BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

Problems experienced by three different clients with a house removal company were the

subject of an item on Fair Go on 3 September 1997 at 7.30pm.

Mr Palmer, one of the owners of South Island House Relocators Ltd, complained to

Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast did not deal fairly with him or his

company, that it contained inaccuracies and failed to present a balanced account of the

company's dealing with its clients.

TVNZ responded that there had been a number of complaints about the company failing

to meet its contractual obligations to its clients. It emphasised that it researched the

background to each of the complaints and considered that it accurately and fairly

portrayed the grievances. Furthermore, Mr Palmer was given an opportunity to

respond to the allegations made. TVNZ concluded that the programme fairly and

accurately portrayed the company's operation with respect to the three complainants.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Palmer referred the complaint to the

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

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

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the item complained about, and

have read the lengthy correspondence (summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion,

it determines the complaint without a hearing.

Because of his association with the complainant's company in the past, the Chairperson

declared a conflict of interest and declined to participate in the deliberations.

An item on Fair Go broadcast on 3 September 1997 at 7.30pm dealt with the problems

experienced by three different customers of South Island House Relocators (SIHR)

when it relocated their houses. Describing the company as "the movers from Hell", Fair

Go focussed on the company's failure to complete the moves to the clients' satisfaction.

The condition of the first house, seen still sitting on drums after almost 12 months, was

described as deteriorating with the passage of time. The owner said he had been unable

to persuade SIHR to complete the job. It was reported that the piles had to be dug

deeper than was originally planned, and the responsibility as to who would carry out

this work was in dispute.

Another customer said that the company refused to install the piles for his house,

contrary to the contractual agreement, and he was obliged to get another contractor to do

the work. However, SIHR still considered it was owed the full contract price.

The third house was described as being so badly damaged in the relocation that it was

uninhabitable, and its owners had been living in a bus for a year. In their view, SIHR

had not kept its side of the bargain because it had not attempted to make good the

damage done to the house during the move.

Fair Go then put questions to what it called "the man in charge", Mr Palmer. Extracts

from an interview, which had lasted 1 hour and 25 minutes, showed Mr Palmer denying

that the company had failed to honour its obligations. In his view, it was reported, it

was the customers who were at fault, because they had made unreasonable demands on

the company. The programme concluded with the presenter strongly urging people to

think twice before using SIHR to shift their house.

The Complaint

Mr Palmer complained to TVNZ that the Fair Go item was a malicious personal attack

on him. He objected to having been approached for comment by Fair Go out of

working hours and at a time which was inconvenient for him. He contended that the

programme misled the public by omitting six words out of a section of the contract

quoted, and by failing to reveal that each of the three customers featured was in breach

of their part of the contract, and asserted that they themselves were responsible for

SIHR's failure to complete the work contracted for.

Mr Palmer said that he considered it unfair that the programme neglected to mention

that his company had successfully completed 50 other relocations, and had many

satisfied clients. He challenged the reporter to identify the "50-odd dissatisfied

customers" he claimed were referred to in the programme. He also said it was incorrect

to describe him as "the man in charge", and for the programme to state that he was

filmed at the headquarters of the company.

Mr Palmer cited specific alleged omissions by the programme with respect to each of

the moves featured. Turning to the first case, he said that Fair Go failed to note that the

client had neglected to complete a pre-survey of the property, which resulted in a

month's delay in siting the house. Furthermore, he contended, SIHR did not have

unencumbered access to the property. As for the second customer, Mr Palmer said that

the client did not have ownership of the land until after the move had been completed,

and further, SIHR was prevented from doing the piling work required as a trespass

notice had been served on the company.

In the third case portrayed, Mr Palmer complained that SIHR's liability with respect to

covering the roof was misrepresented, since that was clearly the owner's responsibility.

He also complained that it was inaccurate for the programme to describe the final

location of the house as Shantytown.

Mr Palmer provided a great deal of documentation relating to the individual contracts,

and correspondence pertaining to each of the moves.

He contended that the programme breached standards G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G8,

G10, G11, G13, G14, G15, G16, G17, G19, G20 and G21 of the Television Code of

Broadcasting Practice.

TVNZ's Response

When it responded to the complaint, TVNZ advised that while it would keep all of the

nominated standards in mind, it considered that the complaint concerned a breach of

standards G1 and G4, which are concerned with accuracy and fairness. Those standards

require broadcasters:

G1    To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

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

programme.

TVNZ prefaced its response with the observation that prior to the broadcast it had

checked with legal representatives of the complainants, and had contacted other relevant

parties, such as the Grey District Council, to verify the allegations.

First, TVNZ responded that the interview was made with Mr Palmer's consent and

cooperation. It said it found nothing to support his claim that it was a malicious

personal attack. It advised that it did not propose to comment on Mr Palmer's

complaint that the approach by the reporter was at a time which was inconvenient for

him, since that was not a broadcasting standards matter. However, it maintained, its

reporter acted in a professional manner throughout the interview.

To the complaint that the omission of words from the contract misled viewers, TVNZ

responded that, in its view, the omission did not alter the meaning of the contract. As

for the failure of the programme to emphasise the responsibility of the customers to

fulfil their part of the contracts, TVNZ noted that in each case the clause obliging the

owner to install the piles on the house site had been deleted from the contract.

