Diana Clement: Ripped off? Here's how to get justice

My King Country cousin Rick has a bee in his bonnet about his 100,000km Ford warranty. A Ford man all his adult life, Rick buys a big new gas-guzzler every couple of years. The last two have been plagued with brake shudder.

When he put in a warranty claim for the latest problem, Rick got a surprise. The $100 repair wasn't covered because it was viewed by Ford as "wear and tear". His argument is that brakes should last well in excess of 100,000km before needing repair.

The bill for the XR6 brake repairs isn't going to bankrupt him. But he is clearly from the same gene pool as myself because he's not going to let it go on principle.

Ford's New Zealand boss was already acquainted with Rick's complaint when I called which, a spokesman pointed out, showed the company listened to its customers. It's not, however, going to pay.

Persistence of this nature does work sometimes. I read that the most persistent of Bridgecorp investors were repaid in the period running up to the demise of the company.

I have my own lesser story of persistence against a medical insurer when I was doing my OE - although the same thing could happen here. I wanted to be treated at an osteopathic school just down the road from work, rather than travelling across town, and I phoned to ask if this was okay.

The answer was "yes" because the students were supervised by registered osteopaths known to the insurance company.

Then after I'd spent £300 (a fraction of what it would have cost the insurance company at a regular clinic), the company declined the claim because the school wasn't on its list of approved osteopaths.

Like Rick, I pursued the company relentlessly, demanding repeatedly a copy of the recorded conversation giving me the go-ahead for treatment - which had been "lost", surprise, surprise. On the eve of my complaint going to the ombudsman, the insurance company finally relented and paid out.

I would have failed, however, if I hadn't kept names of staff, dates and times - for what at the time seemed a routine claim.

Whether it's an insurance claim, house sale, car warranty or investment, it's worth complaining if you feel you have been treated shoddily or ripped off. Beware, however, it can be a very long process.

In most cases it's essential to complain to the offending company first, which will almost always have an internal complaints procedure. Many industries are required to by law.

You can't complain to official bodies such as the Banking or Insurance & Savings Ombudsmen without going through the company channels first.

The ombudsmen aren't the only official bodies to make complaints about financial services companies.

The Government has passed legislation in the past few years making the complaints process for consumers easier.

For example, up until November it sometimes seemed almost pointless to complain about a real estate agent, because at best they got a slap on the hand from their own industry body, the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand.

Complaints are now heard by the independent Real Estate Agents' Authority, which was established after the Real Estate Agents Act 2008.

Although not an everyday occurrence, agents can and do pull swift ones on members of the public that can cost them tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. In rare instances, for example, agents have suggested the value of a property was far lower than its real value, then either bought it themselves or sold it to someone they know.

Another step in the right direction for consumers with complaints is the Financial Services Providers (Registration and Disputes Resolution) Act 2008. From December this year it will require financial service providers delivering services to the public to be registered with the Companies Office and belong to a complaints resolution service.

Professionals covered under the act include banks, finance companies, insurance companies and financial advisers, credit unions, mortgage brokers and all money lenders.

Unlike insurance and banking, there will not be a single ombudsman. Financial advisers and other companies will be able to choose their disputes resolution service - some of which will be commercial organisations. So far two have been approved:

Financial Services Complaints Ltd and

The Insurance & Savings Ombudsman.

Consumers can also complain to the Commerce Commission, Securities Commission or Serious Fraud Office, where relevant. But unlike the ombudsmen, these organisations investigate only hand-picked complaints in areas they have current concern about. Some of these functions will come under the Government's new super regulator from next year.

I feel the public would get a better deal if they named offenders. There's nothing like being named to shame a financial provider into better behaviour. Having said that, the Real Estate Agents Authority has started naming salespeople and agencies that it determines have been involvedin unsatisfactory conduct.

Another act making it easier for consumers to complain is the Unit Titles Act, which means that unit owners can take the body corporate to the Tenancy Tribunal for disputes of up to $50,000. In the past many owners simply didn't bother as it was too expensive and time-consuming to go through the courts.

In some, but not all cases, it's possible to take complaints further than the ombudsmen or dispute resolution services and go to the courts. They include the disputes tribunal, for claims of up to $15,000, and the district and high courts.

Or you can try more unusual direct routes like Rick. Companies don't like to see themselves in the media for consumer complaints. You just need to watch Fair Go to see how many pay up as soon as Kevin Milne or his associates get on the phone.

It's also worth finding out what industry bodies your professional belongs to if you want to find new avenues for a complaint. If your complaint is about a lawyer, for example, you can go to the New Zealand Law Society Lawyers Complaint Service.

If you're not sure whom to complain to, try calling your local Citizens Advice Bureau, checking out the How to Complain section on the Ministry of Consumer Affairs website.

It's important to be prompt as many complaint services have a time limit. The Lawyers Complaint Service limit, for example, is two years.

Not all complaints are justified. Some people experience a heightened sense of entitlement or are used to getting their own way come what may.

A classic case is complaint number 114019 on the Insurance Ombudsman's database, which was investigated last year. In that case the complainant phoned his insurance company to increase the sum insured by $50,000 for contents and farm equipment. Lo and behold, he claimed that the property was flooded that very day.

He might have got away with it. But by pure luck the insurance company got hold of an aerial photograph taken by the regional council at 4.23pm on the day of the flood. The insurance company's telephone system recorded that the call to increase the sum insured had been made at 4.24pm.

The insurance company declined the entire claim, not just the amount that would have fallen under the increased sum insured, because the claim had been "tainted" by false statements.

Another example was complaint 108772 by a person who claimed for total permanent disablement, but was subsequently observed playing competitive golf. He told the ombudsman in his complaint about the claim being declined that he was "blessed with a lot of natural talent in golf" and that playing did not exacerbate his pain.

Ultimately you need to draw a line in the sand as to whether the complaint is worth the time involved.

I'm sure that if Rick considered the cost of his time as an hourly rate, rather than treating the Ford complaint as a contact sport, he might give up. But not before he's done Ford's reputation more than $100 collateral damage.