Douglas Robinson v Friendlee Autos Pty Ltd
[2014] NSWCATCD 13
•16 January 2014
NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Douglas Robinson v Friendlee Autos Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 13 Hearing dates: 17 December 2013 Decision date: 16 January 2014 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: A McMurran, General Member Decision: The respondent is to pay the applicant the total sum of $3,636.69 immediately.
The application is otherwise dismissed.
Catchwords: Renewal - whether previous orders made by the Tribunal had been complied with and appropriate orders Legislation Cited: Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Douglas Robinson (Applicant)
Friendlee Autos Pty Ltd (Respondent)File Number(s): MV 13/39572
reasons for decision
Background
In related proceedings MV 13/1194 ("the proceedings") the applicant sought to recover an amount of $20,000.00, being the purchase price for a Ford Explorer 2004 motor vehicle which he had purchased from the respondent on 19 January 2013 ("the vehicle").
At the time of sale, the vehicle was shown to have an odometer reading of 137212 kms.
The vehicle was sold subject to a Form 4 warranty for 3 months or 5,000kms. The vehicle was immediately subject to mechanical problems, first reported by the applicant to the respondent on or about 23 January 2013.
The respondent carried out some repairs to the vehicle subject to warranty in or about late January 2013 and following the intervention of the Department of Fair Trading, a written agreement was reached between the parties and dated 27 February 2013 for further repairs to be carried out.
The respondent's evidence in the proceedings was that the vehicle "has never been brough (sic) in for us to repair our agreements."The respondent asserted that the applicant denied the respondent the opportunity to effect any agreed repairs. From this evidence the Tribunal understands that the agreement reached between the parties with the assistance of the Department of Fair Trading was never completed.
The applicant filed the proceedings on 3 March 2013. The proceedings were heard by the Tribunal on 6 June 2013 at Gosford, and after hearing argument, the Tribunal made orders which included the following:
"1. On or before 30 June 2013 the respondent, at its own expense, is to carry out the following work with respect to the applicant's Ford Territory 2008 (sic) motor vehicle (the "vehicle") in a proper and workmanlike manner, to cause a master technician (and in the case of the LPG system, a licensed LPG installer) to conduct an assessment of the whole of the vehicle in order to deal with the following matters:-
To ensure that the front end of the vehicle is serviceable and the wheels are aligned;
To repair any oil leak in the transfer case;
To adjust the handbrake;
To repair the blinkers and number plate light;
To ensure that the LPG system does not leak and is safe for use.
2. The time within which the warranty on the vehicle operates is extended until 30 June 2013."
These orders were in almost identical terms to the agreement reached previously between the parties and referred to at paragraph 4 above in these reasons. A significant difference was the order extending the warranty period, which had otherwise expired.
In its reasons for decision, the Tribunal indicated that it was not satisfied there was a "major failure" of the vehicle within the meaning of Section 260 of the Australian Consumer Law and as such the Tribunal would not be justified in ordering a full refund of the purchase price of the vehicle. In lieu thereof, the Tribunal made the work order as set out at paragraph 6 above.
The respondent sought to complete the work on the vehicle as ordered by 30 June 13, and after a short delay, returned the vehicle to the applicant around mid-July. The vehicle was not repaired to the satisfaction of the applicant.
The applicant filed a rehearing application on 21 October 2013 under Section 68 of the Act.
On 24 October 2013, the Tribunal refused the rehearing application on the basis that the applicant had already applied to renew the proceedings and that it was preferable for the renewal proceedings to be disposed of first before any consideration of a fresh hearing.
These proceedings constitute the renewal application and were heard at Gosford on Tuesday 17 December 2013.
The Application for Renewal
The renewal application was receipted by the Tribunal's Newcastle Registry on 25 July 2013 and given proceedings number MV 13/39572. In this application, the applicant seeks an order for payment of $600.00 and an order to rectify faulty goods or provide services. It is implicit that the Tribunal may make its own orders in place of those sought by the applicant, where the circumstance so requires.
It is important to note that several directions were ordered during the course of this renewal application before it came on for hearing.
The first were orders made on 19 August 2013 which orders set out in part the following:
"2. The Tribunal notes that the issuea (sic) for determination at the formal hearing are whether there has been non-compliance by the respondent with the orders made on 06-Jun-2013 in MV 13/11994 and if so, the proper remedy or remedies to the applicant under Section 43 of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001."