TVNZ pointed out that one customer, who had paid in full and had met all of his

contractual obligations, had spent a year trying to get his house repaired and the piling

finished. The house remained uninhabitable. Another, in spite of attempts to resolve

the matter, had been hampered by the company's refusal to cooperate or to finish the

house. In the third case, TVNZ reported, the customer hired an independent contractor

to do the piling because SIHR refused to do it, and deducted that cost from the final

payment to SIHR. Mr Palmer then threatened to take the house away and so a trespass

notice was taken out against him and his company.

TVNZ rejected the allegation that the programme referred to "50 odd dissatisfied

customers". It did not specify any number, it responded, but it did reflect the fact that

the three featured were not the only dissatisfied customers. To Mr Palmer's claim that

it was wrong to describe him as the man in charge, and to state that the filming was done

outside his company's headquarters, TVNZ responded that the company records

showed him to be the main shareholder, and that his home in Springs Junction was the

company's registered office.

With respect to the specific omissions cited relating to each of the moves, TVNZ first

addressed SIHR's contention that it was because the first client had failed to conduct a

pre-survey that there was a delay in siting the house. It reported that this matter had

not been raised with the client previously, and the Grey District Council, which was

responsible for approving plans, was not aware of its being a problem either. TVNZ

added that the problem with this move was not relocating the house, but getting SIHR to

install the piling so that the house could be lowered onto piles and made habitable.

After a siting inspection from the Council, approval was given for the piles to be dug to

a depth of between 750 and 850mm. SIHR, TVNZ reported, had not installed the piling

even though the owner had agreed to pay the additional cost for deeper piles.

Responding to the claim that SIHR did not have unencumbered access because of the

presence of a tunnel house, TVNZ responded that the tunnel house did not prevent the

relocation of the house on its new site, and furthermore, that it was a flimsy contraption

which was easily moved.

Turning to the claim that the second client did not have ownership of the land when the

house was moved to the property, TVNZ noted that the agreement to purchase the

section was signed the day before the house was moved, and the vendor was fully aware

that a house was going to be moved on to the site. It considered Mr Palmer was

mistaken in believing that Mr Barker did not have ownership until mid July. TVNZ

explained that the trespass notice was served to prevent Mr Palmer from carrying out

his threat to take the house away.

TVNZ then dealt with the claim that the programme misrepresented who was liable for

covering the roof of the third house. It noted that during the move virtually every

window in the house was broken and one wall was badly damaged, apparently when the

removal truck struck a bank during the journey. TVNZ acknowledged that the contract

said that the owners were responsible for taking off the roof and covering it. However,

it understood that Mr Palmer refused to permit them to put tarpaulins on prior to the

move, or when rain began to fall during the journey. In response to the claim that it was

inaccurate to state that the house was moved to Shantytown, TVNZ noted that its final

destination was a short distance from Shantytown, and that viewers would have been

more likely to know where Shantytown was than its precise location.

In concluding, TVNZ said that it did not find that the broadcast was either inaccurate or

unfair to Mr Palmer, and declined to uphold the complaint.

The Authority's Findings

The Authority has received a large volume of correspondence from Mr Palmer in which

he has detailed the background circumstances relating to the three house removals

featured on the programme. It notes that Mr Palmer took issue with the manner in

which he and the company were portrayed on the programme, and that he considered

that Fair Go intentionally misled the public about the conduct of the company with

respect to each of the moves. The Authority has read Mr Palmer's detailed submissions

and TVNZ's comprehensive responses in rebuttal.

The Authority's task is to decide whether the programme breached broadcasting

standards. As it has observed on previous occasions, Fair Go is a consumer advocate

programme. It has a particular style which is familiar to viewers. In this item, three

disgruntled customers complained that services for which they had paid had not been

performed by SIHR. Extracts from an interview with Mr Palmer, which was stated as

having continued for 1 hour and 25 minutes, showed him defending the position of the

company and suggesting that the customers themselves were in breach of their

contractual obligations, thus making it impossible for SIHR to complete the removal

work. The programme concluded with an observation from the Fair Go presenter that

potential customers should be wary of becoming involved with SIHR in light of the

experiences of the three featured.

The Authority considers that the complaint can be appropriately dealt with under

standards G1 and G4 which, in its view, encompass the principal concerns of Mr

Palmer. Nevertheless, it is aware that he raised 16 other standards which he considered

were breached in the programme. The Authority takes this into account when it

assesses the complaint against standards G1 and G4.

First, the Authority examines the complaint that the item was untruthful and inaccurate,

thus breaching standard G1. A number of matters were identified by Mr Palmer under

this head. TVNZ has responded in detail. Upon examination of the various factual

matters (which are summarised above), the Authority concludes that they were

relatively minor matters which were satisfactorily answered in TVNZ's responses. It is

also of the view that the matters identified did not materially affect the overall

impressions of the company and its dealings with the clients.

Turning to the allegation that the programme was unfair and thus in breach of standard

G4, the Authority notes that Mr Palmer was himself given a full opportunity by the

Fair Go reporter to respond to the criticisms levelled at him and his company. He did

so in a lengthy interview. He complained that no satisfied customers were shown. The

Authority accepts that not all of SIHR's customers felt as aggrieved as the three

featured on the programme, and notes that this was acknowledged on the programme.

However, it considers that having unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate with SIHR to

complete the work contracted for, the three dissatisfied customers were entitled to turn

to a medium such as Fair Go to try to facilitate the completion of that work.

