Thompson v Deeprossi Pty Ltd t/a Win Wholesale Cars
[2023] QCAT 50
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Thompson v Deeprossi Pty Ltd t/a Win Wholesale Cars & Anor [2023] QCAT 50
PARTIES:
Melanie thompson (applicant)
v
Deeprossi Pty Ltd t/as U Win wholesale Cars (first respondent)
Jaguar Land Rover australia Pty Ltd (second respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
MVL137-21
MATTER TYPE:
Motor vehicle matter
DELIVERED ON:
7 February 2023
HEARING DATE:
28 November 2022
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Member Goodman
ORDERS:
The first respondent is to pay the applicant $8,798.37 within one month of this decision.
CATCHWORDS:
TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – whether motor vehicle of acceptable quality – whether consumer able to reject vehicle where seller has not had fair opportunity to repair
Australian Consumer Law
Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld)
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld)
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
Ms Thompson was self represented
First Respondent:
Second Respondent: Mr D’Amico
Ms Gurney and Mr Dunn
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background:
The applicant purchased a motor vehicle from the first respondent on 6 April 2021. She still owns and drives the vehicle but is dissatisfied with it, and wishes to return it to the first respondent for a full refund.
The first respondent acknowledges that the vehicle has experienced some issues and says that it is willing to repair the vehicle.
The second respondent is the manufacturer of the vehicle. It says that it will alternatively accept responsibility for repairing all issues identified in the report of the independent assessor prepared for these proceedings, and will provide the applicant with a replacement car while repairs are carried out.
The applicant indicated at the outset of the proceedings that she was not willing to discuss possible settlement terms with the respondents, and asked that the Tribunal determine the application. She refuses to return the vehicle to the first or second respondent for repair.
Preliminary matters:
The second respondent in this matter, Jaguar Land Rover Australia Pty Ltd, is the manufacturer of the motor vehicle. The parties make multiple references in their submissions and evidence to repairs being carried out by “Land Rover”. That is a reference to South Brisbane Jaguar Land Rover, a separate business, which is described as an authorized retailer. For clarity in this decision, Jaguar Land Rover Australia Pty Ltd will be referred to as the second defendant, and South Brisbane Jaguar Land Rover will be referred to as the repairer. The repairer is not a party to these proceedings.
The applicant provided a version of events setting out her understanding of discussions between her husband and the first respondent. At the hearing she offered to ask her husband to provide evidence and it became apparent that her husband had been listening to the hearing from the start. The first respondent objected to the husband providing oral evidence when he had already heard her version of events. Ultimately, he did not provide oral or written evidence in these proceedings, although the Tribunal did not prevent him from doing so.
Agreed Facts and Chronology:
On 6 April 2021, the applicant purchased a 2017 Land Rover from the first defendant for $99,990 and paid stamp duty of $3,500. The total purchase price under the contract was $103,490. The odometer reading was 52,390 km.
The contract referenced the statutory warranties provided pursuant to Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld), which provided, in general terms:
(a)the warranty period started when the applicant took possession of the vehicle, and ended when either the vehicle had travelled 5000 kms or 3 months had expired;
(b)the first respondent guaranteed that the vehicle was free from defects at the time of taking possession and for the warranty period, and defects reported during the warranty period would be repaired free of charge;
(c)if the applicant believed the vehicle had a defect which the first respondent was obliged to repair, she must give written notice to the first defendant before the end of the warranty period, and deliver the vehicle to the first defendant, or a qualified repairer nominated in writing by the first defendant.
The purchase contract also contains a reference to the Australian Consumer Law’s consumer guarantees, with effect described as follows:
You are entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure and compensation for any other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage. You are also entitled to have the goods repaired or replaced if the goods fail to be of acceptable quality and the failure does not amount to a major failure.
THE APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE
The car has a strong fuel smell which was present almost immediately after she took possession.
On 8th April 2021, a mechanic from the RACQ confirmed he could smell the fumes and advised her to return the car to the dealership as it could be a serious issue.
On 9th April 2021, the first respondent requested that the car be returned for inspection.