The directions made on that occasion required the parties to exchange documents upon which they intended to rely.
A copy of the orders made on 19 August 2013 was produced in evidence at the hearing. The order contains the usual notation at the foot of the document which sets out as follows:
"Section 30(2) of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 provides the following:-
If an applicant is conducting proceedings in a way that unreasonably disadvantages another party including by failing to comply with an order or direction of the Tribunal, the Tribunal may order that the proceedings (or part of the proceedings) be dismissed or struck out."
The notation is repeated on page 2 of the orders made and dated 19 August 2013. In general terms, the notation warns the parties of the risks of not complying with the orders.
Neither party complied with the orders for the exchange of documents by the due dates. An extension of time was sought for that exchange to occur. The Registry wrote to each of the parties by letter dated 6 September 2013 indicating that an extension of time for compliance with the procedural directions was being considered, and sought a response.
The matter was then relisted for further directions at Gosford on 18 October 2013 and the Tribunal again made further orders including as follows:
"2. The applicant shall provide to the respondent and the Tribunal, a copy of all documents on which the applicant intends to rely at the hearing including an expert report by 1- Nov- 2013.
3. The respondent shall provide to the applicant and the Tribunal, a copy of all documents on which the respondent intends to rely at the hearing including an expert report by 15-Nov-2013."
A copy of that direction and the orders it contained was sent to each of the parties. The orders again included the notation at the foot thereof in respect of Section 30(2) of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 in relation to compliance.
Subsequently and by letter dated 19 November 2013 (received 26 November 2013 at the Newcastle Registry of the Tribunal) the applicant complied with the procedural directions by forwarding a bundle of documents. Copies of those documents were acknowledged by the respondent's representative, Mr Wall, as having been received by the respondent.
The respondent for its part did not comply with the procedural directions and did not serve any documents on the applicant, other than those documents which had been tendered in the proceedings. The only documents sent by the respondent in this renewal application were under cover of a facsimile dated 16 September 2013, sent to the Tribunal and received by the Registry on or about that date, but not sent to the applicant.
A further extension of time for compliance had been granted by the Tribunal and sent to each of the parties by letter from the Registrar dated 7 November 2013, in which the directions were as follows:
"On 7/11/13 the following procedural directions were made by consent:
Timetable made by the Tribunal on 18/10/13 is further amended.
Time for compliance with direction 3 is extended to 12/12/13.
The hearing of 17/12/13 is confirmed."
The Registrar's letter did not contain the warning as had been attached to the copy of the orders made on 18 October 2013, and the respondent may not have been alerted to the possible consequences of non-compliance at that time, although suffice it to point out that the respondent nonetheless had ample opportunity to provide and serve copies of its documents on the applicant, but had simply failed to do so.
No further directions were made before the hearing and the only documents provided by each party in accordance with the direction made 7 November 2013 were those documents provided by the applicant.
As a consequence, the Tribunal determined for these renewal proceedings to rely only upon those documents produced by the applicant.
In the Tribunal's view, no serious prejudice was suffered by the respondent resulting from that decision, as the Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal's file from the proceedings, and the written material produced by the parties in the proceedings at the June hearing.
In the Tribunal's view, procedural fairness has been provided to both parties and the respondent has elected not to meet the applicant's expert report with an expert report of its own, and notwithstanding the appropriate warning in the form of the notation referred to above, on at least two prior occasions when orders were issued to the parties.
Mr. Wall for the respondent indicated that he understood the position with relation to the documents, indicating that he regarded himself as the respondent's expert and sufficiently qualified to criticize where necessary the applicant's evidence as he saw fit.
The Hearing
The applicant attended in person at the hearing and represented himself. The respondent was represented by its manager, Colin Wall. Both the applicant, Mr Robinson and Mr Wall for the respondent were sworn and gave oral evidence.
The applicant in addition relied upon the bundle of documents which he had provided and which were tendered in evidence. Those documents included the following:
(a) The motor vehicle sale contract dated 19 January 2013.
(b) An invoice from ELN Pty Limited Ford Dealership dated 11 November 2013.
(c) Quotation from Alan Ross Mechanical Repairs dated 5 September 2013.
(d) Report from applicant's expert, Colin John Potts dated 5 November 2013.
