Search Rapua

ComplaintFair Go – comments about complainant which collects membership fees for fitness centres – complaint that item unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 5 – subsumed under Standard 6 Standard 6 – one aspect of discussion of credit contracts omitted relevant information provided by complainant – unfair – uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision Summary [1] Some of the activities of Adfit Membership Services Ltd, a company which collects membership fees for more than 100 fitness centres, were investigated in an item on Fair Go, broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 10 September 2003. Fair Go is a consumer rights programme which looks at issues from the consumers' perspective....

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about an item on Fair Go which covered a customer’s experience in purchasing a second-hand vehicle from Universal Imports. The customer did not obtain a pre-purchase report and when the vehicle broke down she attempted to reject the purchase under the Consumer Guarantees Act. A Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal ruling found in her favour. After the ruling, she ‘copped abuse, personal insults and name calling’ connected with the Universal Imports issues. The complainant alleged the programme was unfair to Universal Imports and its owner, and was inaccurate in how it presented the situation. The Authority found the business and its owner were given a fair and reasonable opportunity to comment for the programme, and the programme was materially accurate. The complainant’s concerns about the use of aspects of his YouTube videos are not capable of being addressed under the standards....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two related items, broadcast on different dates, contained footage of a reporter talking on his cell phone – viewers could hear what was being said by the person on the other end of the line – allegedly in breach of law and order, privacy and fairness Findings Standard 2 (law and order) – items did not promote, condone or glamorise criminal activity or encourage viewers to break the law – not upheld Standard 3 (privacy) – man knew he was speaking to a reporter – would have realised the conversations would be reported on in some manner – sufficient public interest – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – items treated the man fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....

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 about complaints from spokespersons representing the Bodies Corporate of four residential complexes – all were dissatisfied with Strata Title Administration Limited and its director Michael Chapman-Smith – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindings Standard 4 (balance) – issue essentially one of fairness – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – inaccurate to state that Mr Chapman-Smith had agreed to an interview and then changed his mind – other statements not inaccurate – one aspect upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – overall item was fair – not upheldNo OrderThis headnote does not form part of the decision. Broadcast [1] An item on Fair Go broadcast on TV One at 7. 30pm on 13 October 2004 examined complaints from spokespersons representing the Bodies Corporate of four residential complexes – Tuscany Towers, Ponsonby Crest, Waterford Apartments and Garden Grove....

ComplaintFair Go – person claimed poor workmanship and incomplete work by building contractor – inaccurate – untruthful – unfair – partial – deceptive programme practice – privacy breached FindingsStandard G1 – Authority not appropriate body to determine factual disputes – decline to determine Standards G3, G5, G6, G7, G11, G12 – subsumed under standard G4 Standard G4 – threat of violence central to complainant – not given adequate weight – uphold Privacy principle (iv) – no uphold OrderBroadcast of statement This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary Poor workmanship by the building contractor was the claim of a woman whose house had been renovated to accommodate wheelchair access paid for by the ACC, according to an item on Fair Go broadcast on 13 September 2000 beginning at 7. 30pm....

Complaints under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – two items investigated claims made by previous customers of Hampton Court Ltd, a wooden gate manufacturer – customers were interviewed about their experiences with the company and its director – items contained footage of company director at his workshop which was filmed from a public footpath – allegedly in breach of standards relating to privacy, law and order, controversial issues, fairness, accuracy, discrimination and denigration, and responsible programmingFindingsStandard 6 (fairness) – impression created about the complainant and his company was based on the opinions of customers and Mr Bird was provided with a fair and adequate opportunity to respond and put forward his position – items included comprehensive summaries of Mr Bird’s statement – items not unfair in any other respect – Mr Bird and Hampton Court Ltd treated fairly – not upheldStandard 5 (accuracy) – customers’ comments were…...

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item critical of a real estate contract between Ms K and the National Property Centre Ltd – discussed the actions of the agent involved in drawing up the contract, as well as some of the terms and conditions – item also reported on another contract between the parties for renovation work to be done on Ms K’s property – allegedly in breach of privacy, balance, accuracy, fairness and programme information standards Findings Standard 3 (privacy) – item did not disclose any private facts about the complainant – not upheld Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item distinguished statements of fact from opinion and comment – no inaccuracies – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – the release form signed by Ms K permitted the complainant to discuss the matter…...

