 and 11 December 2020 Ms Brookes made numerous attempts to call the dealer and get an update on what was occurring with the vehicle. The dealer advised that Ms Brookes "knew where the vehicle was and to come and get it" however Ms Brookes did not have the keys to collect the vehicle, Ms Brookes reported the keys stolen to the police which resulted in Ms Brookes having both the vehicle and keys in her possession on 18 January 2021. The vehicle had not been repaired as represented by Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to Ms Brookes.
It is alleged Ms Brookes was misled and provided false information about the services her vehicle would receive between purchasing the vehicle on 5 November 2020 to the dealer having possession of the vehicle between 12 November 2020 and 17 January 2021.
Central Auto Auctions Pty Ltd
Breach 36
section 216(1)- goods about representations False — 2014 Act Auctioneers Chattel and Dealers Motor
Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
Breach 36 facts: On 14 August 2020 the licensee Mezin Hadad of Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd attended the business of the affected consumer Central Auto Auctions and spoke with the director. The licensee advised to the director that he wished to sell a vehicle that he had being a 2015 Mercedes Benz bearing registration 093ZYK to Central Auto Auctions Pty Ltd.
On 17 August 2020 the licensee returned to Central Auto Auctions Pty Ltd and sold the vehicle for the amount of $30,500, this included the inclusion of the vehicle log books. And invoice was issued by Central Auto Auctions to the licence reference 000615.
On 18 August 2020 the licensee was contacted by Central Auto Auctions and requested to provide the log books for the Mercedes Benz. This never occurred.
On 9 September 2020 Central Auto Auctions was advised that the Mercedes Benz that the licensee had sold them had been reported stolen. Central Auto Auctions was required to surrender the vehicle to the Queensland Police Service. It is alleged that the information provided to Central Auto Auctions about the vehicle by the licensee was false and misleading.
Mr Hadad’s response
Mr Hadad responded to the allegations in an undated document. He claimed to be in ill health and was in no condition to be interviewed. He claimed to have been a Motor Car Dealer for 26 years and operated out of the same premises with the same trading name and motor dealer’s licence. He claimed he was the biggest used car motor dealer in Australia and held over 700 vehicles in stock. He had never had an issue with the Department of Fair Trading or my customers and had always acted in good faith and abided by the MDCA Act.
Mr Hadad said that he and his wife had divorced which had been emotionally and financially draining for him. From 2018 to 2021 he claimed to have been suicidal and had attempted to take his life on 5 separate occasions. He had been admitted to a Queensland mental health ward.
I should interpolate here that Mr Hadad has filed no medical or any other evidence to support these allegations or his responses below.
He dealt with the alleged breaches as follows:
Breach1. Was a civil dispute between the him and the warranty company and they should be honouring the warranty;
Breach2. Cannot comment;
Breach3. Cannot comment;
Breach 4. This is the customers word as there has never been any instruction that the customer must pay for the car via cash this would and could support the fact of staff stealing money and or attempting - There is no difference to a motor dealer if the purchase is paid in cash or card. In relation to the odometer reading the kms at RWC exceed the recorded sale kms so I can’t see how this is an issue unless I am missing something.
Breach 5.I attempted to resolve this issue with the customer who became very abusive and I also did not consent to her taping me in Australia this is illegal.
Breach6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 — The customer was given all paperwork.
The vehicle that she purchased needed work and it was explained to her that it would be a few days.
This customer did attend with her mother and advised that she needed the car to move so to try and assist her I lent her another SUV and advised that she could use it over the weekend as a loan car and she was to bring back and swap with her purchased vehicle. Her finance from memory was declined and this customer never returned this vehicle and took the car interstate.
During this time I had attempted to take my life and none of the staff followed her up and it was a few months later where I remembered about the vehicle, she wouldn't answer my calls and it got to the point where I had to send her emails for the return of the car or that I would have to report the car stolen. She is still making fortnightly payments of $100 to my bank account until today and I am shocked to see this as a complaint.
Breach 11-35 Cannot comment as I have no access to the paperwork.
Breach 36This allegation was false and a brief was sent to my lawyer where all charges were dropped. I am genuinely at a loss and can’t comment on something that I’m not aware of and I know the extremity of the allegations and having been a motor dealer for 26 years I am seeking assistance.
Mr Hadad stated that in a span of 2 years he literally went from a tycoon to a mental health patient and attempted to take his life, his whole life was in ruins, and he had lost his house after the mortgagee went into possession.