On 12th April 2021 the car was returned to the first respondent where a salesman commented that he could smell diesel in the car. The mechanic was unable to find any diesel leaks and the salesman suggested that the car be taken to the repairer for a scheduled service and “to see if they could find the issue”.
On 15th April 2021 the car was taken to the repairer. A tax invoice from the repairer indicates that the applicant had complained of a strong smell of diesel, and smoke coming from the engine bay, which had been occurring for one week. The repairer found that LHS fuel lines were leaking. Following repairs, the car was collected on 30th April.
The smell of fumes continued, and on 5th May the car displayed an error message saying it would be shut down and it was towed to the repairer on advice from them. The repairer advised they had accidentally drained the battery when conducting the service and that issue was dealt with and the car was returned. They advised they could not find any further faults. A tax invoice from the repairer confirms work was carried out on the battery and other miscellaneous work done on 7 May 2021.
On 17th May, she noticed “smoke pouring out from under the bonnet and stinking of diesel”. RACQ advised that the car was not safe to drive and it was towed back to the repairer, who advised a week later that the smell was still there and very overpowering but they could not find the source of the leak. The repairer suggested the car was returned to the first respondent as it was still under statutory warranty, and the cost of repair would be significant.
She did not return the car to the first respondent as she believed the car had a “major fault” and she had had “nothing but issues from day one”. She determined that she wished to exercise her rights under statutory warranty and receive her money back.
On 2nd June she emailed the first respondent seeking a full refund. The first respondent refused, on the basis that it had a right to repair the car. The mechanic had a conversation with her husband. She understands that her husband was told that the car should be returned to the repairer as they had been paid to fix the issues in April.
On 4th June the car was towed to the repairer. On 8th June she received an email to say that they believed they had sorted the problem but when she collected the car on 23rd June she was told that they could not find the problem. The same issue with smoke from under the bonnet continued. A tax invoice dated 11 June 2021 from the repairer confirms that the applicant had complained of a diesel fuel smell. The document states
carried out overnight road-test and parked vehicle in garage overnight. Inspected vehicle in morning – no smell of fuel in garage or around bonnet area. Carried out 2nd overnight roadtest. Parked vehicle in garage overnight. Inspected vehicle in morning no smell evident. Inspected vehicle thoroughly after roadtests – no signs of any fuel leaks on high pressure or low pressure system. Checked around all injectors for any evidence of fuel – no signs at all. Slight odour of old fuel… appears to be lingering from previous fuel leaks
Her lawyer formally requesting a refund from the first respondent on 10 June 2021.
On 5th July she took the car to Executive Autocare who advised that there was an oil leak which would be expensive and time consuming to repair. I have been provided with a document from Executive Autocare stating “estimated time of sump cradle and front cover reseal 18 hrs + parts and consumables”.
She has no confidence that the car is able to be repaired, but no evidence to suggest that it cannot be.
THE FIRST RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
The vehicle was driven by a company executive from its time of purchase on 7 December 2020 (odometer 45,387) to the date it was sold (odometer 52,390) with no diesel or oil leaks or fumes evident.
The applicant test drove the vehicle after it had been driven from Coolangatta to Brisbane (approximately 1 hour 15 minutes) and she raised no issues with a fuel smell.
The roadworthy certificate dated 6 April 2021 does not mention leaks.
When the applicant reported diesel fumes around 8 April 2021, their mechanics could not find evidence of a leak. The applicant was advised to take the vehicle to the repairer for a service and to ask them to look it over.
The vehicle was presented to the repairer on 15 April 2021 (odometer 53,375), who advised of a leaking fuel line and recommended replacing all fuel lines and injectors. The first respondent advised they would complete that work themselves.
Around 16 April 2021, the first respondent sought information from the repairer so as to order the parts to complete the repair.
On around 20 April 2021, the applicant’s husband telephoned asking for an update, and was advised that the parts had not yet arrived. The following day, the applicant’s husband telephoned the first respondent, accusing their staff of lying about the parts not arriving and stating he did not trust the first respondent to fix the vehicle properly and that he wanted Land Rover to fix the vehicle. The applicant’s husband became aggressive and it was ultimately arranged between the business owner and the applicant’s husband that the car would be sent to the repairer.
