Scams, faulty goods and your rights: real situations worked through

Consumer Guarantees Act NZ

Tim, 34, Nelson

Fisher & Paykel fridge, $3,800. Failed at 3 years, 2 months. Outside 2-year manufacturer warranty.

This one turns on the rules rather than on a calculation, so there are no sums to show.

Priya, 28, Auckland

Paid $1,200 deposit on custom furniture. Company went into liquidation before delivery.

This one turns on the rules rather than on a calculation, so there are no sums to show.

Maya, 22, Wellington

Bought on-sale winter boots, $140. Sole fell off after 3 weeks of normal wear.

This one turns on the rules rather than on a calculation, so there are no sums to show.

Ryan, 19, Hamilton

Bought a refurbished gaming console, $450. Stopped working after 5 weeks. 30-day retailer refund policy had lapsed.

This one turns on the rules rather than on a calculation, so there are no sums to show.

Disputes Tribunal and Complaints

Hana escalates a faulty dryer to the Tribunal

Hana paid $1,450 for a clothes dryer that failed at 15 months. The retailer refuses to help because the 12-month manufacturer warranty has expired. She believes the Consumer Guarantees Act still applies, because a $1,450 dryer should last well beyond 15 months.

Step 1: written complaint to the retailer citing the Consumer Guarantees Act, asking for repair or refund, with a 14-day deadline
Retailer still refuses, so Hana files at the Disputes Tribunal
Claim amount: $1,450, which is under $2,000, so the filing fee is $62
Referee agrees 15 months is not reasonable durability for the price and orders a refund

Hana recovers $1,450 and asks the referee to order the $62 fee repaid, for a net recovery of about $1,450

💡 The written complaint often does the job

Many retailers back down once a clear Consumer Guarantees Act complaint with a deadline arrives, because they know the Tribunal is cheap and easy for you to use. The $62 filing fee and a well-ordered folder of evidence are all it takes to make the threat credible.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Rewi uses a free ombudsman scheme first

Rewi disputes a $3,200 charge his bank will not reverse after a payment mix-up. The bank's internal complaints team does not resolve it to his satisfaction, and it confirms it has reached deadlock.

Rewi escalates free of charge to the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, which his bank must belong to
The scheme investigates independently and can award compensation, at no cost to Rewi
A Disputes Tribunal claim for $3,200 would sit in the $2,000 to less than $5,000 band, a fee of $124

By using the free scheme first, Rewi keeps his $124 and still has the Tribunal as a backstop if he is unhappy

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

A $58,000 renovation dispute, now within reach

Priya and Tom are left with $58,000 of defective work after a bathroom and kitchen renovation goes wrong. The builder will not fix it. This dispute happens in early 2026.

Before 24 January 2026 the Tribunal limit was $30,000, so they could only claim $30,000 and would have to abandon $58,000 minus $30,000 = $28,000, or go to the District Court with lawyers
From 24 January 2026 the limit is $60,000, so the full $58,000 fits
Claim amount: $58,000, in the $30,001 to $60,000 band, so the filing fee is $496

They claim the full $58,000 for a $496 fee, with no lawyers, instead of writing off $28,000 or paying for a District Court case

💡 The higher limit changes the maths

The jump from $30,000 to $60,000 brings many renovation, vehicle and contract disputes within reach of the Tribunal for the first time. For a $496 fee and your own preparation, you can now pursue the whole of a mid-sized claim that used to be uneconomic to fight.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Writing the complaint letter that gets results

A phone repair shop charged Leilani $680 to fix her screen, but the touch response has failed again within a week. She wants the repair redone or her money back, and drafts a written complaint.

