BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

A car buyer, disappointed with his purchase from a car dealer, was the subject of an item on Fair Go broadcast on TV One on 9 September 1998. It was reported that the vehicle he had agreed to purchase had been involved in a serious accident in France, and that the rebuilt vehicle did not meet New Zealand safety standards.

Mr Radisich, through his solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that he and his company were unfairly treated on the programme and that it lacked balance. In particular, he complained that the programme’s implication that it had been agreed that the vehicle would meet original specifications was a gross misrepresentation of the facts. He also complained about the fact that he was identified as being the person responsible for the sale, when he had merely facilitated a negotiation.

TVNZ emphasised that the story emanated from a dissatisfied customer who had agreed to purchase a car which was not as described by the dealer. In particular, it noted, the car had been rebuilt after a serious accident and did not meet New Zealand safety requirements. It maintained that Mr Radisich, as director of the company, had a personal responsibility for the company’s activities. It found no breach of broadcasting standards.

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Radisich 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 the item complained about and have read the correspondence which is listed in the Appendix. On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A Fair Go item broadcast on TV One on 9 September 1998 reported that the buyer of an expensive Audi car had later learned that, contrary to a condition in his agreement to purchase the car, it had been involved in a serious accident and had been rebuilt. In addition, the item continued, the car failed to meet New Zealand safety specifications. According to the presenters, the man who owned the dealership had an obligation to refund the purchase price in full.

Mr Radisich, the owner of the dealership, complained through his solicitors that the programme was inaccurate and lacked balance and that he was not dealt with fairly. He listed a number of matters to which he objected, including the picture of him at the beginning of the programme and the statement that Fair Go had had numerous dealings with him, the implication that he had ripped off the buyer, misrepresentation of the facts surrounding the subsequent agreement and resolution of the dispute, and the claim that he had an obligation to compensate the purchaser. He claimed that the report was slanted in an attempt to denigrate his name, and pointed out that he had never personally been involved in the sale of the vehicle. His involvement, he explained, had been to negotiate a settlement, as a result of which it was agreed that his company would spend some $15,000 on necessary work to the vehicle.

In its response, TVNZ advised that it had considered the complaint under standards G1, G4 and G6 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. Those standards require broadcasters:

G1  To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

G6  To show balance, impartiality and fairness in dealing with political matters, current affairs and all questions of a controversial nature.

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

Responding first to Mr Radisich’s complaint that it was unfair that the item showed his picture and named him in connection with the deal, TVNZ responded that as he was inextricably linked with the company which sold the car, it was not unfair to name him in the context of this story. It also rejected the complaint that it was unfair to state that Fair Go had had numerous dealings with Mr Radisich before, pointing out simply that it happened to be true. In each case, TVNZ noted, the story had been initiated by a dissatisfied customer, and not by Fair Go. It maintained that it was therefore fair to indicate that Mr Radisich had been involved in similar inquiries in the past, as this story, like those before, had involved the sale of a vehicle.

Next, TVNZ responded that it was not unfair to state that the buyer had been ripped off. It considered that fair comment.

With respect to the details given, both in on screen captions and in the script, about the contractual arrangements, TVNZ defended its use of an abbreviated summary of the agreement, arguing that the most significant points it wished to convey were that the agreed price was $125,000, and that the purchaser had specifically stated as a condition of purchase that the vehicle was not to have been rebuilt. It denied that it had misrepresented the facts regarding the agreement, and argued that the central point of the item was that the purchaser had bought a car which had been misrepresented to him. He had expected a vehicle which was both safe and met New Zealand’s legal requirements, but got neither, TVNZ contended. In TVNZ’s view, Fair Go had quite properly stated that as the car did not meet the specifications agreed to at the time of the purchase, the purchaser had every right to expect to have his money refunded.

Turning to Mr Radisich’s objection to the claim that he was personally liable to make good the deal, TVNZ repeated its contention that as owner of the company which sold the car, he was the person with ultimate responsibility. It maintained that Fair Go was entitled to state its view that the purchaser was entitled to a refund.

Finally TVNZ dealt with the allegation that the purchaser had been coached to criticise Mr Radisich personally, when it was contended by Mr Radisich that he had not met the purchaser until negotiations began, well after the sale. TVNZ strenuously denied that Fair Go had coached the purchaser, and repeated its contention that as the director of the company, Mr Radisich could not escape responsibility for his company’s actions.

As far as TVNZ was concerned, the Fair Go item dealt with the fact that the company had breached the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Fair Trading Act because it misrepresented the vehicle by not stating that it had been rebuilt after a major accident. In addition, it noted, the vehicle did not have all of the advertised features, as there were no air bags and faulty rear seat belts. Furthermore, the vehicle was unsafe and therefore not permitted on New Zealand roads.

TVNZ advised that it found no breach of standard G1 as there was no inaccuracy in the broadcast. It contended that the role of the company and its director were fairly represented and that therefore standard G4 was not transgressed.

In reference to standard G6, TVNZ contended that Fair Go had treated the story in a fair and balanced manner. It added a reminder that Fair Go was a programme devoted to consumer rights and that this was a legitimate story.