The car was presented to the repairer on 22 April 2021 (odometer 53,385). The fuel line was replaced and it was cleaned and roadtested.
On 5 May 2021, the applicant returned the vehicle to the repairer with an issue with the battery and other matters. There are no notes to suggest the applicant was complaining of a fuel smell. An email sent by the applicant to the repairer on 6 May 2021 also does not mention any fuel smell.
On 18 May 2021, the repairer advised that the applicant had brought the car in again. The repairer carried out testing and confirmed they could smell the fuel and they believed the car was running rich and dumping raw fuel. The applicant collected the car and advised them that she would deal with the first respondent.
Around 2 June 2021, the applicant advised the first respondent via text message that she could see and smell fumes when the car was driven for more than 45 minutes. She requested contact was made with her husband to organize either a replacement car or a refund. The first respondent called the applicant’s husband and advised him to return the vehicle to the repairer.
About 4 June 2021, the applicant returned the car to the repairer (odometer 55,889). Testing was conducted, including a service technician driving it home and parking it in their garage overnight. A slight lingering smell was detected.
The applicant collected the vehicle from the repairer on 23 June 2021 (although it seems she was advised it was ready for collection on 8 June 2021).
On 14 July 2021, the first respondent received the QCAT application, attaching the tax invoice from Executive Autocare advising of no noticeable fuel, oil or boost related issues and estimating 18 hours (plus parts) would be required to fix an oil leak suspected to be timing cover or sump related. The repairer provided advice that the problem identified by Executive Autocare would take them approximately 8 hours to repair. There was no evidence as to when the problem arose.
By letter dated 19 July 2021, the first respondent wrote to the applicant’s solicitors advising that they had received advice that the oil leak, described as “another minor defect”, was likely to be fixed in under 8 hours, and requesting that the vehicle be delivered to the repairer for assessment and repairs. The first respondent describes this as a letter regarding statutory warranties. The applicant did not return the vehicle for repairs.
As the applicant continues to drive the vehicle, any defects cannot be major faults which could justify her claim for a refund. Vehicles of all ages have fuel or oil leaks at some point and are fixed in due course and do not constitute a major fault.
The first respondent has never refused to fix any defects on the vehicle.
OTHER MATTERS
In oral evidence, the applicant conceded that she was not involved in the conversation between the first respondent and her husband, and could not provide evidence that the first respondent had ever refused to repair the vehicle. She did not dispute the first respondent’s claim that the vehicle was sent to the repairer at the insistence of her husband.
On 6 December 2021, the applicant emailed the Tribunal listing difficulties she claimed to be experiencing with the vehicle in addition to the oil leak and “smoke diesel fumes”, including some of the steering wheel controls not working, front sensors not working, the RHS LED headlight not working, and difficulties opening the sunroof.
On 17 December 2021, the first respondent filed a second response, seeking orders from the Tribunal that the second respondent be liable if the car was found to have a major defect and be unable to be rectified OR the second respondent contribute an amount to be determined following “failure to fix the defect in the first instance and for any inherent issues that should not be showing in a vehicle of this caliber”. I do note that the second respondent has never been involved in the repair of the vehicle. The repairer is not a party to these proceedings.
On 14 December 2021, an independent assessor inspected the vehicle and prepared a report, stating that:
(a)Odometer reading was 61,706;
(b)Since 23 June 2021, neither the seller nor the repairer have had any dealings with the applicant;
(c)No oil leaks noted in the garage or driveway. Mist observed emitting from left front near headlight, also the pungent smell of diesel fuel. The interior of the vehicle has combined smell of diesel and nauseating normal smell of the type of upholstery in modern cars. Entire left side lighting not operating. During a road test, there was a continued smell of diesel. A number of defects were noted:
(i) Diesel leaks – the previous repair is substandard and not rectified. Likely cause is a leaking diesel fuel line. Possibly a latent defect with only a very slight leak at the time of purchase which was not obvious.