SIO Leonards further investigations revealed the following:
(a)Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd was previously known as Cars Always Wanted Pty Ltd until a change of name on 9 October 2018.
(b)A search of Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd revealed that Mezin Hadad was the sole director. Ms Leonard established that Mr Hadad was placed on an undertaking with the Australian Securities Investment Commission (ASIC) on 17 February 2017 under the corporation name Best Buy Auto Finance Pty Ltd ACN: 138 529 183 Australian credit licence number 404110 in NSW for the finance and sale of vehicles to consumers. The undertaking recorded Best Buy Auto Finance Pty Ltd was previously known as ln house Finance Group (Sydney) Pty Ltd. Conditions[2] of the undertaking were that Mezin Hadad adhere to the following:
(i) Providing a contribution to community benefit program, reference 3.4;
(ii) To honour each warranty in relation to a relevant contract, reference 3.6;
(iii) A report outlining the refunds provided to consumers and their contracts, reference 3.7-3.9;
(iv) $100,000 to be maintained in a trust account during the remediation process 3.12;
(v) The respondent to notify consumers of the refund process and how much they will be receiving 3.13.
(c)Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd was previously known as ln house Finance Group (Sydney) Pty Ltd. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd was deregistered on 7 April 2023.
[2]Enforceable Undertaking to Australian Securities and Investments Commission dated 17 February 2017 and Variation of Enforceable Undertaking dated 21 May 2019 under s. 322(1) National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cwth). Exhibit SL5 to Affidavit of Sharon Leonard dated 28 October 2021
Infringement Notices
The following infringement notices were issued by the Office of Fair Trading to respondents for breaches of the MDCA Act by Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd
INF number
Date of offence
Offence
MDCA Act provision
Penalty
INF-1009086
1/7/20
Motor Dealer employs unregistered salesperson
s.121(1)
$1,334
INF-1009087
31/7/20
Motor dealer fail to ensure contract in writing containing prescribed particulars
s. 118(1)
$533
INF-1009088
9/10/20
Warrantor fail to comply with obligation to repair accepted defects within 14 days
Sch. 1
s.12(20
$266
INF-1009089
31/7/20
Licensee fail to give copy of buyer’s statement to buyer immediately after statement signed
s.74(1)
$533
INF-1009090
21/8/20
Motor dealer fail to promptly issue motor dealer receipt containing prescribed particulars
s.16(2)
$266
(b)The holder of a licence may be disqualified for a period or permanently. The power exists even if the person no longer holds a licence at the time of the disciplinary order.
(c)The applicant seeks an order that the company be disqualified permanently from holding a licence under MDCAA and that the individual be permanently disqualified from holding a licence or registration certificate under MDCAA. Both respondents were licensed at the time of the conduct. The respondents ceased holding licences on 28 February 2022.
(d)Mr Hadad was the director and only individual licensee connected with the company. It is submitted that if the Tribunal finds that the company should be disciplined then s 194 (1) (g) (vi) MDCA Act empowers the Tribunal to make disciplinary orders under section 199 of the Act against an executive officer.
[179]A power exists to order compensation to a person who has suffered loss or damage. Annexure A, page 5 paragraph 10 contains the compensation amounts totalling $67,607.54 applied for by the applicant. QCAT may elect to order the total amount be paid by one respondent or split between both respondents. The applicant seeks an order that Mr Hadad be ordered to pay the total amount of the compensation. There are no other persons disclosed by the evidence as being in control of the company.
(a)Shyanne FLANNERY $ 6,600.00
(b)Laura JONES $ 1,090.00
(c)Amy BRUCKNER $ 5,999.00
(d)Robert RICHARDS $ N/A (own QCAT action)
(e)Faith LANCASTER $ 6,000.00
(f)Skye-Maree WENTORF $ 3,500.00
(g)Christopher LANGLEY $ 7,990.00
(h)Luke MEGGINSON $ 1,000.00
(i)Elissa BROOKES $ 4,928.54
(j)Central Auto Auctions $ 30,500.00
TOTAL $67,607.54
Findings
Disciplinary ground 1
[180]In deciding the liability of a party in a disciplinary matter the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.
Carter, J made the following comments in Re Seidler[15]:
[15]1986] 1 Qd R 486 at 490.
