Recent MVDT decisions – May 2026
This article summarises two recent decisions of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. The cases demonstrate how the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 is applied in assessing acceptable quality, distinguishing between minor and substantial failures, and determining appropriate remedies.
Decision summary: Buyer v Kiwi Cheap Cars Limited ([2026] NZMVDT 091)
Vehicle: 2014 Toyota Aqua
Purchase Price: $8,500
Summary of the Issues
The purchaser identified pre-existing structural damage following a post-purchase AA inspection. The damage was significant enough to likely prevent the vehicle from meeting Warrant of Fitness requirements. The purchaser rejected the vehicle shortly after discovering the defects, and the trader did not respond to the notice of rejection or participate in the Tribunal process.
Tribunal Decision
The Tribunal found the vehicle was not of acceptable quality under section 6 of the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA), as it had pre-existing structural damage affecting safety and compliance. The failure was of a substantial character under section 21, as a reasonable consumer would not have purchased the vehicle had they known of the defects. The purchaser was entitled to reject the vehicle. The trader was ordered to refund the purchase price and reimburse associated costs, including inspection and filing fees.
Decision summary: Buyer v 2 Cheap Cars Limited ([2026] NZMVDT 097)
Vehicle: 2014 Nissan Serena
Purchase Price: $10,932.24
Summary of the Issues
The purchaser experienced a transmission failure shortly after purchase, followed by concerns about an electric sliding door and fuel consumption. The transmission was rebuilt by the trader at their cost, and a warranty was provided. The purchaser sought to reject the vehicle, arguing that the combination of faults amounted to a substantial failure.
Tribunal Decision
The Tribunal found that the original transmission failure did constitute a breach of acceptable quality but had been remedied. The remaining issues were either minor or unproven. As the defects did not amount to an ongoing failure of a substantial character under section 21 of the CGA, the purchaser was not entitled to reject the vehicle. Instead, under section 18, the trader was required to investigate and repair the remaining faults within a reasonable time.