It is very difficult to overturn a Disputes Tribunal decision.
#8 summarises the only statutory grounds for appealing.
And there is case law which says the Disputes Tribunal getting the law wrong is not grounds for appeal.
sw20,
Aug 19, 11:22am
I'm more amazed that Bruce Campbell lives in Marton of all places!
I wonder if he has his chainsaw still?
mm12345,
Aug 19, 11:35am
Nope - not an ADR. A long obsolete 1980 EC rule was referenced on Ford NZ Website. Ford Australia didn't state economy figures on their website. But they seemed to be advising motoring journalists that economy was 7.7l/100km: http://www.carshowroom.com.au/reviews/ford-kuga-review-and-road-test/
kevymtnz,
Aug 19, 12:25pm
9.4 sounds right infact pretty good anything under 9 i would consider pushing it and 7.7 i would know this would be very impossible at 1700kgs tribunal has it right and will follow the law as it states
kenw1,
Aug 19, 7:19pm
From the dept of Justice site.
Referees are not Judges, but any order they make is a binding order of the District Court.
kazbanz,
Aug 19, 8:14pm
mm12345 Im no fanboy for new ford but this does need correcting. The crux of the case is that SALES STAFF at a single ford dealership used the wrong fuel efficiency figures. They also used the figures supplied incorrectly. So basicly the devil was very much in the detail.
tamarillo,
Aug 19, 8:31pm
the context of which is that any fines or rulings they make are the enforced by the district court as the tribunal has no jurisdiction to do so itself. It does NOT mean district court has to agree with them, indeed NO law makes a courts/tribunals decision binding on the higher one, a higher court may always overturn a lower court. As to arguement about whether the SCT is a court, let's not get tied up in that. Point is that it's relatively easy to get it to district court. Precedent is when a courts ruling can be used in other similar claims to reach a verdict. Tribunal cases cannot be legal precedent.
tamarillo,
Aug 19, 8:43pm
What carp. How do you know it's impossible? Bet someone who knew about economy driving could do it. Time and time again the official figures have been proved low, but achievable under NOT usual day to day driving. There is a lot of talk about changing the test cycle to make it more realistic, which is good discussion. Indeed it's so silly that car makers are designing cars (gearing especially) to achieve better figures on the official cycle. And everywhere we look at makes it clear they are for comparative use only, and that is what they are very useful for. The dealer denies flatly that they told the buyer they would get the 7.7. Telling him it might get better is true, that's usually the case. So it was dealers word against punters. Frankly if punter is stupid enough to believe they would automatically get 7.7 no matter where, and how they drove, they're stupid, and jp should have thrown it out.
3tomany,
Aug 19, 8:47pm
would love to know what he found to trade it on that had better fuel economy. My dad has a 1.6 ecoboost one of these and the most amazing thing about it is how fuel efficient it is, for a relatively sizable 4x4
tamarillo,
Aug 19, 8:47pm
Seems not Kaz. We've had it confirmed that on new car it's automatically supplied as per maker official results. So proper results were shown. Salesperson denies promising buyer anything about it, so that claim is unproven. I'm struggling to think a new car salesperson would promise a buyer they'd personally get the official cycle figure. Surely they know most buyers would know they're full of shit and it would put them off dealing!
tamarillo,
Aug 19, 8:50pm
Mm I think your very wrong. They use internationally agreed and credited cycle. They do it once for a world wide figure, of course they don't do it here. Doubt very much ford would use an illegal one.
tamarillo,
Aug 19, 8:54pm
Well said! The 2002 Volvo v70 2.4T wagon I'm using is a wee bit less economical than the commodore VF Calais v8 6 litre wagon I had for a year!
mm12345,
Aug 19, 8:57pm
No they didn't. They used the same bullsh*t figure that Ford NZ were advertising at the time - and had supplied them. If a "mistake" was made, then it was about the dealer "validating" the claim to the buyer. That's probably impossible to "prove" as there wouldn't have been any witnesses, but the burden of proof in such a case isn't "beyond reasonable doubt" but "on the balance of probability". The window sticker and/or confirmation that the economy was stated at 7.7l/100km "by mistake", and the owner's records showing such a large discrepancy, then I don't think there's any doubt that the claimant would win. Whether the claimant was being 100% honest about his expectations - is not for us to argue. So Ford NZ stated economy as 9.4l/100km (coincidentally the EPA figure they use for the equivalent model in the US). Ford UK Website still lists the equivalent at 7.7l/100km, with no reference to EU standard. Google customer reviews about the Kuga in the UK, and you'll find a lot complaining about the fuel economy being a major disappointment.