As noted above, the Fair Go format is familiar to viewers. It provides a forum for

consumers who are dissatisfied with goods or services, and allows their claims to be

investigated. The Authority considers that Mr Palmer was given an adequate

opportunity to respond to the allegations made about the conduct of his company. The

debate has continued in a lengthy correspondence.

Ultimately, despite the plethora of details disputed by Mr Palmer, the Authority

concludes that the programme did not breach any broadcasting standards. The claims

made by the dissatisfied customers were substantiated to the Authority's satisfaction.

While SIHR was not portrayed in a particularly favourable light with respect to each of

these moves, the programme did refer to other satisfied customers. Accordingly, the

Authority declines to uphold the complaint that standards G1 and G4 of the Television

Code of Broadcasting Practice, or any of the other standards nominated by the

complainant were breached.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Lyndsay Loates
Member
28 May 1998

Appendix

South Island House Relocators' Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 30

September 1997

Mr Roger Palmer of South Island House Relocators complained to Television New

Zealand Ltd about its broadcast of an item on a Fair Go programme on 3 September

1997 at 7.30pm. The item concerned his dealings with three clients, whose homes his

company had relocated.

He claimed that he had been the victim of a malicious verbal attack by the reporter and

expressed his annoyance that he had been approached out of working hours for an

interview at a time which was inconvenient for him. He contended that the

programme inaccurately portrayed him as "the man in charge". In fact, he reported, he

had not been responsible for signing any of the three contracts which were the subject

of the item, and had had very little involvement with the relocation process of one of

the contracts. Mr Palmer maintained that Fair Go knew that it was his son who had

signed the contracts.

Next, he complained that Fair Go misled the public by incorrectly quoting a section

from the company's standard contract on screen. He noted that six words had been

omitted and thus portrayed a false impression of the liability of the company.

Mr Palmer alleged that the camera crew trespassed on private property to film him

and his business premises. He contended that the premises shown were not owned

by South Island House Relocators.

In addition, Mr Palmer maintained that he had not received any complaint from one of

the parties shown in the programme, and that therefore he had not received a fair go

from the investigation. He said there was no file for this client, as the relocation had

been satisfactorily completed. He objected to Fair Go stating that a file pertaining to

one of the clients had been stolen, when he had advised the producer prior to the

broadcast that it had simply been removed from his office.

Mr Palmer objected to his business being described as a West Coast company. He

also objected to the failure to explain that each of the three clients was in breach of

their part of the contract, and that his company was willing to complete the job as

soon as the clients fulfilled their obligations. He noted that his company had

successfully completed 50 other relocations and had many satisfied clients. Mr

Palmer challenged the reporter to identify the "50 odd dissatisfied customers"

allegedly referred to in the programme.

Turning to the first case discussed (Mr McKenzie), Mr Palmer noted that the

programme failed to mention that the house could not be placed on piles as the client

had failed to complete the pre-survey, which meant that the relocators had to wait an

additional month to get the survey completed. Furthermore, he continued, the

company did not have unrestricted access to the property as required under the

contract because of the existence of a tunnel house. He noted that this was not

portrayed on the programme.

With respect to the second case (Mr Barker), Mr Palmer contended that the owner

signed a contract for relocation in May but that he did not have ownership of the

property until July, and a trespass notice prevented his company from doing the

piling work for the house. Mr Palmer complained that the programme failed to

include all of the facts, in particular that the owner did not have title to the property

until two months after he had signed a contract to relocate the house. It also did not

reveal that a garage, in addition to the house, was moved as part of the contract.

As for the third case (Mr and Mrs Johnson), which involved the relocation of a house

from Greymouth to near Shantytown, Mr Palmer complained that his company's

contractual duty with respect to covering the roof was misrepresented. He maintained

that it was the owners' responsibility to provide covering for the roof and they failed

to do so.

In a second letter, dated 1 October, Mr Palmer contended that the programme

breached the following standards of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice -

G1, G2, G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G8, G10, G11, G13, G14, G15, G16, G17, G19, G20,

G21, and any other standards which the Authority determined were breached.

He advised that he was seeking legal advice regarding Fair Go's investigation of his

company on a previous occasion.

TVNZ's Response to the Formal Complaint – 22 October 1997

TVNZ responded first that it had considered the list of standards which Mr Palmer

alleged were breached by the broadcast and had concluded that essentially his

complaint concerned a breach of standards G1 and G4 which are concerned with

accuracy and fairness. However, it advised, it would keep the other nominated

standards in mind as it assessed the complaint.

TVNZ advised that in the course of dealing with the complaint, it had learned that the

company had been subject of a number of complaints to Fair Go, and that the

common theme among complainants was that the company had failed to meet its

contractual obligations to its clients.

It emphasised that in selecting the three individual cases and before deciding to

broadcast the item, it had ascertained the circumstances surrounding each case by

checking with legal representatives of the complainants, and contacting other parties,

notably the Grey District Council. TVNZ noted that the reporter made numerous

attempts to contact Mr Palmer but was unable to do so until a few days before the

broadcast. TVNZ expressed surprise that Mr Palmer considered he had been attacked

in the interview, when it was conducted with his consent and cooperation.

TVNZ noted that at one point in the item, there was reference to the company's files.

Its understanding was that the reporter invited Mr Palmer to suspend the discussion

so as to obtain files from his nearby home. Mr Palmer refused to do so. TVNZ did

not believe he was treated unfairly.