(ii) Oil leaks – previously identified but not repaired as the owner has not had further contact with the seller. Likely cause is a leaking rear main seal and possible turbo. Would have been present at the time of the roadworthy certificate but would not be seen as a fault due to there being no dripping or pooling of oil. If left unattended, it could continue to a point of severe leak which is then problematic rendering the vehicle unroadworthy.
(iii) Exhaust leak – not previously identified, requires rectifying. Likely cause is exhaust pipes not fully mated and incorrectly clamped. Would have been present at time of sale however could have been easily overlooked.
(iv) Numerous intermittent niggling electrical issues – require rectifying. Likely cause extremely hard to diagnose. Issues seem to have developed since the vehicle had a low battery on 7 May 2021.
(v) Diesel fumes mist like plumes from front of car just after starting – requires further investigation by landrover and urgent rectification. Likely cause the fuel pump pressure forces a spray from the hose when the car is first started. This issue was first noticed on 8 April 2021.
(vi) Toxic odour in the cabin – static and mobile. Once the diesel fume problem is correctly rectified, I believe this will alleviate much of the cabin issue – requires further attention. Likely cause is fresh diesel odour being drawn though the outside venting system following through the air conditioning.
(vii) To rectify the oil leaks the engine would require a thorough clean and be required to remain in the workshop for some time. Once the exact locations are identified, costing could be estimated. It appears most repairs range between $2,000 - $4,000. The independent workshop quoted 18 hours to correct, while the repairer quoted 8.
(viii) The electrical issues are very time consuming and extremely hard to trace.
The independent assessor’s report concludes that:
(a)overall the vehicle is strong but plagued by numerous minor defects. The most troublesome is that no one has corrected the first issue, “the fuel leak and other consequential symptoms”;
(b)should the fuel leak not be effectively repaired or the leaking rear main seal be left unattended they will develop into major defects and render the vehicle unroadworthy;
(c)fumes entering the cabin can cause nausea or drowsiness when driving long distance therefore creates serious and dangerous issues. Should the fuel line fail as in the first instance and develop a spray of any fuel into the engine bay, the vehicle should be shut down immediately and towed.
On 3 February 2022, the first respondent filed an application with the Tribunal seeking a direction that the vehicle be delivered to the repairer for inspection. They submitted that the repairer didn’t believe the required repair was significant, and if the repairer provided a written quote in line with verbal discussions, they would provide the applicant with a refund of $99,990. The applicant responded by letter dated 16 February 2022 that the repairer has had numerous opportunities to fix the vehicle and had handed it back to her with issues unresolved. She states “I will not be taking the vehicle to [the repairer] or any other mechanics from this point on”.
On 14 February 2022, a co-owner of the first respondent emailed the applicant offering to personally buy the vehicle back for $95,000 and attend to any necessary repairs herself.
On 17 February 2022, the first respondent filed an application seeking a direction from the Tribunal that the applicant attend a mediation with them, stating “the respondent is prepared to pay $99,990 as requested by applicant in order to settle this matter entirely”. By letter dated 14 March 2022, the applicant rejected the offer to attend mediation, saying that she had rejected the offer to buy back the car as it was subject to the car being in the same condition as a year age, and also rejected the offer for the owner’s wife to purchase the vehicle at a reduced price, as “I want a full refund of $99,990”.
On 24 March 2022, the Tribunal issued directions refusing the application for mediation as it appeared that an unqualified offer of settlement at $99,990 had been made, which is the sum the applicant sought.
By email dated 28 March 2022, the applicant advised the Tribunal that the independent assessor’s report outlined all issues with the vehicle, and noted that issues required urgent rectification. She states
although report states the issues are minor defects as at the time of the report 14 December 2021 it also mentions that should the fuel leak not be effectively repaired or the leaking main seal left unattended, they will develop into major defects and render the vehicle unroadworthy…I can confirm that since the date of this report the issues in the vehicle are progressively getting worse and as per the independent report it states the vehicle should be shut down immediately and towed.
