Search Rapua

Summary An item on Fair Go reported on a dart-throwing competition which had been won by an Auckland man. The competition had been organised by a promoter, who had arranged insurance for the event with his United States principal. After the competition had been won, the principal refused to accept the claim, asserting the winner’s throw had been wind-assisted. The item suggested the wind would not necessarily have assisted the winner. It also suggested that a competition clause excluding "assistance" for dart throwing had been utilised by the promoter to escape his liability to the winner. The item was broadcast on TV One on 21 April 1999 commencing at 7. 30pm....

An appeal against this decision was allowed in part in the High Court with the Authority instructed to amend its order: AP158/91 PDF (204. 76 KB)Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-025:Mansell and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-025 PDF683. 79 KB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-090 Dated the 15th day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by WACO COATINGS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED J M Potter Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item revisited a previous report that was critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre – revisited a number of issues from the original item including the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, some of the contract’s terms and conditions, another contract between related parties for renovation work and two caveats that had been placed on the property – item allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy and fairness standards Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – complainant did not specify how the item was inaccurate – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

The Authority did not uphold a complaint about an item on Fair Go investigating On the Go Eastgate (OTG Eastgate), a business providing vehicle Warrants of Fitness (WoFs). A customer had complained to Fair Go that OTG Eastgate did not inform her about a $10 weekend surcharge prior to carrying out and charging her for her WoF. Fair Go sent an actor with a hidden camera to investigate this and other claims about OTG Eastgate’s services. Danny Chand, the owner of OTG Eastgate, complained that the broadcast breached the fairness, accuracy and programme information standards. The Authority found that Mr Chand and his business were treated fairly as he was given sufficient opportunities to respond to the claims made in the broadcast, and it was reasonable and justified in the public interest for the broadcaster to use a hidden camera to investigate the claims....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – 18 February item on family who had booked a motor-home holiday around New Zealand – paid a deposit of $4070 – family unable to take holiday due to a death in the family – motor-home company refunded them $852 – programme alleged this was unfair and in breach of the law – manager of the company was interviewed and agreed to abide by the findings of an independent accountant – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Fair Go – 25 February follow up item recapped events from original item – included interviews with the independent accountant and the company's manager – after receiving an adverse finding by the accountant, the manager apologised to the family and gave them a cheque refunding the remainder of their deposit – allegedly inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 5 (accuracy) – decline to determine under section 11b of…...

Summary[This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go reported on a family who had purchased land in Papamoa only to find that the section had an actual size of 258m2, rather than the 296m2 shown on the property title and in their Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA). The item found that the surveyor was responsible for the incorrect description on the title. However, the item also discussed an extract from an email sent to the purchaser by the real estate agent involved, Wayne Skinner, asking for a notation on the SPA seeking verification of the land site to be removed....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item focused on couple who received verbal estimate for plumbing work that was significantly less than the final bill – included interview with the couple and the plumber –advised viewers on how to avoid unanticipated costs by obtaining written quotes – allegedly unfair to plumber FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – plumber provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment and his viewpoint was adequately reflected in the item – item did not create unfairly negative representation of plumber’s character or conduct – high level of public interest in advice provided to tradespeople and consumers – plumber treated fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

ComplaintFair Go – consultation fee for general practitioner when there is an ACC contribution – practice to reduce fee to patient – opinion given that not to do so may amount to using finance as a barrier to treatment which is unethical – untrue – unfair FindingsStandard G1 – statement incorrect – uphold Standard G4 – not unfair in context – no uphold – no order AppealConsent order – appropriateness of no order(s) being imposed remitted back to the Authority Findings on ReconsiderationNo order appropriate This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] An item on Fair Go examined the case of a rugby player who went to a medical practitioner because of an injury. It was reported that ACC contributed $26 to the doctor for each consultation, but he had not reduced his fee for the player....