With respect to the complaint that Mr Palmer was inaccurately portrayed as "the man

in charge", TVNZ pointed out that company records showed Mr Palmer was the main

shareholder of the company and that its registered office was his home at Springs

Junction. TVNZ denied that it was inaccurate for the reporter to state that a "few

questions" were going to be put to him. It acknowledged that the interview lasted 1

hour and 25 minutes, but noted that was to allow him to give his side of the story.

Turning to the complaint that he had not been responsible for any of the three signed

contracts, TVNZ pointed out that it was his company and he was responsible for it.

In one case, it noted that his son had signed the contract, but that Mr Palmer himself

had overseen the shift and had driven the truck. In the second case, while his son

signed the contract, there was a clause which clearly stated that it was at Mr Palmer's

discretion whether the final payment of $5000 would be reduced by $2000. In the

third case, TVNZ noted that Mr Palmer had tried to persuade the client to sign an

amended contract which removed any liability on the part of the company and was

ambiguous about the total cost of the job.

Next TVNZ responded to the assertion that when it quoted the words of the contract,

it removed six words and thus altered the meaning. It noted that the original contract

said:

Pay for and make good all major damage to any property caused directly by

the relocator's negligence during their time span of control of the relocation.

Fair Go broadcast the following:

Pay for and make good all major damage caused directly by the relocator's

negligence during the relocation.

TVNZ did not believe that the removal of the words altered the meaning of the

contract.

Referring to the suggestion that the reporter was guilty of trespass on his property,

TVNZ observed that there was in law an implied consent regarding entry to speak to

an occupier. It was only trespass if the person refused to leave after being asked to do

so. It noted that Mr Palmer agreed to an interview - he did not ask the reporter to

leave.

Responding to Mr Palmer's complaint that he was unfairly treated when described as

having upset so many customers, TVNZ noted that Fair Go had received a number of

complaints about the business. It also pointed out that it was noted that there had

been many satisfied customers as well. TVNZ disputed Mr Palmer's assertion that

the Johnsons had never complained to him about the moving of their house. It advised

that it knew as fact that they had complained on numerous occasions, and that it was

aware that the house was so badly damaged in the move that it was uninhabitable.

In considering whether Mr Palmer was treated fairly, TVNZ repeated that Mr Palmer

did consent to being interviewed, and was given the opportunity to gather the

necessary files and records and to send the reporter any relevant documents which

might substantiate the view that it was the customers who were in the wrong and not

Mr Palmer.

Turning to the report broadcast that a vital file had been stolen, TVNZ responded that

that information came from Mr Palmer himself in a telephone conversation with the

reporter. In later written material, Mr Palmer had stated that the file had been

removed during a burglary. In TVNZ's view, it was therefore correct to say it had

been stolen.

The question of whether Springs Junction, where the business was located, was or

was not a West Coast town was, according to TVNZ, trivial. It believed most

residents there considered themselves West Coasters, the company spent much of its

time in the region, and all of the complainants were on the West Coast.

To Mr Palmer's allegation that the contracts for the three clients featured contained

clauses which they had breached, TVNZ responded that in each case one or more of

those clauses had been deleted.

TVNZ noted that during the programme, Mr Palmer gave reasons why he had not

finished the work. In each case, TVNZ responded, the reasons were refuted by the

dissatisfied customers and the Grey District Council. It noted that the programme

acknowledged that there were many satisfied customers.

TVNZ suggested that it defied credulity for Mr Palmer to state that he was willing to

comply with the contracts now. It noted that one of the customers had paid in full

and had met all their contractual obligations but had spent the last year trying to get

their house repaired and the piling finished. In another case, the customer had tried to

get the matter resolved by the Disputes Tribunal, but Mr Palmer had refused to

cooperate. TVNZ argued that the company had not honoured the original contract in

that case.

TVNZ then outlined the facts of the third case. Mr Barker signed a contract which

involved shifting the house and putting it on new piles. The contract price was

$8000. However the company refused to do the piling work and Mr Barker was told

to get another company to do it. He assumed that the cost of the piling would be

deducted from the contract price. That did not happen, so Mr Palmer tried to

persuade him to sign a second contract which omitted any liability on the part of the

company with respect to the piling and which left the contract price open. Mr Barker

refused to sign, but offered to place the balance in a solicitor's trust account. Mr

Palmer apparently refused the offer, and instead threatened to take the house away.

In an effort to protect his property, Mr Barker took out trespass notices against Mr

Palmer and the company.

TVNZ denied that the programme stated there were 50 dissatisfied customers.

To Mr Palmer's allegation that one house could not be sited because there had been no

pre-survey work, TVNZ stated that neither the customer nor the District Council was

aware this was a problem. Getting the house on site was never a problem, TVNZ

continued, the problem was in getting the company to honour the contract and install

the piling and place the house on the piling. It rejected Mr Palmer's contention that

the piling plan was in breach of the building code. It advised that the Council stated

there was no problem with the piling plan.

TVNZ disputed Mr Palmer's assertion that the company did not have unencumbered

access to the property. The tunnel house did not prevent the relocation of the house.

TVNZ believed that Mr Palmer was mistaken in his assertion that with respect to the

second house, the customer did not have title to the land until 2 months after the

house was moved. It also considered it highly misleading that Mr Palmer contended

that he was unable to locate the house because a trespass notice was taken out against

him. TVNZ repeated that the trespass notice was issued later when Mr Palmer

threatened to take the house away.

