Charges against Noel Leeming over alleged Consumer Guarantees Act breaches

Friday, 27 April 2018

The charges were laid after the commission warned Noel Leeming on three different occasions.

The Commerce Commission is taking legal action against Noel Leeming, alleging it misled customers about policies on faulty goods.

The commission has laid nine charges against the retailer under the Fair Trading Act.

This follows an investigation into complaints about Noel Leeming alleging customers were misled about the right to seek remedies for faulty goods, the right to refund a faulty product, and the right to replace a faulty good.

The complainants bought, or were going to buy, items such as mobile phones, laptops and household appliances.

The charges relate to complaints at eight Noel Leeming stores between 2015 and January 2017.

* Opinion: Customers should not be afraid to stand up for their rights**

Each charge relates to a different complaint, which occurred at eight Noel Leeming stores between September 2015 and January 2017.

Since 2007, the commission has issued three warnings or compliance advice letters to Noel Leeming.

Noel Leeming sells consumer electronics through 77 stores around the country. It is a subsidiary of The Warehouse Group.

A spokeswoman for The Warehouse Group said the company was 'disappointed' by the commission's decision, as it came 'without the opportunity to investigate or discuss the complaints'.

'We take our compliance responsibilities seriously and we want to do the right thing by our customers.

'As the matter is before the court, we won't be making further comments.'

The charges were laid under the Fair Trading Act, as it would be a breach of that act to mislead consumers about their rights under the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA).

Consumer NZ head of research Jessica Wilson said when a product was not of acceptable quality, the consumer had the right to ask the retailer to put things right.

If the fault was minor, the retailer could choose to repair the product, replace it or give the customer a refund, Wilson said.

But, if it was a major fault, the customer could choose whether they wanted a refund or a replacement.

If a consumer chooses a refund, the retailer must provide a full refund of the purchase price.

McVeagh Fleming consumer lawyer Craig Andrews said although there is no time limit for consumers to ask for a refund or remedy for a faulty product, a product's life expectancy was taken into account.

The case will be heard in Auckland District Court on May 29.