By email received 28 March 2022, the first respondent provided submissions to the Tribunal withdrawing previous offers to buy back the vehicle. The first respondent points out that the independent assessor concludes “Overall the vehicle is strong but plagued by numerous minor defects”. The first respondent submits that there is no mention of any major defects, but minor defects which could develop into major defects should they not be fixed. The first respondent states “At no stage have we ever denied trying to fix any minor defects relating to the vehicle. Should the Tribunal order, we are prepared to send this vehicle to any local Jaguar Land Rover Dealership that has the soonest availability to fix the vehicle. Should the Tribunal order that Jaguar Land Rover is unlikely to be able to fix the issue we are still of the opinion that this is due to a manufacturing fault, and we maintain that Jaguar Land Rover should be liable for the difference in value.”
The first respondent raised concerns that the applicant had continued to refuse to allow them to repair the vehicle, and had continued to drive the vehicle even after receiving the report from the independent assessor, and knowing that driving it without repair could cause further damage.
It is agreed that neither respondent nor the repairer has been given the opportunity to repair the car since 23 June 2021, and that the applicant has refused an offer to have a different repairer fix the problems. The first respondent states that the only problem they have ever been given the opportunity to deal with is the fuel smell. Other issues have arisen since. The applicant says that she has not taken any steps to repair the car herself as she has been waiting for the outcome of these proceedings.
THE SECOND RESPONDENT
The second respondent submitted that there remained (as at the time of the independent assessor’s report) an opportunity to repair the vehicle. If the Tribunal finds that the car is not of acceptable quality, the second respondent submitted that it should be given the opportunity to repair the vehicle. Further, even if the car is found to be of acceptable quality, the second respondent submits that it should be given the opportunity to repair the vehicle, including all issues identified in the independent assessor’s report.
THE RELEVANT LAW:
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld), Schedule 1
Schedule 1 of the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) sets out the Statutory warranty provisions. For those provisions to apply, the buyer must give written notice of the defect before the end of the warranty period and deliver the car to the warrantor’s place of business for repair. The buyer is taken to deliver the vehicle and the warrantor is taken to have possession of the vehicle if the buyer makes reasonable efforts to deliver the vehicle under this section but is unable to do so because the warrantor, or the qualified repairer nominated by the warrantor, refuses to accept delivery of the vehicle.
The applicant engaged a solicitor who wrote to the first respondent on 10 June 2021, referencing the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) and submitting that:
(a)the first respondent is required to warrant that the car is free from defects for a period of three months;
(b)the applicant sent a defect notice in compliance with schedule 1 s 9(1);
(c)the car was delivered to the first respondent for repair on 12 April and pursuant to schedule 1 s 12(3), the repairer was nominated to complete the repairs;
(d)the first respondent was given an opportunity to repair the vehicle in compliance with schedule 1 s 12(2), and failed to repair the defect within 14 days;
(e)the applicant is entitled to a refund pursuant to schedule 1 Division 3; and
(f)the applicant is entitled to a remedy as provided for in schedule 1 s 15.
I am not satisfied that the first respondent has been given a proper opportunity to repair the vehicle. The first respondent has remained at all times willing to undertake repairs on the vehicle, or arrange for such repairs to be completed by a third party. The applicant has however refused to return the vehicle for repair, in breach of her obligations. Accordingly, there is no remedy available to the applicant pursuant to the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld).
AUSTRALIAN CONSUMER LAW (ACL)
50A of Schedule 2 Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) provides that the Tribunal has jurisdiction in relation to motor vehicle matters where an application is brought under a relevant provision of the Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) against a supplier or manufacturer for failure to comply with statutory guarantees, and no more than $100,000 is sought.
The tribunal may make only the following orders—
(a) require a party to pay a stated amount to another person;
(b) an order that a stated amount is not owing by the applicant or by any party to the proceeding to the applicant;
(c) an order requiring a party to the proceeding, other than the applicant, to perform work to rectify a defect in goods;
(d) an order requiring a party to the proceeding to return goods to a stated person; or
(e) an order combining 2 or more of the above orders.
The ACL provides that, in relevant terms, the motor vehicle is guaranteed to be of acceptable quality (s 54). However, goods do not fail to be of acceptable quality if the consumer causes them to become of unacceptable quality or fails to take reasonable steps to prevent them from becoming of unacceptable quality (s 54(6)).