TVNZ then responded to Mr Palmer's allegation that it was untrue to state that one

of the houses was moved from Greymouth to Shantytown. TVNZ noted that its final

location was a few minutes drive from Shantytown, and that most viewers would have

known where Shantytown was, but would not have been familiar with the actual rural

address of the property. TVNZ did not consider that was a false statement.

When that was moved, virtually every window was broken and one wall was badly

damaged, apparently when the vehicle struck a bank during the journey. In addition,

several ceilings collapsed. TVNZ accepted that the contract stated that the owners

would take the roof down and provide replacement iron as necessary. But, it pointed

out, the ceiling was not a roof, and because the ceilings were damaged, it was fair to

say that the company was liable. TVNZ advised that it understood that the owners

hired tarpaulins for the journey, but that the company refused to use them when the

rain began to fall during the move.

TVNZ concluded that the information presented was based on solid, documentary

evidence and was often supported by reference to third parties such as the vendor of

the section in Hokitika and the Grey District Council.

It advised that it was unable to conclude that the programme was unfair or inaccurate

and declined to uphold the complaint.

South Island House Relocators' Referral to the Broadcasting Standards

Authority – 26 November 1997

Dissatisfied with TVNZ's decision, Mr Palmer for South Island House Relocators

referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority for investigation and

review pursuant to s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

Mr Palmer made the following points:

1. Fair Go did not do a proper and exhaustive inquiry into the matter.

2. The business was not his personal house moving business. He denied that

there were complaints from three customers, and pointed out that he knew

nothing of the dissatisfaction of one of the customers until he was interviewed

by Fair Go.

3. Neither he nor his company was treated fairly.

4. TVNZ failed to consider the complaint under all of the standards cited.

5. Fair Go failed to note that each of the aggrieved customers shown on the

programme had failed to honour their obligations.

6. One of the complainants had never given notice of a complaint to him. He

noted that neither of the other two were being represented by their original

legal representative, which indicated to Mr Palmer the weakness of their case.

7. No other complainants had complained to him. He argued that it was

significant that Fair Go had withheld the names of the legal representatives of

the complainants and had not put in writing the statements from the Grey

District Council. He also repeated that it was misleading to state that a house

was moved to Shantytown when in fact its location was some 25 kms away.

He also disputed TVNZ's claims that it could not contact Mr Palmer until just

prior to the programme.

8. Mr Palmer emphasised that his agreement to be interviewed was as would be

expected of a person willing to negotiate.

9. Mr Palmer was prepared to be interviewed, but wished to have another

meeting at which he could rely on information from the relevant files.

10–18. Mr Palmer denied that he was the "man in charge" even though he was a major

shareholder. It was the company which was liable, and not the shareholders.

19–21. He denied that he attempted to get one of the complainants to sign an

amended contract. He objected to TVNZ's contention that removing words

from the contract did not change its meaning.

22. Mr Palmer maintained that the interview was conducted on private property

and the camera crew did not have permission to be there.

23–24. He denied that his home was the registered office of the company.

25. No satisfied customers were shown.

26. He denied that the second house was uninhabitable. He pointed out the

owners did not complain to him.

27. Mr Palmer maintained that his comment on the programme that the reporter

had his facts wrong was in relation to a discussion about Mr McKenzie and

Mr Barker.

29–31. Mr Palmer challenged Fair Go to produce evidence where he said a file had

been stolen.

32. He noted that the bulk of his business was not on the West Coast but in

Canterbury, contrary to what TVNZ contended.

33. Regarding the contents of the contract, Mr Palmer repeated that he only

claimed that the parties were in breach of their part of the contract. He noted

that all three contracts contained clauses 16, 17 and 18 and that it was

irrelevant whether they were crossed out or not.

34–35. Mr Palmer objected to the footage of his interview, explaining that he had not

had time to dress suitably for it. He also objected to the fact that no satisfied

customers were included on the programme.

36–38. He repeated that completion of the contract would be when the parties had

remedied their breach of contract and outlined some of the events which

transpired between the parties.

39. Mr Palmer challenged TVNZ to produce details of the alleged breaches of

contract.

40. He objected to the portrayal of his company.

41. Half a cut house is not a full house.

42. The piling depth had to be increased to allow for the fact that the customer

failed to dig out and backfill his section to allow the piling plan to be complied

with. The Grey District Council required certain conditions to be complied

with. Mr Palmer noted that his company incurred additional costs in order to

comply with the regulations. He considered Mr McKenzie was then liable to

reimburse his company for the extra expenses incurred.

43. The site plan had to be approved prior to signing the contract, according to the

pre-survey. There was an understanding that Mr McKenzie would remove

the tunnel green house and dig and back fill to level the section..

44. He challenged TVNZ's assertions that it double checked the facts presented.

45. Mr Palmer explained that his company was forced to bear additional costs

because one of the properties did not have clear access, and although the

property owner agreed to pay the additional amount, he did not do so, and

thus was in breach of his contract.

46–47. He disputed the details about the depths of the piling and said that the tunnel

house, Mr McKenzie's donkey, coal wagons and a fence hampered the

relocation of the house.

48. Mr Palmer agreed TVNZ was correct in stating that $5000 was paid as a late

payment.

49–50. Mr Palmer referred to a previous investigation by Fair Go about an unrelated

matter.