(e) A chronology.
(f) Invoice from Jax Quick Fit Tyres, Wyong dated 7 May 2013.
(g) Invoice for inspection by ELN Ford dated 7 November 2013 referring to "inspection with diagnostic computer".
(h) Quotation from ELN Ford dated 11 November 2013 for replacement and fitting of catalytic converter.
Other than for document (a), being the sale contract, the documents were additional to the evidence previously provided in the proceedings heard by the Tribunal in June 2013.
Mr Wall's oral evidence for the respondent sought to deal mainly with the allegations of faulty or defective work and his attempts in overseeing such work to comply with the Tribunal's orders made in the proceedings, and which work was done on the vehicle at the end of June, beginning July 2013.
The applicant Mr Robinson, in both his oral argument and by reference to the documents produced by him, appeared to misconceive the nature of the renewal proceedings.
The Tribunal had specified in the procedural order made on 19 August 2013 what the issue was, namely "whether there has been non-compliance"with the work ordersand what appropriately might now be done to rectify that circumstance, if it were found to be the case.
The applicant however sought to effectively re-hear the whole of his complaints, including his initial consumer complaint related to the sale of the vehicle and the finding made against him as regards the Australian Consumer Law and the vehicle's fitness for purpose. That issue had been raised and finally dealt with in the proceedings.
In dealing with the specific matters in the work order of 6 June 2013, the applicant's oral evidence included the following:
(a) That the respondent had not complied with the orders for reason that when the vehicle was returned to him by the respondent a number of complaints relating to the vehicle had not been resolved. The history since the orders on 6/06/13 shows that the applicant arranged with the respondent's Mr Wall for the delivery of the vehicle for repair on 17 June 2013. On that occasion the applicant took the vehicle to a business called Trackside Automotive where he was told by Mr Wall that certain work would be carried out.
(b) On attending at Trackside Automotive, the applicant had a falling out with a person at that business who declined to do any work either on behalf of the respondent or for the applicant.
(c) As a result, the vehicle was subsequently delivered to the respondent on 24 June 2013, which was the first occasion since the orders on 6 June 2013 when the respondent had an opportunity to carry out the work orders. There was clearly insufficient time available from 24 June 2013 to 30 June 2013 for the respondent to comply with the orders and complete the work as had been directed. In hindsight, Mr Wall submitted that perhaps more time should have been allowed for the respondent to carry out the work. In any event, the applicant agreed to the respondent carrying out the further work beyond the date directed of 30 June 2013.
There was a dispute between the parties as to when the respondent determined it completed the work. The applicant asserted that he telephoned Mr Wall and was told he could come and collect the vehicle on 30 June 2013, which was the date due. The applicant duly attended the respondent's premises but was told if further work was needed to be done, as requested by the applicant, the vehicle was in fact not ready for collection.
On 9 July 2013 the applicant contacted Mr Wall again and asserts he was told the vehicle was "ready". Again the applicant attended the premises to discover the vehicle was not ready.
On 13 July 2013 Mr Wall delivered the vehicle personally to the respondent's home. The applicant asserts he immediately noted that the engine light remained "on" and that the mirror had not been fixed. Mr Wall conceded that the mirror had not been fixed.
On 14 July 2013, the applicant could not start the vehicle and contacted the respondent. On 16 July 2013, the respondent directed the applicant to a service centre at Gorokan, where the vehicle apparently was road tested and provided with a roadworthy certificate for the purposes of registration.
On 23 July 2013, the applicant asserts he spoke to Nicole at the respondent's premises complaining that the LPG was still leaking.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant dated the application for these renewal proceedings on 13 July 2013, the day the vehicle had been returned to him by the respondent.
The Work Orders
On 6 June 2013, the respondent was ordered by the Tribunal to carry out specific work and to attend to the following:
(a) Ensure the front end of the vehicle is serviceable and the wheels are aligned.
(b) To repair any oil leak in the transfer case.
(c) To adjust the handbrake.
(d) To repair the blinkers and number plate light.
(e) To ensure that the LPG system does not leak and is safe for use.
In addition, the applicant was able to make any further warranty claims on the vehicle which existed up to and including 30 June 2013. In respect of those claims, the applicant included the following additional complaints to the respondent for rectification work as extended warranty claims:
(a) Investigate the engine light which remained "on".
