Ludia Guo and her partner say they are 'absolutely over the moon' after the Disputes Tribunal fixed a string of errors in a written decision about problems with their windows that threatened to derail a legal decision in their favour. Photo / Dean Purcell
Ludia Guo and her partner say they are 'absolutely over the moon' after the Disputes Tribunal fixed a string of errors in a written decision about problems with their windows that threatened to derail a legal decision in their favour. Photo / Dean Purcell
A couple won a Disputes Tribunal case over incorrect window sizes in an Auckland renovation project but found errors in the decision.
The tribunal initially recorded the wrong amount, causing delays in clearing a $8625 debt.
The couple were told their case was closed and would have to start again, but after media involvement, the tribunal corrected the errors.
A couple who had debt collectors on their back following a disagreement with a window manufacturer were relieved to finally have a court rule in their favour.
But that relief quickly turned to bewilderment when they read through the Disputes Tribunal decision and found numerous mistakes, including the numberof windows they had ordered for their home renovation project, and the amount of money recorded in the decision, which was central to the dispute.
NZME has seen documents proving the pair sought a declaration of non-liability for $8625, but the tribunal noted it in a written decision delivered in March as $6625.
Xiaohong (Ludia) Guo said after months of trying to get the mistakes fixed so the debt could be cleared, and being told their case would have to start again from scratch, she approached the media as a last resort.
A screenshot of the error-filled decision issued by the Disputes Tribunal. Words highlighted in blue signal mistakes and those marked red were the corrections sought by Xiaohong (Ludia) Guo. Redactions marked black were made by NZME to abide by the tribunal's confidentiality orders.
She said the tribunal, as a public institution, has to ensure its processes are fair, accurate, and responsive, but in their case, it had “fallen far short of that standard”.
Within a day of NZME asking questions, the problem was fixed.
“I’m absolutely over the moon,” Guo says.
“After such a long and disheartening wait, this outcome means more than words can express.”
Guo and her partner, who was incorrectly referred to as “Mr” instead of “Ms” in the decision, bought an old home in Auckland and began a renovation in April last year that included double-glazing.
The 22 windows cost about $30,000 but when they arrived, they were the wrong size.
The company which made them cannot be named as it did not waive its automatic right to confidentiality, which is commonplace in the Disputes Tribunal.
It is noted as not having attended the hearing, but in a statement to NZME, it inferred that the fault lay with the builder.
The company accountant said that according to communication records, the customer had “clearly indicated” that she understood the site measurement specifications needed to be confirmed by her builder.
“We would not start manufacturing without builder’s confirmation on sizing and specifications,” the company said.
The builder was named as the second respondent in the case, but was found not liable for any costs.
Ludia Guo said “serious errors” in a legal decision about problems with their windows had rendered it unusable as a final document, especially for Baycorp, which was waiting for the official decision. Photo / Dean Purcell
Guo says adjustments to the home’s weatherboard walls allowed for 14 of the windows to be fitted, but eight could not be fitted into the home’s brick construction.
The manufacturer returned later with the correct fitting windows, then charged the couple an extra $8625.
Guo, who waived her right to confidentiality to speak out about what had happened, said they refused to pay for someone else’s mistake.
Discussions with the builder and the window firm then reached a stalemate, so the pair lodged their claim with the Disputes Tribunal.
It found, in its erroneously written decision in March, that they were not liable for the invoice issued for the new windows, because the manufacturer had not done the job properly and the windows were not “fit for purpose”.
Guo says the “serious errors” had rendered the decision unusable as a final document, especially for Baycorp, which was waiting for the official decision to clear the record.
NZME has approached Baycorp for comment but has yet to hear back.
Case closed
Then, the couple was told by the tribunal that their case had been closed and they would have to start the whole process again.
“How can a legal authority issue a decision with such critical errors, then fail to correct them in a timely or transparent manner?
“There was no clear process, no timeline, and no accountability,” Guo said.
“We did everything right. We followed the procedure. We communicated clearly, and yet, we are still left without a valid final order, and unable to move forward.”
Exhausted and disheartened, Guo approached NZME, which then approached the tribunal for comment.
The tribunal initially stated it was unable to respond because matters dealt with by the authority were confidential, but that the tribunal referee would be notified.
NZMEthen approached the Ministry of Justice, which oversees the tribunal, and soon after, the decision was amended and re-issued, with an explanation that the holdup was because of an “administrative delay”.
Guo, a senior data specialist who works in IT, said it has restored some of her faith in the legal system, and in New Zealand, which she has called home for a decade.
She spoke of there having been times lately when she and her family had been ready to pack up and leave due to the issue with the tribunal.
“I’ve quietly paid high taxes and contributed to the country I’ve grown to love, and I truly appreciate the peace and simplicity that once defined New Zealand.”
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