51–52. One of the owners did pay $3000 up front, but did not pay the $2000 for

lowering the house onto drums, or $1000 for relocation of a garage. Mr Palmer

admitted that neither the owner of the house or the land owner issued trespass

notices against him, but that they did prevent the company from digging post

holes.

53–56 Mr Palmer disputed TVNZ's account of the details of the move of the

Hokitika house. He challenged TVNZ to produce evidence where he stated

that the purchase of the section was in July. In fact, he pointed out, the

problem was that legal ownership did not pass until then and that was what

delayed the relocation.

57. Regarding the allegations about the damage to one of the houses, Mr Palmer

responded that it was the owner's fault and due to their laziness that damage

occurred to the roof. He pointed out that the owner had agreed to accept

liability. He challenged TVNZ to prove that every window was smashed, that

part of a wall was damaged in the relocation and that his company had not

fixed anything which was damaged. He asserted that the damage was caused

by the digger on site which struck the back of the house. He admitted that a

small amount of damage was caused when a corner of the house struck a bank

and damaged some joists which his company repaired.

58. Mr Palmer asserted that in all cases, more than a large slice of value for money

was delivered.

59–60 Mr Palmer expressed his disappointment about the manner in which the

matter had been dealt with by Fair Go.

He concluded:

Once again we allege that all our earlier and current complaints can be

substantiated and that there have been many and varied breaches by Fair Go

and TVNZ of the Broadcasting Standards Code of Practice and thus we have

no intention of accepting all the false explanation of TVNZ and that we will be

vehemently pursuing that our very valid complaints be upheld by the

respective authorities.

Mr Palmer appended some correspondence which supported his contentions.

TVNZ's Response to the Authority – 16 January 1998

TVNZ provided a comprehensive response to the referral. It noted that some matters

were raised by Mr Palmer which had not been in his original letter of complaint. It

asked the Authority to disregard them.

TVNZ responded to the numbered points in Mr Palmer's letter.

1. To Mr Palmer's assertion that it had not "completed any inquiry in a proper

judicial manner", TVNZ responded that if that remark referred to its handling

of the complaint, it reassured him that it had been put through the established

procedure required under s.6 of the Broadcasting Act. If it referred to the

programme itself, it advised that Fair Go undertook thorough research before

broadcasting the item and gave Mr Palmer every opportunity to put his side of

the story.

2. TVNZ advised that Fair Go had never claimed that the company was Mr

Palmer's personal house moving business. However it maintained that he was

the person in charge and ran the business, was the main shareholder and made

the decisions.

Referring to the three clients, TVNZ reported that two had engaged solicitors

to try to sort out their dispute with Mr Palmer, and the third said they had

made repeated complaints and requests to Mr Palmer and his son about their

uncompleted house. The interview with Mr Palmer was not conducted on

private property, it was on the roadside.

3. Mr Palmer was treated fairly. He was invited to produce documentation to

support his claims, but did not do so. He was provided the opportunity to

state his case in the interview.

4. TVNZ advised that its intention was to be helpful when it eliminated some of

the standards nominated by Mr Palmer. It was of the view that the complaint

concerned standards G1 and G4.

5. It remained TVNZ's view that the company, not its customers, was in breach

of its contractual obligations. All three complainants made payments in accord

with the terms of the contract. Two of the complainants offered to lodge the

final progress payment with a solicitor. Mr Palmer refused to accept this offer

and honour his company's contractual obligations. The fact that the houses in

question were unfinished and/or uninhabitable was, in TVNZ's view, itself a

breach of contract.

6. All three complainants remained adamant they complained to the company.

The court action was initiated by Mr Palmer himself after he was advised that

the complaints against his company would be broadcast on Fair Go. It added

that earlier that day Mr Palmer offered to finish all three properties if Fair Go

promised not to broadcast the complaint or any future complaints against the

company. The complainants refused to accept those terms and Mr Palmer

said he would sue them.

The customer who Mr Palmer referred to as having no legal representative was

making use of the Disputes Tribunal, so did not need legal representation.

Even if the other two had changed their legal representatives, it did not mean

their case was weak. TVNZ submitted that it was more likely they had

engaged counsel with more experience in the area.

7. TVNZ advised that Fair Go had several other complaints against the company

in its files. Most were reluctant to take further action for fear of being served

legal action by Mr Palmer. Fair Go had not withheld the names of additional

complainants or their legal representatives. It had never been asked to produce

them.

TVNZ confirmed that it interviewed Mr Palmer's son but the interview was

not used because Stephen Palmer insisted that the matters being raised should

be addressed to his father.

Fair Go had never received any request for statements in writing. The facts of

the cases were checked in one instance with the Grey District Council, and in

the other two, with the owners' legal representatives.

TVNZ confirmed that one of the complainants lived near Shantytown, and

although it was a country residence, Shantytown was the nearest town. It

emphasised that the rural address would have meant nothing to a national

audience, whereas Shantytown did.

TVNZ emphasised that Fair Go made numerous attempts to contact the

company, despite Mr Palmer's claim to the contrary. It noted that none of the

documents from the firm carried either a cellphone or fax number, and that

there was no reply from the telephone number.

