BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

---

Summary

The unsatisfactory state of the roof to which a protective coating had been applied 15

months earlier was dealt with in an item on Fair Go broadcast between 7.30–8.00pm

on Monday 27 May 1996. The item focussed on the home owners' inability to get

their money back from Mr O'Hanlon, trading as Roof Rejuvenators, who had held a

franchise from Waco, the manufacturers of the product used.

Waco Coatings and Chemicals Ltd complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the

broadcaster, that the item was unbalanced and unfair. The item breached the standards

as, without adequately addressing the legal issues or satisfactorily reporting the

company's response, it suggested that the company was responsible for the work

carried out by a franchise holder.

Maintaining that culpability was placed clearly on Mr O'Hanlon, TVNZ said that the

issues of the guarantee and Waco's responsibility for the work were dealt with

reasonably and fairly. Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Waco referred the

complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting

Act 1989.

For the reasons below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed the item complained about and have read

the correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). As is its practice, the Authority

determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A Fair Go item broadcast on TV One on 27 May 1996 between 7.30 - 8.00pm

examined the problems experienced when a roof-sealing product, RB80, was not

properly applied. The product, manufactured by Waco Coatings and Chemicals Ltd,

was applied by one of Waco's franchise operators, Mr O'Hanlon, trading as Roof

Rejuvenators. Mr and Mrs Nation, the couple who employed Mr O'Hanlon, were

dissatisfied with the quality of his workmanship and had been unsuccessful in their

attempt to recover their money ($2000) from him. They then went to Fair Go, and in

the programme, the legal position with respect to Waco and its relationship to the

franchise-holder were investigated. It was suggested that Waco, as guarantor, had

some responsibility for the couple.

Waco Coatings and Chemicals Ltd, the manufacturer of the product RB80, complained

to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast was unbalanced and had given an

unfair impression that it was responsible for making good the loss suffered as a result

of the poor workmanship of one of its former franchise holders. First, it questioned

whether the product applied was indeed its product, RB80, and pointed out that it

had not had the opportunity to visit the Nations to try to find out exactly what the

problem was. It suggested that the proper forum to decide where liability lay was in

the Court and not on television, and reported that the programme had caused a number

of cancellations of contracts and had damaged its business.

TVNZ advised that it had considered the complaint under standards G4 and G6 of the

Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, which require broadcasters:

G4  To deal justly and fairly with any person taking part or referred to in

any programme.

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political

matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

It responded first to Waco's suggestion that there was doubt about whether the roof

was coated with its product RB80, or with some other product. It suggested that that

question should have been raised prior to the broadcast, and pointed out that Waco

was first approached on 2 May and had adequate opportunity prior to the broadcast

on 27 May to raise that issue.

As for the relationship between Waco and Mr O'Hanlon, TVNZ pointed out that Mr

O'Hanlon was an official franchise holder of Waco and it was Waco that supplied him

with the RB80 product. It also noted that the guarantee covered only work carried out

by bonded applicators and that Mr O'Hanlon, as well as being a franchise holder, was

a bonded applicator. TVNZ argued that the guarantee was more than a product

guarantee because it referred to "work" done by bonded applicators.

TVNZ noted that at no time did Fair Go criticise the product and that the blame for

the problems was clearly placed on Mr O'Hanlon's. However, it observed, the

guarantee for the product was issued in Waco's name and therefore, it argued, it was

not unfair for the programme to suggest that Waco had some responsibility to the

Nations. While it acknowledged that perhaps the product had not been applied

correctly, it pointed out that the man who did the work was Waco's franchise holder.

TVNZ concluded that Waco was not treated unfairly in the programme, and asserted

that its position was quoted accurately and there was no suggestion that the product

itself was defective.

In the Authority's view, the factual background was adequately explained, as was the

legal relationship between the Nations, the franchise holder and Waco. It was also

explained that the problems experienced with the roof were apparently caused by the

product being applied too thickly and the blame rested with the "bonded applicator",

Mr O'Hanlon. The Authority notes that Waco, as manufacturer of the product, was

advised some weeks prior to the broadcast that the item was being prepared. It

therefore had an opportunity to check the claims of the Nations before the programme

went to air and also to ascertain that the product used by Mr O'Hanlon was in fact its

own RB80.