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...

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

SummaryAward of Costs – Re Decision No: 1996-094 and 1996-095Pursuant to its powers under s. 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 to award such costs and expenses as are reasonable, the Authority has exercised its discretion to award costs to Allied Mutual Insurance Ltd, following its decision to uphold AMI's complaint about that Fair Go programme broadcast on TV One on 18 March 1996 lacked balance. The Authority records that it invited and received submissions from Allied Mutual Insurance Ltd and from Television New Zealand Ltd on the question of costs and, after careful consideration of the arguments from both parties, it decided an award of costs was appropriate in all of the circumstances of the case. CostsUnder s. 16 of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority orders Television New Zealand Ltd to pay costs to Allied Mutual Insurance Ltd in the sum of $3000....

Complaint under section 8(1B)(b)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – carried out testing on imported and locally produced olive oil – stated that sensory panel was “IOC accredited” and its supervisor was “the only person qualified by the IOC… to convene a sensory panel” – reported that all European imports failed sensory test and two failed chemical test – allegedly in breach of accuracy and fairness standardsFindingsStandard 5 (accuracy) – references to IOC accreditation were inaccurate and gave greater status to the testing than was justified – broadcaster was put on notice that the testing was not “IOC accredited” but nevertheless made statements of fact to that effect – upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – notwithstanding finding one aspect of the programme was inaccurate, complainant was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to respond and mitigate any resulting unfairness, and its response was adequately presented – not upheld No Order This headnote does…...

SummaryLight-hearted skits displaying some of the dangers for naïve first time house buyers were broadcast as items on Fair Go between 7. 30–8. 00pm on 14 and 21 October 1998. The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand Inc. complained to Television New Zealand Ltd, the broadcaster, that each item was a satire in which the script questioned the integrity of real estate agents, and presented them as unscrupulous. It sought an apology. Maintaining that the items contained scenarios which illustrated the pitfalls faced by home buyers if they failed to make proper checks, TVNZ said that they were designed to inform and not to ridicule. They provided basic educational material and, it said, did not imply that agents would deliberately mislead. TVNZ did not uphold the complaint. Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s decision, the Institute referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s. 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989....

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 OrderThis 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. A doctor from ACC said it may well have been unethical for a doctor to use finance as a barrier to treatment....

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....

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]Two items on Fair Go investigated complaints against a medal conservator and dealer, Owen Gough. The Authority did not uphold complaints from Mr Gough that the people interviewed made false claims about him, that his response was not fairly presented, and that the programmes breached his privacy. The broadcasts carried a high level of public interest, the claims made by those interviewed were clearly framed as their personal opinions and experiences, and the Authority was satisfied that the broadcaster had sufficient basis for the story. Mr Gough was not treated unfairly. Not Upheld: Fairness, Accuracy, Privacy Introduction[1] Fair Go investigated complaints against a medal conservator and dealer, Owen Gough, who restored and mounted original war medals, and also sold replicas to complete sets of medals....

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…...

Summary [This summary does not form part of the decision. ]An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers. The roofer was interviewed on his doorstep, and explained he had mental health issues. The Authority did not uphold the complaint that the item breached the man’s privacy because it revealed his mental health status. The roofer willingly discussed his mental health with the reporter, including on camera, as part of his explanation in response to the customers’ claims, so he could not reasonably expect that information would remain private. Not Upheld: Privacy Introduction[1] An item on Fair Go investigated a Christchurch roofer who had failed to complete a number of jobs for which he had already taken payment from customers....

Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Fair Go – item about a woman who hired an advocate to help her with an ACC review hearing – advocate charged $13,000 and had not completed the work in a year – woman hired a lawyer who completed the work in a month for $5,000 – studio interview with advocate – allegedly in breach of good taste and decency, unbalanced, inaccurate and unfairFindingsStandard 1 (good taste and decency) – good taste and decency standard not relevant – not upheldStandard 4 (balance) – no controversial issue of public importance discussed – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – no inaccuracies – decline to determine some matters – not upheld Standard 6 (fairness) – not unfair to Mr Nottingham or Advantage Advocacy – not upheldThis headnote does not form part of the decision....