8–9. Having described the interview as a "vicious, malicious, verbal, unarranged

attack", TVNZ noted that it was pleased Mr Palmer now acknowledged that

he agreed to be interviewed. It said it was bewildered by his claim that he

asked that it be held somewhere else and that he be given time to assemble

files. That claim TVNZ described as total fabrication. It wrote:

Mr Palmer was approached, advised that Fair Go was investigating

complaints about his company and asked if he would answer some

questions on camera. He could have refused; he could have walked

away and the reporter – as is routine in such cases -would then have

invited him to contact the programme later to discuss the merits of the

complaints or provide a statement. Instead his response was "no

problem" and the interview as shown in the programme proceeded

without any conditions attached.

It stressed that he consented to be interviewed. At one point the interview

stopped so he could collect his files, but the offer to suspend the interview

was declined. It noted that the interview lasted an hour and 25 minutes and at

the end, Mr Palmer was invited to discuss the matter further on the telephone

and to send relevant documents to Fair Go. The documents were never

received, but the reporter did have further discussions with Mr Palmer.

10. Mr Palmer was at liberty to decline the interview.

11. TVNZ maintained that it did not think he was treated unfairly.

12. The company has three shareholders. Mr Palmer is the major shareholder.

The two complainants who attempted to resolve the dispute with the aid of

lawyers dealt solely with him. His son and partner told Fair Go that any

comment would come from Mr Palmer.

13. Mr Palmer was correct in saying the company, and not its shareholders, was

liable.

14–18. Mr Palmer and his son are two of the three owners and they also operated the

business. TVNZ considered it acted correctly in trying to resolve the disputes

by dealing with Mr Palmer.

19. The second complainant had a legally binding contract with SIHR. It did not

consider Mr Palmer's attempt to rewrite the contract (making it more

favourable to the company) and to force the customer to sign it was evidence

that he was meeting his contractual obligations. It suggested that it was the

company, not the customer which was in breach of the contract.

20–21. Removal of the words from the contract did not alter the meaning of the clause,

according to legal advice received by TVNZ.

22. Fair Go was not guilty of trespass. The interview was conducted on the

roadside. Mr Palmer was incorrect to say the crew was asked to leave. There

was no request by Mr Palmer for the meeting to be held on another day. It

added:

The closest he came to that was his proclamation that he would return

to television (apparently on Holmes) to prove the Fair Go reporter

wrong.

23–24. Company records showed that the registered office of the company was his

home.

25. TVNZ did not dispute that Mr Palmer had satisfied customers.

26. TVNZ reported as fact that one of the houses was so badly damaged it was

uninhabitable. The owners had made numerous requests to the company to

repair the damage and finish the piling to no avail.

27. TVNZ noted that when on the programme Mr Palmer told the reporter he had

his facts wrong, it was in reference to Mr McKenzie who had paid out

$15,000 on his contract, and did not refer to the Johnsons who were living in a

bus because their house was not habitable. It advised that a check of the

videotape would show that Mr Palmer's recollection was wrong.

28–31. The missing file was that of Mr McKenzie, the first customer shown. In a

phone call with the reporter, TVNZ noted, Mr Palmer had been very definite

that it was missing and implied that Mr McKenzie was behind the theft.

32. TVNZ denied that the story was a sham. All the complainants lived on the

West Coast.

33. TVNZ noted that the company had never explained how the customers were in

breach of their contractual obligations and how they could remedy the

situation. It noted that each of the three contracts had certain clauses crossed

out – the McKenzies had clauses 17 and 18 crossed out, and the other two had

clause 18 crossed out. These clauses therefore did not apply.

34–35. TVNZ contended that Mr Palmer was given more air time than any of the

complainants. His reasons for not honouring the contracts and completing the

work were included in full.

36. TVNZ considered the evidence suggested that it was Mr Palmer and not the

customers who were in breach of contract. It believed it stretched credulity for

him to state that he was willing to comply with the contracts.

37. It noted that the Johnsons met all their obligations, paying cash up front. The

company was responsible for any damage that occurred. It had not repaired

the damage which did occur.

38. TVNZ clarified the facts of the matter which was before the Disputes

Tribunal. Mr McKenzie was asking for an order that the house be finished for

the agreed balance of $5,000. Because Mr Palmer refused to cooperate, the

case could not be heard.

39. TVNZ provided details from Mr Barker's contract which showed that the

total price was $8000 and that the company would do the piling. Since Mr

Barker had to get an independent contractor to do the piling, TVNZ considered

it reasonable that he believed he was entitled to a discount.

40. In addition to the three complainants shown, Fair Go knew of a number of

other dissatisfied customers.

41. Fair Go never claimed nor implied that the company moved only half the

house, nor did it claim that half a house was a full house.

42. TVNZ rejected the suggestion that it claimed there was a contract between the

company and the District Council. It advised the first it heard of the problem

being related to the pre-survey was in Mr Palmer's initial letter of complaint.

He did not mention it during the interview. TVNZ emphasised that Mr

McKenzie's contract stated that the company would do all the piling. The

company made its bid based on a site inspection. It noted that Mr McKenzie

dug the piles deeper himself and offered to contribute to the cost of having

longer piles.

43. Mr McKenzie did offer to move the tunnel house, but was told it was not a

problem.

44. Fair Go could document all its claims, TVNZ advised.

45. These issues have been discussed.

46. TVNZ suggested that the detailed description of the piling requirements

suggested that Mr Palmer might have recovered the missing file.

47. TVNZ rejected the suggestion that it manipulated the tunnel house out of the

picture. It noted that it was a flimsy structure which was easily able to be

moved.