The Authority considers that the programme was balanced, and that its focus on Waco

as guarantor of the product, was not unfair. Although Waco claimed that it was

ridiculous to suggest that it was responsible for the quality of the work undertaken,

the Authority believes the guarantee made it clear that Waco did stand behind its

product, provided it was properly applied by one of its franchise holders. The

Authority acknowledges Waco's advice that the work on the Nations' roof had not

been done in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, and that no guarantee

should have been issued. Nevertheless, the Authority considers that it was not unfair

that the programme emphasised that Waco had an obligation to the Nations, even

though, as Waco pointed out, its relationship with Mr O'Hanlon and his company had

deteriorated as a result of other complaints about the quality of his work and that it

had commenced legal proceedings against him. The Authority concludes that no

standards were breached and declines to uphold the complaint.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Judith Potter
Chairperson
15 August 1996

Appendix

Waco Coatings and Chemicals Ltd's Complaint to Television New Zealand

Limited - 29 May 1996

On behalf of Waco Coatings and Chemicals Ltd, Tischa Kleijn, the Support Manager,

complained to Television New Zealand Limited about the broadcast of an item on Fair

Go on 27 May 1996 on TV One between 7.30 - 8.00pm.

The item featured a couple (Mr and Mrs Nation) who had had the product RB80

applied to their roof by a franchise holder, Mr O'Hanlon, trading as Roof

Rejuvenators. They were dissatisfied principally with the quality of the

workmanship and had been unsuccessful in their attempt to recover their money

($2,000) from Mr O'Hanlon. The item continued by explaining that RB80 was

manufactured by Waco which was not prepared to act on the guarantee given by its

franchise operator.

However, Waco complained, as neither the Nations nor Fair Go were sure that RB80

had been used on the roof, it questioned why the item's presenter had said "we believe

Waco has a responsibility to the Nations". Furthermore, as the item did not

adequately present its side of the dispute, Waco considered that it had not received a

"fair go". The guarantee referred to in the item, it said, included specific conditions

that should be dealt with properly rather than interpreted by journalists.

Waco pointed out that that Fair Go had contended that Waco was responsible for the

actions of Mr O'Hanlon. Waco replied by arguing that such an allegation was

unreasonable, again observing that the parties were not certain that the product used

was manufactured by Waco. Waco compared the situation to that of a painter doing a

bad job of painting somebody's house using Dulux paint. In such a situation, it

submitted, it would be entirely unreasonable to regard Dulux as responsible for the

painter's ineptitude. It suggested that the current situation was similar.

Explaining that until Fair Go got involved it had known nothing of Mr and Mrs

Nation's situation, Waco said that the programme had caused quite a number of

cancellations for contractors and was damaging its business. In conclusion, it argued

that the story was unbalanced and that it had been unfair to give the impression that

Waco was in any way responsible.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint - 17 June 1996

Assessing the complaint in the context of standards G4 and G6 of the Television Code

of Broadcasting Practice, TVNZ dealt first with the point in contention as to whether

the roof was in fact coated with RB80. It pointed out that Fair Go had first contacted

Waco on 2 May, and if Waco had had any doubts as to whether RB80 was in fact the

coating used, then the issue should have been raised at that stage.

As for the next point raised by Waco, TVNZ wrote that it was perplexed by Waco's

statement that the company had never heard of the Nations before. It observed that

Mrs Nation had contacted the company a number of times and, after threatening legal

action, had received a response.

With regard to the complaint that the programme gave the impression that Waco

should be responsible for Mr O'Hanlon's work, TVNZ emphasised:

Although you have clearly fallen out with him, Mr O'Hanlon and Roof

Rejuvenators was an official franchise holder of Waco and it was Waco which

supplied Roof Rejuvenators with the RB80 product.

TVNZ asserted that the franchise relationship made the situation altogether different

to the hypothetical painter suggested by Waco. Examining the company's statements

about the guarantee, TVNZ pointed out that the guarantee was in Waco's name, and

that the guarantee stated "this guarantee covers only work carried out by bonded

applicators". That, it remarked, was inconsistent with Waco's claim that the

guarantee was only a product guarantee.

TVNZ emphasised that Fair Go had not criticised the product, that the item quoted

Waco as saying that the work did not meet specifications and that RB80 was not the

correct product for that roof. It stressed that the blame was pointed at Roof

Rejuvenators, and it was reported that Waco had said that no guarantee should have

been issued. Nevertheless, as the guarantee was in Waco's name, TVNZ believed that

it was fair to ask what Waco intended to do about it.

TVNZ suggested that the programme summed up the issues as far as Waco was

concerned in the following comment in the broadcast:

"It's a pity Waco Coatings canÕt do anything for Rick and Janice. Maybe the

product wasnÕt applied correctly. But the man who did the job was their

franchise-holder."

Maintaining that Fair Go had spoken with Mr Carrol (the Sales Manager at Waco) at

least three times before the programme, TVNZ maintained that Waco had had a fair

opportunity to put its side of the story forward. In conclusion, TVNZ stated that it

did not believe that Waco had been treated unfairly, as:

[Waco's] position was quoted accurately and care was taken to emphasise that

Fair Go had no reason to believe that the product was defective.

Waco's Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority - 14 May 1996

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's response as it believed that its concerns had not been

adequately addressed, Tischa Kleijn of Waco referred the complaint to the

Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority - 24 June 1996

In view of the brevity of the referral, TVNZ said it had no further points to make.