(b) Replace the electronic mirror which was inoperable.
(c) Replace the bonnet struts.
(d) Fix the mirror (internal).
(e) Replace the headlight.
(f) Replace broken radio aerial.
The items referred to as "extended warranty claims" in paragraph 46 above were not part of the complaints subject to the work order in the proceedings, but were further complaints raised following the proceedings and within the extended warranty period ordered.
In respect of these items together with other work on the vehicle, the applicant asserts that he was required to expend the following additional amounts to render the vehicle operable:
(a) On Alan Ross as per invoice for investigation of the gas leak $66.00.
(b) A towing fee when the vehicle first broke down for $150.00 (previously complained of but not dealt with by the Tribunal).
(c) Estimated expenditure for replacing the catalytic converter, including parts, estimate ranging from $3,000.00 to $4,462.00.
(d) Installing a new resonator $90.00.
(e) Replacing new wheels and tyres $1,600.00.
(f) Replacing the battery $245.00.
(g) Replacing the right hand mirror $172.69.
(h) Taxi fare to and from the respondent's premises when the vehicle was not available $48.00 for collection.
(i) Gas repair in accordance with an invoice for $200.00.
Items (d), (e) and (f) above are disallowed in these proceedings as there was insufficient evidence produced to show whether these claimed warranty issues were in fact warranted or still defective or in fact repaired.
In addition to the above, the applicant sought recovery of an amount which he estimated at $870.00, being for a period of 10 months when the vehicle was not operable. The applicant had paid for registration and green slip insurance, but was unable to use the vehicle throughout that period and sought reimbursement of those registration and insurance costs, pro rata, for the period of non-use. The Tribunal disallows this particular claim as there is no satisfactory evidence provided for the amount claimed for the period alleged.
The applicant also sought recovery of the costs of the report from Mr Potts which he claimed he had been ordered by the Tribunal to provide and in respect of which he paid a sum of $1,600.00. This claim is dealt with later in these reasons.
The applicant claimed a sum estimated by him at $900.00 for additional travel costs incurred by him when he was unable to use the vehicle to drive to or from work. No satisfactory evidence of those travel costs was produced showing what amounts and to whom such amounts were paid or when and so this claim was also disallowed.
The total amount claimed by the applicant for these items was in a sum of approximately $8,800.00. The applicant abandoned any claim for further work to be completed by the respondent, as he had lost confidence in the respondent's ability to effect repairs and the applicant asked the Tribunal at the hearing to make a money order for compensatory damages.
The respondent for its part denied the orders had not been complied with, save for the warranty claim for the mirror which the applicant had caused to be replaced at this own expense. The respondent had apparently been unable to either fix the mirror or obtain the replacement part.
The largest item in dispute was the warranty claim arising from the continuing issue with the engine warning light and what caused it to remain "on". The applicant asserts that it was caused by failure of the catalytic converter which now needs to be replaced, and which will cost the applicant between $3,000.00 to $4,462.00. Two quotations were produced by the applicant in support of these amounts.
Mr Wall denied there was any problem with the catalytic converter under warranty, or that it was the responsibility of the respondent to repair or replace. The respondent on Mr Wall's oral evidence had attended to each of the items the subject of the work orders in the proceedings by using variously its own tradesman and contractors. It was Mr Wall's opinion that the applicants other claims under warranty were simply not made out.
Mr Wall also complained that the applicant had not provided the respondent with an opportunity to repair the catalytic converter, and if that claim were upheld, that the respondent ought to be given another opportunity to repair it.
In relation to the remaining warranty claims, Mr Wall asserted, and the applicant conceded, that the bonnet struts had been replaced and the headlight resealed. The applicant during the hearing abandoned any further complaints he may still have for alleged warranty repairs on the basis there were simply "too many" for him to be able to deal with or prove.
The Tribunal noted in this regard that the vehicle was almost 9 years old at the date of purchase with a significant number of kilometers on the odometer. The renewal proceedings were not an opportunity for the applicant to raise yet further alleged warranty issues not previously dealt with and having regard to the previous finding by the Tribunal in the proceedings that the vehicle was "was fit for purpose" within the meaning of the Australian Consumer Law.