We all know that economy figures are "ambitious" and should be taken with a grain of salt. IMO Ford - and not just Ford NZ - went way beyond the boundary. Not a "mistake" - they knew how it went in the EPA test cycle - not even close to what they wanted people to think.
If something seems too good to be true - it probably is.
Particularly with that vehicle, AWD of pretty good size, with pretty damned good performance, and fully featured, 7.7l/100km is a remarkably good figure. I'd bet that the buyer in this case wasn't the only one enticed by the economy figure stated by Ford NZ.
mm12345,
Aug 19, 9:03pm
Well I can show you that without doubt I'm not wrong.
That's from the archived 2014 Ford NZ website. The "standard" used is stated - and it's exactly what I said, a long obsolete 1980 EC one.
tamarillo,
Aug 19, 9:14pm
The directive is not the cycle used to achieve the figure, it's the eu ruling around making manufactures do and show the result. And I can't see why you thinks it's obsolete. This is ford of Europe.
tamarillo,
Aug 19, 9:17pm
Mm States; So Ford NZ stated economy as 9.4l/100km (coincidentally the EPA figure they use for the equivalent model in the US). Ford UK Website still lists the equivalent at 7.7l/100km, with no reference to EU standard. Google customer reviews about the Kuga in the UK, and you'll find a lot complaining about the fuel economy being a major disappointment.
I think we've established that the rating if that model was 7.7. The bit about other figures is confusing I agree, but the same model now is a 2 litre. I feel the jp got lost.
richardmayes,
Aug 19, 9:22pm
Yes - 7.7L per 100km. It doesn't matter if you commute to the Palmy CBD every day, putting the boot in and passing everybody at 130km/h all the way there; or whether you cruise on down the line to Foxton a couple of times a week at 95km/h. Or maybe using it to tow a trailer around the farm feeding out hay bales. THEY TOLD YOU your car will get 7.7L/100km, guaranteed; and if it doesn't, then that is some malignant b-starred's FAULT.
Because the real world, in all its infinite variability, must always conform to an estimated average given on a piece of paper somewhere.
I had a friend who was a bit like that, she was adament her car could go 500km on a tank of gas, so every time she filled her car up, she reset the trip odometer to zero. and any time she ran out of gas at 485km, she was as perplexed as she was the last time that that happened.
kazbanz,
Aug 19, 9:28pm
mm-I think you are missing the point. The vehicle rejection was upheld for a reason. That reason was that the sales staff did not use the correct fuel efficiency figures.
mopsy3,
Aug 19, 9:35pm
Let me guess. You don't like Fords.
captaink,
Aug 19, 9:49pm
Ha Ha . I suspect she was blonde and a schoolteacher!
richardmayes,
Aug 19, 9:51pm
MM - surely you need to know what that test procedure involves, to be able to say whether it is a good test or not?
If the testing procedure was valid in 1980, for all we know it might be a perfectly good test and results obtained using the same test in 2015 might be reasonable.
tamarillo,
Aug 19, 11:23pm
That debatable. sales person insists they did not tell buyer that, certainly no guarantee. Seems this is the salient point - not whether the figure is realistic but that buyer insist they were told the would get that whereas sales person insists they did no such thing. JP decided in buyers favour.
brapbrap8,
Aug 20, 1:32am
My 2014 Lancer GSR claims 7.3L, I have averaged 7.5L over 25,000km so far, which I think is excellent considering the roads I usually drive are not exactly motorways. Recorded 5.8L/100km on one trip on nice roads which amazed me and can get in the low 6s if I try and drive efficiently.
My 2012 Triton has averaged 8.3L/100km over 90,000km which is exactly what Mitsubishi claim, considering I do a bit of towing and off roading too, it would easily beat Mitsubishis claims in better conditions.
My dad had a VE calais V8 AFM and got about 8.5L/100km on longer trips or about 11L around town etc.
His new 3L TDI Audi wagon claims 7L/100km I think, and he is getting about 6.2L/100km which is great for a 2 ton 4x4 that he drives fairly hard too.
tamarillo,
Aug 20, 2:01am
Family of smooth drivers
bwg11,
Sep 21, 9:07am
sw20 wrote: I'm more amazed that Bruce Campbell lives in Marton of all places!
I wonder if he has his chainsaw still?[/quote
But I bet his name is on many salesperson notepads - avoid at your peril.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.