Complaint against Referee

Complaint against Referee
Dispute: CIV-2009-091-000657 FinanceNow Ltd

This is a complaint I lodged with the Principal Referee about the Referees conduct during the hearings.

“Dear Sir

I would like to lodge a complaint regarding the referee (Phillippa Bollard)

Please refer to the points outlined below which to me indicate a biased and unfair process regarding this dispute.

– At the first hearing(12/1/10) The Referee allowed Nigel Le Grice(Impact Recoveries) to comment on other aspects of the dispute,outside the purpose for which he was there. ie collection costs etc.

I had to remind him(as the Referee did not),that it was not his role to comment on other aspects of the dispute other than that for which he was there for.

-Repossession costs
The only answer Impact Recoveries provided regarding the breakdown of the collection fee was.. it is an industry std and a flat fee in which he refused to put in writing.

Point 4.
States the referee has heard evidence..” there was no evidence provided only verbal response.
The Referee did not provide adequate questioning in regarding the validity of the collection costs.

She appeared to accept the verbal response from Impact Recoveries as ‘evidence’.
Despite what referee noted in her decision, I do not recall the Impact Recoveries advising, during the first hearing, it involved administration ,staffing, vehicle costs etc.

I believe there was a need for evidential support regarding this particular point especially if it was noted on the claim form.

Pre possession notice:
– I was disadvantaged as the Referee chose to focus on the outdated prepo notice rather than the most recent one issued in Oct in which her final decision was based on.

I reasonably assumed the most recent Pre possession notice was more important,as they are time sensitive and therefore I was unaware that the outdated prepossession notice was an issue of importance to the Referee .

Legally I had 2wks to clear the arrears from the time the pre possession notice was issued in Oct So why would the referee focus on the outdated one(May).

I beleive this is an intentional misapplication of the law and therefore the hearing was not conducted in a fair and unbiased manner.

Her decision seems to be contradicted by the evidence presented. ie logs,etc as well as being based on the lack of evidence.

Point 8 of the order:

At 1st hearing, where the other party presented settlement offer, I was not given adequate oportunity to read through entire document instead was advised by the Referee to ‘skip’ to the end of document to ‘save time’ where full and final settlement of $900 was offered.

I declined this offer as I beleived that I was right and the facts,through adequate questioning,fair,unbiased process, would be revealed and the outcome be favourable to me.
I read the offer thoroughly afterwards and it appears to acknowledge fault on my part.

It was discovered at the end of the last hearing that the TV was transferred up to Auckland and for me to recover it would involve airflight and transit costs.

The remaining balance of the contract prior to repossession was approx $700.

Points to note:

– Previous occassions she failed to exercise;
– Adequate questioning in order to determine facts,
– Impartiality
– Her conduct/questioning was one sided.
– She seemed to have ‘missed the plot’ on several occassions at both hearings.
-She did not make issue of the absence /non appearance of the parties to the hearing even though she specifically requested their presence.

No reason was given to me.

– I claimed that the collection costs were unreasonable/unjust which put the account at risk resulting in Repossession of goods.

The Referee acknowledged that even though the claim involved the collection cost it follows on to the repossession actions of Finance Now.

– Referee failed to adequately determine the composition of the apparent arrears noted in the 9/9/09 letter from Finance Now.

– Referee failed to determine whether Fiance Now advised me that the TV would be taken if I did not pay atleast $100 on the 8/10/09
An infringement of my rights under the pre possession process – I was entitled to 2 weeks to clear the arrears.

– I noticed she did not note down key/relevant points during hearing but I trusted her judgment on this.
Only to go through the same thing as the previous dispute she conducted(CIV-2008-091-000308)

– The Referee did not follow up on the acknowledgement by FinanceNow that the 9/9/09 letter was actually sent in October as I have stated from the start.
– Refer to a document emailed on 17/2/10 to Asha to be added to the file. A summary of all the hearings.

– On the 15/1/10 I have requested information under the Privacy Act from ;

Impact Recoveries
-breakdown of collection costs
– A copy of file notes indicating instructions received (from FinanceNow)to take the TV if a minimum $100 was not paid.

FinanceNow
– Clarification of breakdown of arrears (9/9/09 letter).
– To provide a statutory declaration stating they did NOT advise me the tv would be taken immediately on the 8/10/09 unless a minimum of $100 be paid.

I have not received a response from either company as yet.

– After 1st hearing(12/1/10) I inquired as to the complaint process to the Principle Referee with M Mckennie. As I slightly suspected that that there may be a problem with how the Referee conducts the next hearing. I did not lodge a complaint at that time,giving the Referee the benefit of the doubt.

It also reminded me of the similar problem occuring with the same Referee regarding a previous dispute (CIV -2008-091-000308) where the hearing was conducted in an absolute appalling manner resulting in me yelling to get my point through,as the referree was not listening to me or my mother , at all, in fact, she caused me to react in that way where I chose to leave the hearing.

The result was a decision against us for an amount of approx $7400(to $9K at one point).We were fortunate to have this reheard by another referee(Robyn Wilson) and subsequently as a result of a fair and unbiased process the actual amount liable was $3200.

– I get the strong feeling that in both disputes she was in support of the Finance companies regardless.
She either has a problem dealing with me(and/or my mother) or certain ethnic groups because in both disputes there was a distinct element of biased and unfairness directed towards myself.

I hope the manner in which this dispute was conducted had nothing to do with a ‘grudge’.

The last hearing was on the 17/2/10 I beleive I have until the 17/3/10 to apply for a rehearing or an appeal.”