Engine problems and an odometer reading dispute has seen a Napier-based commercial vehicle dealership in trouble with the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal for “misleading conduct”.
Truck dealership Kobe Export was ordered to pay just over $54,000 to complainant Evan Ball in a recent MVDT ruling.
Ball bought a 2010 Toyota Dyna truck from the company in March, 2017, with just 32,335 kilometres on its odometer for $49,900.
He intended to use the truck as his family vehicle and attached a slide on camper for family trips and camping.
Ball noticed the vehicle was overheating in June that year and it was assessed by Energy & Marine Service Centre who found no fault with the vehicle.
About four days later the vehicle overheated again and it was then assessed by Truck Stops NZ which found the vehicle had combustion gases in the cooling system, damage to three cylinders and head gasket failure.
According to a tribunal assessor, the engine’s condition suggests it has travelled “at least 200,000 kms”.
Kobe Export had refused to fix the damage, alleging the engine damage was caused by Ball’s use of the vehicle and that the slide on camper was not properly attached, creating drag and causing the vehicle’s engine to overheat.
It also suggests Ball is an inexperienced truck driver, and his driving of the vehicle may have contributed to the damage.
It also claimed no obligation to repair the vehicle as Ball is not a consumer for the purposes of the Consumer Guarantees Act because the vehicle is not of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use.
The tribunal rejected the dealer’s claims and ruled a “reasonable consumer would not expect a vehicle of this price, age and mileage to have a significant pre-existing fault with its engine, that will require the engine to be replaced”.
It ruled Ball “suffered significant loss as a result of this misleading conduct” and was entitled to a full refund.
“I am therefore satisfied that the vehicle was not of acceptable quality when it was sold to Mr Ball. It had a significant fault with its engine and Mr Ball’s use of the vehicle did not cause or contribute to that fault,” adjudicator Brett Carter says.
