“Some justice is better than nothing,” he said.
He felt the tribunal process focused on losses that could be quantified, but did not account for wider consequences, including being without his vehicle for so long.
The drama began on April 11 last year when the driver’s 2016 Mercedes struck a pothole on State Highway 36 with enough force to tear the right-front wheel from the vehicle and scrape the underside of its chassis along the road.
The damage was substantial but assessors determined the luxury vehicle could be economically repaired.
The repairs and the claim
What followed became the focus of the owner’s claim to the tribunal.
According to the decision, he initially contacted AA Insurance to say he wanted repairs carried out in Auckland, but changed his mind the next day after he found a repairer in Rotorua who could do the work sooner.
He was told a hold would be placed on the vehicle to stop it from being sent north.
The owner of a Mercedes endured a months-long saga with his insurance company after his vehicle was damaged by a pothole.
Despite that assurance, the Mercedes was transported to Auckland anyway.
The owner only discovered the mistake when he visited the tow yard to collect personal belongings from the vehicle.
Then the delays continued.
He was initially advised that repairs, by AA Insurance’s chosen repairer in Auckland, would be completed by June 3.
When that deadline was missed, he was told the car would be ready by June 6 – a date he had specifically told AA Insurance he needed the vehicle by. But that deadline was also missed.
When the Mercedes was finally returned on June 12, the problems were still not over.
The tribunal heard that the vehicle was returned in an unsafe condition, with loose and missing wheel-retaining bolts, and that other repair work remained unfinished.
The Mercedes later failed a warrant of fitness inspection, requiring further repairs.
It took another two weeks before the car reached a satisfactory, drivable standard.
At this stage, the car owner was so frustrated that he cancelled his insurance policy.
However, according to the decision, AA Insurance continued to deduct premiums by direct debit, forcing him to visit his bank to cancel the card used for the payments.
The vehicle’s underside was damaged by the impact.
In turning to the tribunal, the owner sought almost $29,000 in compensation, claiming reimbursement for replacement parts, missing personal property, lost wages, transport costs, further repairs, insurance premiums and loss of enjoyment of his vehicle.
AA Insurance agreed to reimburse the owner more than $3500, including the replacement parts and overpaid premiums, as well as part cover for a pair of Ray-Ban sunglasses and a bottle of Tom Ford perfume, which had been left inside the Mercedes but were gone when it was returned.
However, the insurance company disputed the rest, relying on a range of policy exclusions.
The ruling and award
But tribunal referee Gordon Meyer found those exclusions did not protect AA Insurance from liability under the Consumer Guarantees Act.
“While the services were substantially carried out with reasonable care and skill, various items were either missed or not repaired to a reasonable standard and personal effects were lost …” Meyer ruled.
He awarded $2460 for lost wages and the cost of an independent vehicle inspection after problems with the repair work emerged.
One of the larger awards was related to the loss of use of the vehicle.
The owner argued he should be compensated for six weeks the Mercedes was with the repairer because it had been sent to Auckland instead of Rotorua. He calculated his losses using the cost of taxi transport.
Meyer accepted some of that claim, awarding $4200 for four weeks.
In calculating that award, Meyer drew on personal experience.
“My partner owns a Mercedes (which I pay to have repaired) and parts must be sourced from Europe, which takes considerable time in transit and are often not able to be air freighted,” he wrote.
“I can say from personal experience that two months is not an unreasonable time to have the complexity of repairs occasioned by a front wheel shearing off and the underside scraping along the road surface.”
Meyer also awarded the owner more than $3700 for outstanding repairs but rejected his claim for $5000 for “loss of enjoyment” of his Mercedes, ruling compensation should be limited to the direct consequences of any failure to provide services with reasonable care and skill.
The owner told NZME the vehicle still required final repairs, which he planned to have completed soon.
He described the repair and insurance process as a “shocker”.
“They just don’t care. It took nearly a year to get this result.”
Despite his frustrations, the owner encouraged others with similar disputes to use the tribunal process.
“The Disputes Tribunal is a great place for someone to affordably seek justice, regardless of if you’re going up against Goliath,” he said.
AA: Below expected standards
Simon Hobbs, AA Insurance’s chief operating officer, accepted the tribunal’s findings and said its handling of the claim fell below the standards customers should expect.
“While we successfully support tens of thousands of New Zealanders each year through our managed repair process, we recognise that in this instance our service did not meet those expectations,” he told NZME.
“We have apologised to the customer and have taken steps to learn from this case, including reviewing our processes to help prevent similar issues in the future. The tribunal award has been paid in full.”
Tara Shaskey is an assistant editor and reporter for the Open Justice team. She joined NZME in 2022 and has worked as a journalist since 2014.