Claire Goode couldn't have been happier with the outcome of her claim at the Disputes Tribunal. She was awarded $15,000 for a building job gone wrong. Yet now, she says "it was a complete waste of time. Doing it once will put you off doing it ever again".
So what went wrong? Well, three years on from that award of $15,000 and Claire's more than $30,000 out of pocket, and reeling from the stress of trying to get justice. Her saga began when she hired Stephen Winslow's building company RMN Construction to correct a sloping floor in her cottage in Auckland.
She paid him a deposit of $3500 to get started. It was a fixed quote, but one week into the job, Mr Winslow said he needed to do extra work, requiring a greater cost, to do the job properly. Claire says when she questioned this, Mr Winslow became aggressive.
She contacted the local council who said they were aware of this builder, and that she should ask a structural engineer for a professional opinion about the work. This led to the bad news that the job had to be re-done, and that the fix-up would cost $28,000.
Claire had the work done, but felt that Mr Winslow was accountable for this increased cost and she took her case to the Disputes Tribunal. She felt her award of $15,000 was fair, as that was about half the cost of what she'd had to pay. However, the deadline for payment came and went, and Claire had nothing.
She asked the Tribunal what she should do and they said they "couldn't provide legal advice". So Claire took herself to the District Court.
There she was told to apply for a warrant to seize property. She paid for a bailiff who went to Mr Winslow's property only to report he had nothing to seize. Claire says, "Mr Winslow has a work truck and lots of equipment ... but he could say his equipment is borrowed from colleagues or the truck belongs to his wife so you can't take it ... how is that reasonable?".
She found out her next step was to apply for an assessment of financial means. Mr Winslow sent back the paperwork with a zero in every box. Feeling frustrated, Claire then paid for a solicitor to carry out a more thorough assessment.
At first, it appeared this was worth it as a plan was set up so that a proportion of Mr Winslow's earnings would go directly to Claire. But to this day, she still hasn't received a cent.
At Fair Go, we've come to realise Claire's story is typical of many people who expect the civil justice system to bring rogue traders to account. It's a system that works well with law-abiding companies and business people, but there is no power of enforcement for those that decide to ignore the Tribunal’s decisions.
Justice Minister Andrew Little admits the problem exists – "we do have to rethink what enforcement actions are available and it may be that we have to think about the Disputes Tribunal itself".
One clear gap at the moment is for easily accessible help to navigate the process of enforcement. This could be in the form of face-to-face help at the Tribunal.
Not just for the initial process, but to guide someone through all the steps after that. But Andrew Little is talking about going one step further – "it might require a law change to give the Disputes Tribunal more powers or for there to be financial assistance for people to go to the District Court like legal aid for example".
But Fair Go wanted to question the Minister on the issue of repeat offenders. People like Lindsay Michael Simmonds, Macaulay Marchant, and Gordon Bayne who crop up on our our programme far too often. In some cases, they do eventually get brought to account. But there are others, like Lindsay Michael Simmonds.
He continues to operate despite repeated Tribunal orders against him that he still hasn't paid. Simmonds and his wife run a campervan business - they sell and hire vans out. Fair Go has been approached by seven of his former customers unhappy with his dealings. In fact, not a single one has the campervan they paid for.
They all took Simmonds to court and won their case, but not a single one has all their money back either.
Miki Szikszai is one of those cases. He says he's still owed $18,000. He paid for a bailiff to seize some of Simmonds' property but nothing was found to be in his name. Erskine Hewett is another former customer.
He's still owed $10,000. Given the number of cases and Simmonds ability to keep working, he questions why more action can't be taken –, "it's obtaining money by deception, I don't understand why then the police can't step in?".
Well the Justice Minister has the same view. He told Fair Go, "that's theft, particularly if it's [a case of] 'I've got your money and done nothing' then that is theft and if a police officer did not act on that then that's on that police officer and that is wrong".
At present, it seems to be a grey area. Cunning operators like Michael Simmonds and his wife show some intent to carry out the sale, suggesting that the case is simply a business deal gone wrong. They might lend a van or supply a wreck they know will have to be returned.
They sometimes offer "deals", saying they'll put another van in a person's name as security and rent it out on their behalf, but then they might change the ownership again. Simmonds sometimes also shows some intent of payment following Disputes Tribunal orders. For example, customer Leanne Edwards got repaid $1200. But after five years, she's still owed around $30,000.
This behaviour has led his customers to believe it's no longer a civil case. "Clearly there is no real intent to provide a van or pay us back," says Erskine.
For that reason, Fair Go thought if the police could link the cases then they might investigate them as a single case of obtaining money by deception.
The police said this might be done, but each complainant would have to file a case at their local station. So several customers took their complaint to the police, but each time they say the police told them they '“weren't interested”' because it's a '“civil matter’'.
Former Justice Minister Andrew Little appears to think differently. "If you've got a case like that and the Police police are not accepting it and not acting then they have a duty to follow up on that sort of thing. If someone's losing significant money to someone, it's very obviously a rip-off and that is theft and should be followed up.".
The positive result of the Minister's involvement is that the police are now finally taking a look at whether Simmonds can be prosecuted. Each of Simmonds’ customers has also contacted the Independent Police Complaints Authority.
The IPCA says they will investigate and report back, and that this information will be useful to their wider investigation into how the police handle fraud that's currently underway.
But Fair Go thinks the problem doesn't just lie with the police. Many of the repeat offenders that Fair Go encounters are repeatedly at the Disputes Tribunal, yet the court doesn't appear to register that their recurrent offences.
Fair Go believes there should be a red flag system, alerting the court to the repeat offending. The former Justice Minister agrees it could be sensible to create a Disputes Tribunal blacklist that could lead to additional penalties each time they lose a case.
This blacklist idea gets a thumbs up from civil law expert, Bridgette Toy-Cronin from Otago University. She says if the Disputes Tribunal has the names of these offenders and can identify patterns then "they could take those people forward to be investigated by the Commerce Commission or the police".
She adds that it could be "really powerful if put in place, as it takes the responsibility away from individuals having to pursue justice".
Former Justice Minister Andrew Little says during the Government's last term they focused on changes to the Family Court system, which are now underway. This term, it's time for the Civil Courts to be improved, so he says to expect change within the next three years.
SHARE ME