What happened: screen repaired on the stated date, touch response failed six days later
Dates: date of repair, date the fault returned, date she first phoned and who she spoke to
Evidence: the $680 receipt, a short video of the fault, and the repair warranty slip
Basis: the service was not carried out with reasonable care and skill, breaching the Consumer Guarantees Act
Remedy: redo the repair at no charge, or refund the $680

Deadline: respond within 10 working days, or she will file at the Disputes Tribunal, where a $680 claim carries a $62 fee

⚠️ Say exactly what you want

A complaint that only describes the problem invites a vague reply. Name the remedy and the amount, attach the evidence, and set a clear deadline with a stated next step. That structure is what moves a complaint from ignored to actioned, and it becomes your evidence if you do file.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Fair Trading Act and Surcharges

Aroha meets a flat 2.5% surcharge on every card

Aroha buys lunch for $40 at a Wellington cafe. The terminal adds a flat 2.5% surcharge on all card payments, including plain EFTPOS. She wants to know whether that is reasonable.

Surcharge charged: $40 times 2.5% = $1.00
EFTPOS typically costs the cafe little or nothing to accept, so a surcharge on EFTPOS is hard to justify
If the cafe's real cost of accepting contactless debit is about 0.9%, a fair surcharge would be $40 times 0.9% = $0.36

On a contactless debit payment the flat surcharge overcharges by about $1.00 minus $0.36 = $0.64, and the full $1.00 is unjustified if she taps an EFTPOS card

💡 Small amounts, big picture

Sixty-four cents is trivial once, but a flat 2.5% on every card across a busy cafe adds up, and it is above the cost the Retail Payment System Act says a surcharge should reflect. Aroha can pay by EFTPOS to avoid the fee, ask the cafe to review its surcharge, or report a persistently excessive surcharge to the Commerce Commission.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

A was price that never really existed

An online store advertises a heater as was $199, now $99, save $100. Sam checks a price-tracking screenshot and sees the heater has sold at $120 for months and was only briefly listed at $199 the week before the sale.

Advertised saving: $199 minus $99 = $100
Genuine recent selling price: $120
Real saving against the true price: $120 minus $99 = $21

The save $100 claim overstates the real saving by $100 minus $21 = $79, which is likely to mislead a reasonable shopper

⚠️ A round was price deserves a second look

A reference price that was only in place for a few days, or that is far above the usual selling price, points to a phantom discount. Sam can keep the screenshot, complain to the retailer, and report the pattern to the Commerce Commission, which takes misleading saving claims seriously.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Drip pricing at a ticket checkout

Mere sees a concert ticket advertised at $80. As she moves through the checkout, the site adds a booking fee of $8.50, a service fee of $6.00, and a card processing fee of $2.50, none of which she can avoid.

Headline price: $80.00
Compulsory fees: $8.50 plus $6.00 plus $2.50 = $17.00
Final price paid: $80.00 plus $17.00 = $97.00

The unavoidable fees add $17.00, which is 21.25% on top of the advertised $80, revealed only at the end

💡 Compare the final price, always

Drip pricing works because the headline sticks in your mind. Where fees are compulsory, showing them only at the last step can mislead you about the real cost under the Fair Trading Act. Before you buy, take the final screen total, not the advertised number, and compare that across sellers.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

A health claim with nothing behind it

A supplement brand advertises that its capsules are clinically proven to boost immunity by 40%. When asked, the brand cannot point to any clinical study, only to customer reviews.

The 40% figure is a specific, measurable claim about the product
Section 12A requires reasonable grounds for the claim at the time it is made
Customer reviews are not clinical proof, so there are no reasonable grounds

The claim is an unsubstantiated representation and breaches the Fair Trading Act, even if the capsules happen to help some people

⚠️ Proven means proven

Words like proven, guaranteed, or a precise percentage set a high bar. A trader must hold the evidence when it makes the claim, not scramble for it afterwards. A company that breaks this rule faces Commerce Commission action and penalties up to $600,000 per offence.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Finding Unclaimed Money in New Zealand

Mere - a forgotten flat account

Mere flatted in Dunedin during university and opened a savings account she stopped using when she moved to Auckland. Eight years later she searches her name on the Inland Revenue register.

The register lists $340 under her name, passed on by her old bank.
She logs in to myIR and lodges a claim, attaching her old Dunedin flat address and a bank statement from that time.

The claim is processed and the $340 is paid to her. Total cost to claim: nothing.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

The Thompson family - claiming from an estate

After their father died, David Thompson finds an account in his father's name on the register worth $1,200. David is the executor of the estate.

He proves the money belonged to his father using an old statement showing the account.
He attaches a copy of the death certificate.
He attaches a copy of the will showing he is the executor with authority to act.

Inland Revenue processes the estate claim and pays the money to the estate.

💡 Authority is the extra step

For an estate you prove two things: that the money belonged to the person who died, and that you have the legal authority to act for their estate through a will or Letter of Administration.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Wiremu - saying no to a fee-charging finder

Wiremu gets a letter from a private "asset recovery" firm saying they have found money owed to him and can recover it if he signs an agreement giving them 20 percent of whatever they collect.

The firm found $2,000 owed to Wiremu. Their 20 percent cut would be $400.
Instead, Wiremu searches the free Inland Revenue register himself and finds the same $2,000.

He claims it directly through myIR and keeps the full $2,000. He saved the $400 fee.

⚠️ You can always do it yourself

Heir finder and asset reunification firms are not doing anything you cannot do for free. The register is public and searching it costs nothing, so there is rarely a good reason to hand over a slice of your own money.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Sarah - a surplus from a wound-up company

Sarah was a small shareholder in a company that was liquidated. Years later she wonders whether any surplus was ever paid to her.

She first searches the Inland Revenue register with no match.
Knowing liquidation surpluses can go to Public Trust, she calls Public Trust on 0800 371 471.

Public Trust checks whether it holds a surplus for her, and if a valid claim can be established, pays out the money owed.

💡 Check more than one register

If Inland Revenue draws a blank, the money may sit with Public Trust or the Treasury instead. It is worth checking all three when a company or an estate is involved.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Gift Cards, Store Credit and Pre-Paid Cards NZ Guide

Anna and Jake's $800 Voucher

Received Smith & Caughey's gift card as wedding gift (2024). Store closed 5 months later.

Managed to use $520 before final closure
Bought items they didn't fully need to maximise the value
Remaining $280 balance: lost
Ultimate recovery: $520 of $800 (65%)

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Tom's Drawer Find

Found a $150 Prezzy Card from a work bonus, forgotten in a drawer.

Spend remaining $42 within a few months before more fees
Of original $150, about 28% remaining
No way to recover lost fees
Company profited $105 from one forgotten card

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Maria's Smiths City Deposit

Paid $2,800 deposit on a dining set at Smiths City. Liquidation announced 5 weeks later.

Bank reversed the $2,800 charge within 30 days
Full recovery (would have been zero via liquidation)
Other customers who paid by EFTPOS or cash: lost their deposits
Liquidation creditors received near-zero

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Ben's Smart Strategy

Received multiple gift cards to stores he doesn't use.

Listed all three on Facebook Marketplace at 90% face value
Sold all within 2 weeks for $270 total cash
Instead of forgetting cards worth $0 to $100 net
Or force-spending $300 at stores he didn't want to shop at
Net recovery: $270 cash for things he actually wanted

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Identity Theft Protection

Aroha - A Phishing Victim's First 24 Hours

At 8:10am Aroha gets a text that looks like it is from her bank: a payment needs approving, tap the link. She taps, enters her internet banking login and a code the site asks for. Minutes later she sees a $1,200 transfer she did not make.

8:20am: Phones the bank on the number on her card; they freeze the account and cards and start a recovery on the $1,200
8:45am: Changes her internet banking and email passwords from a clean device
9:00am: Turns on two-factor authentication using an authenticator app, not text
Midday: Reports the scam text to Netsafe on 0508 638 723
Afternoon: Places a free credit suppression; one request covers all three reporters

Because she acted within minutes, the bank stops the transfer and no accounts are opened in her name

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Wiremu - Freezing a Credit File After a Breach

A retailer Wiremu bought from is hacked, and his name, date of birth and driver licence number are exposed. No money has been taken, but he wants to stop anyone opening credit in his name.

Requests a suppression from one reporter; the single request now covers Centrix, Equifax and Experian
The initial suppression lasts 10 working days, and it is free
Orders his free annual credit report from each of the three to check for anything he did not apply for
Sets a reminder to extend the suppression before it expires while the risk lasts

Credit in his name is blocked to new lenders at no cost, and he has confirmed his file is clean

💡 A Freeze Does Not Hurt Your Score

Placing a suppression does not damage your credit rating and does not stop you using existing accounts. It only blocks new credit checks, which is exactly what you want when someone may be trying to borrow in your name. Lift it easily when you next need to apply for credit yourself.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Sione - A Stolen Passport

Sione's bag is stolen at a cafe. Inside are his passport, his driver licence and a bank card. He is worried the documents will be used to impersonate him.

Calls his bank to cancel the card and watch the account
Reports the theft to Police on 105 and writes down the report number
Contacts the Department of Internal Affairs to cancel and replace the passport
Reports the licence loss and applies for a replacement driver licence
Places a free credit suppression covering all three reporters, using the police report number if asked for evidence
Calls IDCARE on 0800 121 068 for a tailored recovery plan

The stolen documents are cancelled, and his credit file is protected before anyone can misuse them

⚠️ Cancel, Do Not Just Replace

Replacing a document is not the same as cancelling the stolen one. Make sure the old passport and licence are formally reported and cancelled so they cannot be used, and keep the police report number, which agencies and credit reporters may ask for.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Kauri Joinery - Business Email Compromise

A small business, Kauri Joinery, is emailed an invoice that looks like it is from a regular supplier. A fraudster has been reading the email thread and has changed the bank account on the invoice. The bookkeeper pays $8,400 to the fraudster's account.

Immediately: Contacts the bank to try to recall the $8,400 before it is withdrawn
Phones the real supplier on a known number to confirm the fraud and correct bank details
Reports the incident to the NCSC on 0800 114 115 or at ncsc.govt.nz/report
Reports to Police on 105 and keeps all emails and reference numbers
Resets email passwords, turns on two-factor authentication, and checks for hidden mailbox forwarding rules

Speed decides how much is recovered; the faster the bank is told, the better the odds

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Online Shopping and Private Sellers: Your Rights

Priya, Auckland - faulty item from a NZ retailer

Priya bought a $1,199 dishwasher online from a New Zealand retailer. It failed at 18 months. The 12-month manufacturer warranty had ended, and she had declined a $199 extended warranty at the till.

Manufacturer warranty: expired at 12 months
CGA reasonable durability for an $1,199 dishwasher: many years, well beyond 18 months
Retailer's first response: "contact the manufacturer" (incorrect under the CGA)
Correct position: the retailer must repair, replace or refund

Outcome: free repair under the CGA, and the $199 extended warranty was money she was right to save

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Tom, Christchurch - an overseas purchase gone wrong

Tom bought headphones for NZ$260 from a large overseas marketplace. GST was added at checkout.

GST at 15%: $260 x 0.15 = $39
Total paid at checkout: $260 + $39 = $299
Problem: the headphones were a different model and stopped working in a week
Seller offered only a partial refund if Tom paid return postage overseas
NZ CGA: not practical to enforce against an overseas seller

Fix: Tom opened a marketplace dispute, then a card chargeback for "not as described", and recovered the full $299

💡 Why the card mattered

Tom paid by credit card, so a chargeback was available. Had he paid by a method with no chargeback, his only route would have been the seller's own policy, which offered him far less.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Aroha, Wellington - a private marketplace sale, misdescribed

Aroha bought a used laptop for $700 from a private seller on an online marketplace. The listing said "battery holds a full day, no faults". The battery was dead and would not hold charge.

Consumer Guarantees Act: does not apply (private seller, not in trade)
Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017: goods must match the description
"No faults" was a misrepresentation, so Aroha could cancel or claim compensation
She had paid through the platform, so its buyer protection covered "not as described"

Outcome: she opened a dispute with the marketplace and was refunded the $700

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Hemi, Hamilton - a chargeback saves the day

Hemi paid $450 by Visa credit card to an overseas online store for a bike part. The store took the money, sent no tracking, and stopped answering emails.

Goods delivered: none
Time since payment: 40 days (well within the roughly 120-day window)
Action: Hemi asked his bank to raise a chargeback for "goods not delivered"
Evidence: order confirmation, the $450 charge, and his unanswered emails

Outcome: the merchant could not prove delivery, so the $450 was reversed to his card

💡 The lesson in one line

Paying by card and acting quickly turned a total loss into a full refund. A bank transfer to the same store would have left Hemi with no way to get the money back.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Scammed? How to Get Your Money Back in NZ

Priya - Hijacked Builder Invoice ($8,500)

Priya was renovating and received an emailed invoice from her builder for an $8,500 progress payment. The email looked normal, but scammers had compromised the builder's inbox and changed the bank account number. She paid it by transfer.

The builder phoned asking where the payment was, and Priya realised the account was wrong
Within 20 minutes she rang her bank's 24/7 scam line and asked for a recall
Her bank contacted the receiving bank, which froze the remaining funds
She reported the email compromise to the NCSC at ncsc.govt.nz/report

Because she acted fast, $6,200 was still in the account and was returned

💡 What Would Have Prevented It

Confirmation of payee would have flagged that the account name did not match the builder's business name. A quick phone call to the builder on a known number to confirm the account before paying would also have stopped the loss. When bank details change on an invoice, always verify by phone.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

David - Romance Then Crypto Investment ($40,000)

David met someone on a dating app who, after several weeks, introduced him to a "guaranteed" crypto trading platform. Over three months he transferred $40,000, buying crypto through an exchange and sending it to wallets the scammer controlled. The dashboard showed growing profits, but he could never withdraw.

When asked for a "tax payment" to release his profits, David realised it was a scam
He reported it to his bank, to Police on 105, and to the FMA at fma.govt.nz
He also reported it to Netsafe for support and advice

The crypto had already moved offshore, and none of the $40,000 could be recovered

⚠️ Then a Second Scam Arrived

Weeks later David was contacted by a "fund recovery specialist" who promised to get his money back for a $2,500 fee. This was a recovery scam targeting him because he had already lost money. He did not pay, and reported the approach. No genuine agency charges a fee to recover scammed funds.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Margaret - Remote-Access Bank Impersonation ($12,000)

Margaret got a call from someone claiming to be her bank's fraud team. They said her account was under attack and talked her into installing remote-access software to "secure" it. While connected, they moved $12,000 out of her account.

As soon as the call ended she felt uneasy and phoned her bank on the number on her card
The bank froze her accounts and began trying to recall the payment
She uninstalled the software and changed her passwords and PINs
The bank first declined to cover the loss, so she complained formally, then to the Banking Ombudsman

The Ombudsman reviewed the bank's warnings and process, and a partial reimbursement was agreed

💡 The Deadlock Rule

Margaret could only take her case to the Banking Ombudsman after giving her bank the chance to resolve it and reaching deadlock. Her paper trail, showing exactly when she was called, when she reported it, and what the bank said, made the difference in the review.

The same calculation on its own, with others like it

Tama - Phishing Text and a Chargeback ($430)

Tama received a text saying a parcel could not be delivered and he needed to pay a small redelivery fee. He clicked the link and entered his debit card details on a convincing fake site. Two charges totalling $430 appeared the next day.