ComplaintFair Go – item about pamphlet distributed by complainant – a legal firm – offering assistance to victims of sexual abuse in dealing with ACC – failed to maintain standards of law and order – unbalanced and complainant’s response presented inadequately – unfair as the victim’s (Sally) waiver whose story told was incomplete – inaccurate – hearing sought in view of numerous complex legal and factual issues – application declined – disclosure of field tape of interview with "Sally" and assorted correspondence sought Decision on disclosure applicationDeclined This headnote does not form part of the decision. INTERLOCUTORY DECISION Background [1] A pamphlet offering assistance to victims of sexual abuse in securing compensation from ACC was distributed by the complainant – a legal firm....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 198Fair Go – item on sales seminars run by Wenatex which sells beds – sales consultant shown saying in reference to her colleague, “he was in front of a wheelchair” – allegedly in breach of privacy, accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – complainants were not given an opportunity to respond – unable to determine whether the editing of the footage was unfair as raw footage was destroyed, but still unfair overall – upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – HC was identifiable even though her face was blurred, due to her distinctive accent, clothing, and occupation – no interest in seclusion – public interest – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – raw hidden camera footage unavailable – decline to determine OrdersSection 16(1) – costs to the complainants $8,740 This headnote does not form part of the decision....

Interlocutory matter concerning whether formal complaint was lodged in writing with the broadcaster within the prescribed statutory timeframe Fair Go – formal complaint lodged by email shortly before midnight on 20th working day after the broadcast – broadcaster declined to accept the complaint on the basis it was out of time – question whether formal complaint was lodged within 20 working days as required by the Broadcasting Act 1989 FindingsDefinition of “working day” in section 2 of the Act specifies the days which are not to be counted as “working days” but does not specify times of the day – in the absence of explicit indication of times, ordinary meaning should be adopted – a “day” runs from midnight to midnight – complaint was lodged before midnight on 20th working day and therefore should have been accepted by the broadcaster, even though the email was not read until the following day OrderSection…...

Download a PDF of Decision No. 1991-033:Rutherford and Television New Zealand Ltd - 1991-033 PDF1. 11 MB...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1997-113 Dated the 4th day of September 1997 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by LANCASTER SALES AND SERVICE LIMITED of Christchurch Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED S R Maling Chairperson L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item reported on couple's experience with the complainant, a mechanic – included disputed claims about couple's dealings with mechanic – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standards FindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – item created negative impression of the complainant but he was provided with a fair opportunity to comment and his response was fairly presented in the item – complainant treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – claims presented as couple's interpretation and opinion of events, not points of fact (guideline 5a) – viewers would have understood that claims were one side of the story and were disputed by the complainant so they would not have been misled – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

SummaryA Fair Go item broadcast on TV One on 5 August 1998 dealt with the attempt by a motor vehicle dealer to repossess a couple’s car. It was reported that the owner of the company had been fined by the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute for misconduct. Mr Radisich, through his solicitor, complained to Television New Zealand Ltd that the broadcast was unfair, unbalanced and impartial because it was the company, and not the individual, which had been fined. In its response, TVNZ pointed out that Mr Radisich, as Chief Executive, was responsible for the company’s business and it did not consider that the item had been unfair to name him. It advised that it was unable to find any aspect which lacked balance or impartiality and declined to uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, Mr Radisich’s solicitor referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s....

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 1996-094 Decision No: 1996-095 Dated the 22nd day of August 1996 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of complaints by ALLIED MUTUAL INSURANCE LIMITED Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED L M Loates R McLeod A Martin...

BEFORE THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS AUTHORITY Decision No: 91/94 Dated the 29th day of September 1994 IN THE MATTER of the Broadcasting Act 1989 AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint by SOUTHLAND FUEL INJECTION LIMITED Broadcaster TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED I W Gallaway Chairperson J R Morris R A Barraclough L M Loates...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – downloadable episode of programme on TVNZ’s website – issue as to Authority’s jurisdiction to consider complaint Findings Not a broadcast within the terms of the Broadcasting Act 1989 – no jurisdiction to consider complaintThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Background [1] Fair Go, broadcast on TV One on 14 April 2004, featured a property development company of which Kevin Davies was a director. [2] Mr Davies complained to Television New Zealand Ltd on 4 June 2004, alleging that the programme breached standards of balance, fairness and accuracy. [3] TVNZ declined to accept his complaint, as it was lodged outside the 20 working-day period specified in section 6(2) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....