Welcome to the first Need-To-Know Update. No images? Click here Welcome to our final update for 2020You’ll find out about a useful new portal designed for traders to pick up handy information essential to the trade, a reminder about compliance obligations on determinations and a few interesting rulings at the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal that have come through recently. Motor vehicle trader portal launched on RightcarThe trader section of the Rightcar website has been relaunched with a range of resources to help you with day-to-day business compliance for importing and selling vehicles. Reminder to motor vehicle traders - Parties must comply with Dispute Resolution decisionsSince the beginning of 2018, the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Traders has needed to inform seven different businesses that they were banned from motor vehicle trading because those businesses did not comply with Motor Vehicle Dispute Tribunal orders. As a motor vehicle trader, you must comply with orders made by the Tribunal. If you fail to comply with an order more than once in ten years, you are automatically banned from having anything to do with motor vehicle trading. If a company is banned, any directors that were concerned in management during the relevant time are also banned as individuals. What being a "banned trader" meansBeing banned from participating in motor vehicle trading is more than being unable to register as a trader. If you are banned, you must not participate in any way in the business of motor vehicle trading. For example, you cannot be employed as a salesperson at a car yard or be a shareholder of a company that is a motor vehicle trader. If you are banned, your details are published online for anyone to see. This is to ensure consumers can easily identify banned traders when purchasing a vehicle. How to avoid a banAvoid delays Don’t leave compliance to the last minute. Usually a Tribunal order will have a date by when it must be complied with. The due date is part of the order and must be adhered to. Communicate Make sure the Tribunal and the purchaser have your correct contact details. If there is a reason why you may not be able to comply with an order in time (e.g. your company is being put into liquidation or you do not have the bank account details for a payment), let all parties concerned know, especially the purchaser. If you have a genuine reason for being unable to comply with a Tribunal order by the due date (e.g. there has been a delay in sourcing parts for repairs, or the repairs are particularly time consuming or technical), tell the purchaser. If possible, try to reach an agreement with the purchaser as to when those repairs will be completed. Pay court costs An order to pay costs to the Crown is still a Tribunal order. Recent determinationsPractice of modifying charging cables was deemed not of acceptable quality – Trader to pay compensation and costsThis case involves a 2015 Nissan Leaf X, which was purchased from Autowest Limited in early 2019, with the purchaser claiming the vehicle was not of acceptable quality on a few counts. The purchaser claimed that modifications made to the charging cable made the vehicle unsafe, that component parts promised were not delivered and the 12 volt battery needed to be replaced within six months of purchase, when the trader had provided a 12 month warranty for that battery. Following a hearing the purchaser was successful with the claim on all counts with the trader ordered to compensate the purchaser for the cost of replacing the charging cable and 12 volt battery and also ordered to pay costs for failing to attend the hearing. Read more about the determination. Bell v Autowest Ltd - Reference No. MVD 427/2019 [2020]
NZMVDT 31 (2 March 2020) - Motor Vehicles Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand Expected fitness and range of an electric vehicle (EV) battery - a challenge traders faceThis determination went in favour of the trader and is presented to show the challenges vehicle dealers face when representing the state of health and expected range of an EV’s battery. Following the purchase of a 2012 Nissan Leaf electric vehicle from Z Motors Limited the purchaser wanted a full refund claiming the trader overstated the vehicle’s range at the time of sale and claimed that the vehicle was not of acceptable quality because its range was inadequate. The ruling found that within normal parameters batteries in electric vehicles degrade over time, affecting the vehicle’s range (the distance the vehicle can be driven before its batteries require charging). Because vehicle’s range could vary depending on several external factors, the vehicle charging gauge reading and documentation Z motors provided, the purchaser has not proven that the vehicle’s range is less than a reasonable consumer would expect. Read more about the determination. Gribble v Z Motors Ltd - Reference No. MVD 287/2019 [2019] NZMVDT 265 (6 December 2019) - Motor Vehicles Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand |