Kiwi_FF

Disputes tribunal ruling against AirNZ

This is the correct legal decision where flights were cancelled for convenience by AirNZ as I have contended for some time 😁

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/disput...JDE67ZZ5GL3J4/

Often1

Seems self-evident.

Remember that NZ was forced, early on, to refund all tickets to or from the US (under US law) and from the EU (under EU law). It seemed unfair that NZ consumers had to rely on other countries' laws in order to vindicate their consumer rights.

But, this is just one case. So, we shall see.

nzkarit

My understanding that Disputes Tribunals aren't case law, so their is no precedence set here.

cavemanzk

It’s more than New Zealand needs an law change, to further protect payments in advance of receiving service.

Despite all off our consumer laws in New Zealand, we don’t have any framework in place that protects people in an event like COVID. Where you have pre-paid for an service.

jawnbc

I rang my credit card company last week (ANZ) who said I needed to try and get a refund from Air NZ "first". So I just rang the reservations line and had them bring up our ostensibly non-refundable bookings (we were supposed to be diving on the GB reef this week). They still would not process a refund...so I'll head back to ANZ again and see if they will reverse the charges on our behalf.
There is no foreseeable way for us to use these credits in the next 12-24 months, so long as we are still managing isolation upon return to NZ. And with international travel insurance essentially being worthless with COVID19.

JamesBigglesworth

It seems that way only because you continue to repeat that misinformation, even after being told otherwise in other threads.

New Zealand law is very clear on how NZ should have acted and far more individual-consumer friendly than US or EU law. What it is *not* is geared towards mass event situations. If a business fails to deliver a service or cancels a contract unilaterally it *must* refund the consumers payment if the consumer will not accept an acceptable (to the consumer) alternative. This is covered very clearly in the Fair Trading Act and Consumer Guarantees Act, and attendant case law. NZ, as they have a consistent record of doing, simply ignored the law and rely on consumer ignorance, knowing full well that few individuals will know to take the case through the court system and that the Commerce Commission have little ability (Thanks for the staff cuts, National!) to prosecute large cases like this.


You understand correctly. My own case went through the DT route earlier in the year. It was very quick and simply, and I won. I would be extremely surprised if *anyone* could lose a case in this situation unless they were very unprepared and/or freaked out in the hearing.


True dat. At the beginning of this year I would have said I didn't think it was necessary for edge cases like this, but given how enthusiastically NZ flouted their ethical and legal duties, I am now in the camp of a small change to automatically cover this type of situation.