As for the respondent, there was no additional documentary support for the work done or allegedly performed by the respondent. The witness, Mr Wall, although a licensed mechanic was not the person who carried out the work. He was the manager who had oversight of the issue on the respondent's behalf. Mr. Wall submitted that perhaps it might be appropriate for the respondent to investigate any further claims and the Tribunal might adjourn proceedings for that to occur. The Tribunal was not persuaded that the respondent, in all the circumstances, should be provided yet a further opportunity for investigation or repairs to the vehicle.
The applicant in evidence relied principally upon the report of Mr. Colin Potts. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Potts is a properly qualified expert within the requirements of the Tribunal's Practice Direction for the giving of evidence by such experts. Mr Potts was not called for cross examination by the respondent.
Mr Potts states in his report of 5 November 2013, that he inspected and road tested the applicant's vehicle and formed his conclusions accordingly. In his summary at page 10 of the report Mr Potts notes as follows:
"On the first day of usage of this vehicle front differential ceased to operate and was replaced by Friendlee Autos Pty Limited (invoice attached).
Vehicle having numerous problems that have not been fixed or attempted to be fixed.
Replaced catalytic muffler will have to be replaced again as it is too small. Whomever fitted this put an incorrect unit on it and it needs to be replaced ASAP or it will cause engine problems (overheating restricting exhaust gas outlet).
The engine management system is not operating.
Brake warning lights coming on.
Engine warning lights etc."
The expert report does not deal directly with each of the items the subject of the Tribunal's orders. The only exception is the reference to the catalytic converter needing to be replaced.
In relation to the catalytic converter, the applicant's evidence is contained also in the invoice from ELN Ford dated 7 November 2013 which sets out, inter alia as follows:
"The engine light is on due to the code PO430: catalytic system efficiency below threshold (bank 2). Catalytic converter will be required to be replaced. This could have been damaged by LPG fuel being used."
This evidence supports the applicant's complaint that the engine light remaining "on" was due to the faulty catalytic converter which needed to be replaced under the extended warranty and more probably than not was a defect existing at the time of purchase.
DECISION
Section 43 of the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001 is the source of jurisdiction for the Tribunal to deal with this renewal application by the applicant. It is useful to set out the relevant provisions as follows:
43 Enforcement of Certain Tribunal Orders
If the Tribunal makes an order in relation to any proceedings, the Tribunal may, when the order is made or later, give leave to the person in whose favour the order is made to renew the proceedings if the order is not complied with within the period specified by the Tribunal.
If an order has not been complied with within the period specified by the Tribunal, the person in whose favour the order was made may renew the proceedings to which the order relates by lodging a notice with the Tribunal, within 12 months after the end of the period, stating that the order has not been complied with.
The provisions of this Act apply to a notice lodged in accordance with Sub Section (2) as if the notice were an application made in accordance with Section 24.
When proceedings have been renewed in accordance with this Section, the Tribunal:
May make any other appropriate order under this Act as it could have made when the matter was originally determined or
May refuse to make such an order.
This Section does not apply if the operation of an order has been suspended.
A notice under this Section must be in the form prescribed by the Regulations.
The application was brought within time and in accordance with the prescribed notice, and the operation of the orders made on 6 June 2013 has not been suspended. It is open therefore to the Tribunal to make orders in accordance with the requirements of Sub Section (4) (a) or (b).
In presenting his case, the applicant sought in effect to re-run much of the evidence which was dealt with before the Tribunal in the proceedings. In the Tribunal's view, this renewal hearing is not an opportunity to re-run the whole case, particularly by revisiting matters already dealt with by the Tribunal.Much time was wasted in these proceedings as a consequence.
It is an opportunity however, for the applicant to have the Tribunal adjudicate on the issue of whether the orders made for work to be carried out, in this instance, by 30 June 2013 were in fact complied with by the respondent, and whether any other orders are now appropriate.
It is common ground that the orders were not complied with by the due date but in the Tribunal's view, nothing turns on that issue because the applicant effectively waived the deadline, allowing the respondent a further two weeks to complete the work. As the work had not been completed by 13 July 2013, the applicant sought renewal.
Based on the evidence of the applicant, and noting the lack of documentary evidence from the respondent, the Tribunal must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the work attempted by the respondent to comply with the orders was unsuccessful, or has failed to meet a reasonable standard of workmanship, or was not completed at all.