In Australia and in England the appropriate standard of proof in disciplinary actions has been closely examined by the courts and this standard is regularly applied in practice by disciplinary bodies. The standard of proof is proof on the balance of probabilities possessing as that standard does the required measure of flexibility so that the more serious the allegation, the higher the degree of probability that is required.
[181]In disciplinary matters the Briginshaw[16] test is applicable. Sir Owen Dixon described the test in the following terms:
[16]Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336.
The truth is that, when the law requires the proof of any fact, the Tribunal must feel an actual persuasion of its occurrence or existence before it can be found. It cannot be found as a result of a mere mechanical comparison of probabilities independently of any belief in its reality. No doubt an opinion that a state of facts exists which may be held according to indefinite gradations of certainty; and this has led to attempts to define exactly the certainty required by the law for various purposes. Fortunately, however, at common law no third standard of persuasion was definitely developed. Except upon criminal issues to be proved by the prosecution, it is enough that the affirmative of an allegation is made out to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal. But reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or facts to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal.
[182]I am satisfied that the facts have been established on the balance of probabilities taking account the seriousness of the matters and potential consequences to the respondents. I am satisfied that the respondent Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd has contravened Section 194(1)(b)(i) of MDCA Act. Mr Hadad as the sole director, executive officer and principal licensee of Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and on the facts is the sole controller of the business has also contravened the Act for employing Mr Lobo.
Disciplinary Ground 2
[183]The facts supporting the breaches of s.216(1) MDCA Act by both respondents are overwhelming and I find that they have contravened the MDCA Act.
Disciplinary Ground 3
[184]I find that the respondents have contravened s. 118(1) of MDCA Act in that they failed to ensure contracts for sale of motor vehicles existed.
Disciplinary Ground 4
[185]I find that the Respondents contravened 74(1) of MDCA Act in failing to give the buyer of the motor vehicle a statement of prescribed particulars immediately after selling a motor vehicle.
Disciplinary Ground 5
[186]I find that the respondents having accepted warrantor's obligations to repair defects failed to reply to a notice in writing or repair the defects in contravention of schedule 1, section 12(2) of MDCA Act.
Disciplinary Ground 6
[187]The Respondents being licensed motor dealers failed to ensure each place of business had a licensed individual in charge, in contravention of section 79(2)(b) of MDCA Act. I find that the offence has been proved.
Disciplinary Ground 7
[188]The Respondents failed to promptly give the buyer, prospective buyer or options holder a receipt headed Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 outlining the particulars required, in contravention of section 16(2) of MDCA Act. I find the offence proved.
Disciplinary Ground 8
[189]Section 194(1)(g)(i) MDCA Act for a licensee - the Respondents are not suitable persons to hold a licence. The facts establish a very strong case of theft following what appeared to be a premeditated plan by Mr Hadad and another Easton. The facts relied upon here and the other breaches satisfy me that Mr Hadad is not a suitable person to hold a licence. It follows that the same applies to Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd as Mr Hadad was its principal.
Disciplinary Ground 9
[190]Putting aside the deceit of Mr Hadad and others working for him, I am satisfied that if his actions and those employed by him were not motivated by dishonesty the actions were certainly unprofessional and incompetent. Section 194(1)(g)(iii) MDCA Act has been breached by Mr Hadad and Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd in carrying on a business or performing an activity in an incompetent and unprofessional manner.
Resolution
[191]I am satisfied that grounds exist for taking disciplinary action against Mezin Hadad. I make the following orders:
(a)Mezin Hadad pay to the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General a fine of $10,000.00 by 28 February 2024;
(b)Mezin Hadad is jointly and severally liable with Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to pay compensation of $67,607.54 to the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General by 28 February 2024;
(c)The compensation to be distributed to the individuals in the respective amounts set out in the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General’s submissions filed on 31 October 2022.
(d)Mezin Hadad be disqualified permanently from holding a licence under the MDCA Act
[192]I am satisfied that grounds exist for taking disciplinary action against Mezin Hadad. I make the following orders:
(a)Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd pay to the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General a fine of $50,000.00 by 28 February 2024;
(b)Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd is jointly and severally liable with Mezin Hadad to pay compensation of $67,607.54 to the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General by 28 February 2024;
(c)The compensation to be distributed to the individuals in the respective amounts set out in the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General’s submissions filed on 31 October 2022;
(d)Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd be disqualified permanently from holding a licence under the MDCA Act.
.
0
2
3