The parties do not dispute that the motor vehicle experienced issues and required repair in the months following the sale, and that, therefore, there has been a breach in the consumer guarantees. The first and second respondents have both offered to remedy those issues.
The applicant seeks a refund of the purchase price. Her rights to a refund are governed by s 259 (3) of the ACL which provides that she may reject the goods and choose a refund or replacement in the event of a “major failure”.
“Major failure” is defined (s 260) to include circumstances where the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure, or are unsafe.
There is insufficient evidence to satisfy me that the motor vehicle experienced a major failure up to the date of the independent assessor’s report in December 2021. I accept the independent assessor’s evidence that overall the vehicle was strong but plagued by numerous minor defects. The difficulty is that neither the first nor the second respondent had been provided with a reasonable opportunity to repair the vehicle. The first respondent provided evidence that the repairs could have been quickly and successfully undertaken if they had access to the vehicle. That access was denied.
The applicant has continued to drive the motor vehicle despite her protestations that there has been a major failure, and the indication by the independent assessor that to do so would be likely to cause further damage. Her mechanic records an odometer reading of 70,546 as at 21 September 2022. That is over 18,000 kms since acquiring the vehicle. She has refused to allow either the first or the second respondent the opportunity to repair it. There is no evidence that she has caused an alternative mechanic to conduct repairs.
The ACL provides remedies in the event that there is not major failure, and the supplier does not remedy the failure with a reasonable time (s 259 (2)(b)(ii)). I find that the supplier has not been provided with a reasonable opportunity to repair the vehicle, and so this provision is not applicable.
The ACL provides further that there is a guarantee that the manufacturer of the goods will take reasonable action to ensure that facilities for the repair of the goods, and parts for the goods, are reasonably available for a reasonable period after the goods are supplied (s 59(2)). Once again, the manufacturer has indicated a willingness to repair any defects and the applicant has refused the offer.
It is clear, and is not disputed, that the motor vehicle has experienced some problems which required rectification. I am concerned that any order directing either the first or second respondent to repair the motor vehicle would be unworkable. Both parties have continuously offered to repair the motor vehicle and the applicant has refused to make it available to them.
This is the applicant’s application, and it is her responsibility to provide evidence to support her application. I have no evidence that the motor vehicle is unrepairable. The parties were directed to provide to the Tribunal evidence as to the cost of rectifying the defects identified in the report of the independent assessor.
On 1 November 2022, the first respondent provided a quote of $8,798.37 to repair the vehicle.
The applicant provided a document dated 3 January 2022 but received 4 November 2022 in which she submits that the quote from the first respondent does not include all of the issues raised in the report of the independent assessor. She attaches a document from MR Automative dated 21 September 2022 stating “Unfortunately due to the age and complexity of this vehicle we are currently unable to perform any diagnostics. Recommend owner takes vehicle to dealer for further diagnostics and repair”.
The applicant states “presenting the vehicle again to JLR to rectify will not fix the issues and no other mechanic is willing to take on the complexity of the issues that have been identified in December…which leaves me to request a full refund for the purchase price…”
There is no evidence to establish that no other mechanic is willing to repair the motor vehicle. There is evidence only that one mechanic is unable to perform diagnostics and recommended that the dealer complete any necessary repairs. There is no evidence that the first/second respondents are unable to complete the repair (they say they are able to) but it is common ground that the applicant has refused to allow them the opportunity to do so.
On balance, I am satisfied that the motor vehicle required repair within a short period of its purchase, and so it did not comply with the guarantee. The first respondent is obligated to meet the cost of such repairs. It may be that further damage has been caused by continued use of the motor vehicle, and failure to rectify the defects promptly, but I have no independent evidence of that. In any event, any further damage is the responsibility of the applicant, who was advised and invited to return the vehicle for repair and has refused to do so. The statutory guarantee does not extend to damage caused by the applicant’s actions.
The only evidence I have as to the cost of repair is the evidence from the first respondent. That is the evidence that I accept.
The first respondent will be ordered to pay the applicant $8,798.37 within one month of this decision.
0
0
0