In that regard, and having carefully considered the evidence of the witnesses, the Tribunal is satisfied in respect of the work orders as follows:
(a) That the first order in relation to the front end of the vehicle being serviceable and the wheels aligned was complied with by the respondent;
(b) That the oil leak was repaired by the respondent;
(c) That although the handbrake may not have been correctly adjusted at the time by the respondent, no satisfactory evidence has been produced as to the work to be done or cost to the applicant of doing so or whether there is still a need to complete that task;
(d) That although the applicant asserts not all the vehicle's blinkers were repaired and the number plate light may not be working, the vehicle passed a registration test and again there is simply no satisfactory evidence the work was not completed;
(e) That the LPG system having been investigated by both the applicant and the respondent, the Tribunal is satisfied that the respondent has complied with the terms of that work order.
That leaves the further warranty claims for determination. The Tribunal is satisfied on the civil test that the applicant is entitled to be compensated for the following warranty items not completed by the respondent:
(a) Replacement mirror at a cost of $172.69.
(b) Investigation of the engine light which remained "on" after delivery of the vehicle by the respondent, and the cause for which on the applicant's evidence is the need to replace the catalytic converter at a cost which the Tribunal determines will be in the lower sum, estimated by the applicant at $3,000.00.
In respect of these two items therefore, in accordance with Section 43(4)(a) the Tribunal will make an order for the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $3,172.69.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant's submission and is satisfied in all the circumstances that it is not appropriate to make any further work orders.
In addition, the Tribunal is satisfied in the circumstances of this case that it further should make an order under Section 43(4)(a) for the following:
(a) The cost of the investigation incurred by the applicant and evidenced by the invoice of Mr Allan Ross in the sum of $66.00.
(b) The original towing fee of $150.00, which although not dealt with in the proceedings on 6 June 2013, in the Tribunal's view is a legitimate cost to the applicant for which he should be re-imbursed.
The Tribunal also will allow the applicant the following:
(a) The taxi fee of $48.00 for travelling to and from the respondent's premises when the vehicle was not available for collection on 30 June 2013.
(b) The gas repair paid for by the applicant in the sum of $200.00.
The total of all those items amounts to a sum of $3,636.69 and there will be a money order accordingly.
The applicant also claims the costs of the preparation of Mr Potts' report. The applicant understood that he was required to provide that report because of the directions made by the Tribunal on 18 October 2013.
Such an order is by way of direction only and does not require a party in a mandatory sense to produce an expert report. This order was misunderstood by the applicant.
The Tribunal has considered whether or not the substantial cost incurred by the applicant in producing the report in the sum of $1,600.00 ought to be re-imbursed.
There is no doubt that the evidence of Mr Potts has assisted the applicant in terms of the Tribunal's finding as to the warranty claim for the catalytic converter. In that regard the report was a significant factor in terms of the evidence taken into account and was not seriously challenged by the respondent.
Such reports however are usual in such proceedings and the Tribunal does not regard the obtaining of the mechanic's report as "exceptional" within the meaning of that term, as it is applied to costs' orders in the Tribunal.
Parties are encouraged to bring their cases in the Tribunal as efficiently and cheaply as possible, and howsoever they deem fit, without facing the threat of costs' orders against them other than in exceptional circumstances, and which might otherwise deter a party's willingness and ability to access affordable relief.
In the Tribunal's view, this is not such a case where a costs' order for the expert report should be made against the respondent, there being no exceptional circumstances which might warrant such an order.
The Tribunal has reviewed the submissions made by the parties as it must do in the context of these renewal proceedings to determine whether and to what extent its orders have been complied with, those orders having been made on 6 June 2013.
Other than for the reasons set out above as to the extended warranty claims, the Tribunal is not satisfied to the requisite standard of proof that the orders made on 6 June 2013 were not complied with by the respondent and those claims by the applicant will be dismissed.
There will be a money order under s 43(4) which the Tribunal now deems appropriate for those extended warranty claims successfully proved and not dealt with at the earlier hearing, but no orders for any further work to be completed by the respondent.
ORDERS
The respondent is to pay the applicant the total sum of $3,636.69 immediately.
The application is otherwise dismissed.
A McMurran
General Member
Civil & Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales
16 January 2014
I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
Registrar
**********
I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.
Registrar
Decision last updated: 16 May 2014
0
0
1