48. TVNZ suggested that the payment of $5000 was the third payment and was

paid before the house was lowered onto the piles. It was not a late payment,

as Mr Palmer claimed.

49–50. TVNZ responded that the matters raised were not relevant to this complaint.

51. Mr Barker did pay $3000 but refused to pay the second $2000 instalment

because the company had not done the piling. Mr Barker got another

contractor in to do the piling and offered to lodge the outstanding monies

(minus $2000 for the piling) with an independent solicitor provided the

company would complete the job. The company tried to get him to sign a new

contract, and he refused. Mr Barker then took out trespass notices to prevent

the company coming onto the property to remove the house.

52. The trespass notice was served several weeks after the company refused to do

the piling and an independent contractor was called in. At no point was the

company issued a trespass notice which would have prevented it digging the

holes.

53. The reason the company was not paid the full amount was because the work

was not done.

54. The moving of the garage was in July.

55. Mr Palmer was not denied access to the property.

56. The purchase documents for the property were signed on 9 May.

57. The Johnson's contract stated that the company would pay for all major

damage caused during the move. They relied on the company to do the work

and had a right to expect that the company would do it and make good any

damage. There are photographs to show the smashed windows, which should

have been covered with corrugated iron before the move. TVNZ advised that

it knew nothing about a digger and a wire rope which was alleged to have

caused damage to the house.

58. None of the complainants claim to have received value for money from the

company. All three were left with uninhabitable houses. In TVNZ's view, all

three made attempts to sort out their problems with the company before

talking to Fair Go.

TVNZ concluded by wishing Mr Palmer well with his book.

South Island House Relocators' Final Comment – 24 February (received 1 April

1998)

Mr Palmer sought from TVNZ:

*evidence that there was a law which would prevent him from holding files in

another office;

*the written material where Mr Palmer stated that a file had been removed in a

burglary;

*evidence that Mr Palmer used the word "stolen";

*the names of the legal representatives of the complainants;

*the video which clearly showed that the interview with him took place on

someone else's property;

*evidence that the Johnsons had made numerous complaints to him;

*evidence that the man in charge was Mr Palmer.

Mr Palmer asserted that the Johnsons had not complained to him after their move,

while Barker and McKenzie had done. He objectd to TVNZ's contention that Fair

Go had been unable to make contact with Mr Palmer. He also sought from TVNZ:

*evidence that Fair Go had attempted to contact him by fax;

*evidence that the contract alllowed progress payments to be lodged with a

solicitor;

*evidence that the unfinished house was a breach of contract;

*a copy of a letter from Fair Go to the complainants dated 15/10/97;

*an acknowledgment from TVNZ that the film crew delayed Stephen Palmer for

one hour, not 12 minutes.

Mr Palmer pointed out that the Johnson's piling was completed according to the

contract. He maintained that the reason the house was uninhabitable was a result of

their own failings.

Mr Palmer objected to the suggestion that had he completed the work on all three

properties, he could have prevented Fair Go from broadcasting. He pointed out that

the Barker property had already been put in the hands of another contractor who had

"half-wrecked" it, and then SIHR had been held responsible. Further, SIHR had a

trespass order against it and therefore could not finish the work.

Commenting on TVNZ's portrayal of the three property owners as intending to get

habitable homes, Mr Palmer pointed out that was exactly what his company intended

to provide. Yet, he continued, in the case of Mr Barker, after 6 months had elapsed,

no progress had been made on the house to make it habitable. Mr Palmer concluded

that Mr Barker never intended to live in the house.

Referring to the numbered points in previous correspondence, Mr Palmer wrote:

19. Fair Go should show how he forced the customer to sign a contract under

threat.

20–21. The assertion by TVNZ that removing the words from the contract did not

alter its meaning was wrong.

23–27. The portrayal of the Johnson's complaints against SIHR was unfair and did

not show that they had failed to take responsibility for themselves.

Mr Palmer considered it unfair that he was approached for an interview without

warning, late in the day, and was given no opportunity for a meeting at a later date.

No mention was made of the owners' liabilities and that it was not Roger Palmer, but

his son who signed the contracts.

Mr Palmer challenged TVNZ to provide evidence regarding the reasons why each of

the houses was not completed. He detailed a large number of matters which he said

illustrated that the clients did not fulfil their contracts. In particular he maintained

that Mr Barker did not have title to the land that his house was moved to, and that

facts concerning the relocation of the garage were withheld, and that the Johnson

house grazed a bank as a result of error on the part of the escort which they provided

themselves. He denied that SIHR was responsible for any damage to the Johnson

house.

Finally, Mr Palmer referred to the history of correspondence between himself and

Fair Go regarding other subsidiary matters.

Further Correspondence

In a brief response, TVNZ advised that it considered the content of the complaint had

extended beyond the matters at issue when the complaint was initially lodged.

It advised that it could provide documentary support for what was said in the

programme. However, it considered that a stop should be put to the convoluted

correspondence, and asked that the Authority considered the complaint on the basis

of the paperwork it had before it. It suggested that if the Authority identified any

ambiguities or irregularities which needed to be cleared up, then it should seek a

specific response on the particulars.

On 29 April 1998, Mr Palmer of SIHR faxed 48 pages of material, including a copy of

the contract with Mr Barker, copies of correspondence dating back several years with

Fair Go, and correspondence relating to the moves, some of which had already been

sent to the Authority previously.