Judge Mary Beth Sharp said in her decision last month that had the vehicle been worth more than $12,000, she may have had little hesitation in granting the appeal and directing that Bouffard was entitled to reject the vehicle and be repaid its purchase price.<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause it does appear to me, to speak colloquially, as if she was \u2018ripped off\u2019. <\/p>\n
\u201cThis was, once again to speak colloquially, a \u2018dog of a vehicle\u2019 that should not have been sold in its condition, let alone for the price that it was, and I regret that I am unable to assist her,\u201d Judge Sharp said.<\/p>\n
She advised the trader to reconsider taking back the car.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf the respondent, in whose favour I unfortunately feel forced to rule today, wishes to maintain any form of consumer merit, then I would urge it to repay, refund her, and take the vehicle back because frankly this is a very bad look for it,\u201d Judge Sharp said.<\/p>\n
Bouffard told NZME the judge\u2019s comments softened the blow of the outcome. <\/p>\n
\u201cEven though I lost, I think the decision is still somewhat in my favour,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
Troubles soon after purchase <\/p>\n
Bouffard bought the Beetle convertible in June last year from Car Supermarket Ltd in Canterbury.<\/a><\/p>\n The $7150 purchase was offset by a $1500 vehicle trade and included a mechanical breakdown insurance policy worth $1160. <\/p>\n Bouffard, from Auckland<\/a>, bought the car while travelling through Christchurch. She said she trusted the trader as a registered dealer, the fresh Warrant of Fitness and assurances it needed no repairs.<\/p>\n She told NZME she did not get a pre-purchase inspection.<\/p>\n \u201cUnfortunately, I didn\u2019t get an inspection, because I didn\u2019t think I needed to. <\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019ve always bought from dealerships, for warranty [cover], and never had issues in the past.\u201d<\/p>\n Troubles with the Beetle, which had 202,363km on the clock when Bouffard bought it, soon showed up. <\/p>\n \u201cWithin days, multiple mechanics identified thousands of dollars in urgent repairs.\u201d<\/p>\n Shortly after, NZTA<\/a> revoked the WOF, confirming it should never have been certified as roadworthy, Bouffard said. <\/p>\n Tribunal adjudicator David Jackson noted in his decision that Bouffard had applied to NZTA to have the WOF revoked because it \u201cshould not have been passed on the June 6, 2025, inspection at 202,386km\u201d.<\/p>\n An NZTA vehicle inspector checked the car on July 17 last year, when the mileage was about 3500km more than when the WOF was issued at purchase, Jackson said.<\/p>\n NZTA revoked the WOF because all brake rotors were under minimum thickness and both front suspension shock top strut mounts had \u201cplay\u201d in them, the tribunal said.<\/p>\n A spokesperson for Car Supermarket told NZME the company respected the tribunal and court\u2019s decisions.<\/p>\n In a statement, the company said it acknowledged the subsequent comments made by the District Court. <\/p>\n \u201cThe appeal itself was not upheld and the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal\u2019s decision remains in place.<\/p>\n \u201cOur focus is on meeting our obligations under that decision and working constructively with our customer.\u201d<\/p>\n Trader prepared to fix problems<\/p>\n Bouffard provided evidence to the tribunal from two workshops identifying defects or problems with the vehicle, which she said justified her bid to reject it.<\/p>\n Jackson said the trader was prepared to repair the brake rotors and attend to some other alleged defects raised by Bouffard, to achieve WOF certification. <\/p>\n However, the parties couldn\u2019t agree on the vehicle being repaired.<\/p>\n The trader said when he went to collect the vehicle Bouffard would not release it.<\/p>\n Jackson said text message and email conversations supplied as evidence confirmed some confusion over the pickup time, but ultimately Bouffard did not allow the trader\u2019s representative to collect, assess or carry out the pre-arranged repairs.<\/p>\n In his decision, Jackson found a breach of the guarantee of acceptable quality in respect of the brake rotors, but the remaining items were maintenance items which the trader had agreed to repair.<\/p>\n He found \u201cno hesitation\u201d in finding that the breach was not one of substantial character and that Bouffard was not entitled to reject the vehicle on this, or any other ground. <\/p>\n However, Bouffard didn\u2019t agree.<\/p>\n She then appealed the decision in the Christchurch District Court on the grounds that the tribunal \u201cmisdirected itself\u201d in its application of a section of consumer law by placing emphasis on the vehicle\u2019s age, mileage and price in determining acceptable quality.<\/p>\n Judge Sharp said despite Bouffard\u2019s \u201cerudite and articulate manner\u201d, the court\u2019s hands were tied in terms of what it could do.<\/p>\n She said if the amount of the claim did not exceed $12,500 the appeal could only be brought on the ground that the proceedings were conducted by the tribunal in a manner that was unfair to the appellant and prejudicially affected the result of the proceedings.<\/p>\nAuckland woman Alyson Bouffard and the VW Beetle convertible she bought in June 2025. It soon showed up with a list of problems and she has been in dispute with the dealer ever since. Photo \/ Alyson Bouffard.<\/p>\n