In his final comment to the Authority, Mr Radisich repeated his complaint that it was unfair that he personally was singled out for attention when he had had no dealings with the purchaser until the settlement regarding the repairs was negotiated. He also objected to the conclusion drawn by Fair Go that he had an obligation to refund the purchase price. That, he maintained, completely disregarded that settlement which had been reached and contained imputations which damaged his reputation.

In addition, Mr Radisich repeated his allegation that Fair Go misrepresented the agreement reached subsequently, pointing out that it had never been agreed that the vehicle would meet original specifications. He argued that it was unreasonable for the purchaser to have expected a secondhand car to reach factory specifications when he had only paid 62.5% of the cost of a new car. Further, he pointed out, the purchase had occurred after the purchaser and his engineers had inspected the car.

The Authority’s Findings

As Fair Go is a programme advocating consumer rights, the Authority is aware of the approach taken when the programme examines cases involving complaints by customers. It accepts TVNZ’s assurance that the matter was raised by the complainant purchaser and is not a question of Fair Go having a particular attitude towards Mr Radisich. In this case, the purchaser had paid $125,000 for a car which did not satisfy New Zealand safety requirements, and unsurprisingly, the Authority considers, he felt aggrieved because neither the LTSA nor the MVDI would acknowledge responsibility for the fact that a car which had been sold by a licensed dealer and which had been certified by the LTSA was unsafe to drive. It appears that this was the purchaser’s final attempt to seek redress before taking the matter to court.

First the Authority deals with the complaint that the item was unfair to Mr Radisich because negative inferences about his business conduct could have been drawn when it identified him as being already known to Fair Go. The Authority does not uphold this aspect of the complaint. It does not find it either inaccurate or unfair to have stated that Mr Radisich was known to Fair Go from previous consumer complaints which had been referred to it. In its view, it was open to viewers to draw their own conclusions about Mr Radisich’s business conduct from the facts which were subsequently reported.

The Authority then turns to the complaint that the item misrepresented what actually occurred when it was discovered that the car did not meet safety requirements. According to the broadcast, the car had been certified by the LTSA and checked by an independent mechanic before it was sold for the agreed price of $125,000. The sales agreement was subject to conditions imposed by the purchaser, who specified that the car must not have been rebuilt. When the fact that the car had been rebuilt was discovered, the dealer offered to spend another $15,000 on the car to make it roadworthy. However, the purchaser was dissatisfied with that proposal, arguing that the vehicle should be brought up to factory standard. When that proposal was not accepted, he sought a full refund. That was refused. The Authority considers that the report fairly traversed the facts surrounding the car’s history, the subsequent discovery of its shortcomings and the proposal to remedy the problems. It does not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

The Authority next deals with the complaint that when a simplified version of the purchase agreement was included in an on-screen caption, it misrepresented the actual agreement and, in particular, that it implied that the vehicle would meet original specifications. It notes TVNZ’s argument that the item’s central point was that the purchaser had bought a car which did not comply with New Zealand safety requirements and did not comply with the purchaser’s express term that it must not have been rebuilt. Under those circumstances, TVNZ considered it was reasonable for the purchaser to expect to have his money refunded. Assessing the complaint in the context of a Fair Go item, with its expected focus on a consumer grievance, the Authority concludes that the original contract was adequately summarised. Although a subsequent "without prejudice" agreement was reached whereby the car was to be brought up to New Zealand safety standards at the dealer’s expense, the purchaser was dissatisfied with that outcome and wanted his money back. The Authority concludes that this summary of events was not inaccurate or unfair to the dealer. The fact remained that a car which was sold for $125,000 was not worth that amount of money because it had some serious defects.

Finally, the Authority deals with the complaint regarding the entitlement of the purchaser to a refund. Mr Radisich maintained that it was unfair to insist that a refund was due, because his company had negotiated a binding agreement with the purchaser to make good the safety defects at a cost of $15,000. The Authority notes that the suggestion that the purchaser was entitled to a refund was clearly the opinion of the Fair Go presenter. It finds no breach of standards in this aspect of the complaint.

In conclusion, the Authority reiterates that in the context of a programme which promotes consumer rights, it is inevitable that the issues will be dealt with from the point of view of the consumer. Nevertheless, the programme must also comply with standards. In its focus on the consumer, on this occasion the Authority concludes that the item did not misrepresent the role of the dealer. It was clear that the car was not of a quality to comply with the purchaser’s express terms. However, it had been sold by a Licensed Motor Vehicle Dealer, and when it later transpired that it had serious defects, the dealer agreed to meet the cost of remedying those.

The Authority also notes that a condition of the original contract was that the car must not have been rebuilt. It is surprised that the engineering checks prior to purchase did not uncover this fact. However, when the car’s history was ultimately discovered, the Authority considers it not surprising that the purchaser therefore wished to rescind the contract. Fair Go took the view that he could do so. It was open to viewers to draw their own conclusions as to the legal or moral obligations on the part of the dealer.

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

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Sam Maling
Chairperson
21 January 1999

Appendix

The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined the complaint:

1. A H Radisich’s Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 7 October 1998

2. TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 21 October 1998

3. Mr Radisich’s Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 29 October 1998

4. TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 9 November 1998

5. Mr Radisich’s Final Comment – 20 November 1998