Auckland University calls in the lawyers over Ashley Bloomfield scam, Australian officials to brief the Government on Aukus developments and why Airbnb could be forced to cut its services in the latest NZ Herald headlines.
Video / DW / NZHerald
A couple who took their Range Rover to a mechanic, after he told them the vehicle had been recalled, were then allegedly duped into trading it in for a newer model - which was not the mechanic’s to trade.
The 34-year-old, who is also a former car dealer, has now been ordered by the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal to pay the couple $30,000 after they were left out of pocket by his alleged wheeling and dealing.
In relation to the alleged vehicle scam, the police confirmed to NZME that the man has been charged with obtaining by deception.
According to the tribunal’s recent decision, the couple wound up at the centre of what tribunal adjudicator David Jackson called a “tangled mess”, involving finance companies and the police.
A tribunal has ordered a mechanic to pay a couple $30,000 after he allegedly traded their Range Rover for one that didn't belong to him. Photo / 123RF
They no longer had a vehicle, having lost their original Range Rover plus $5000 they paid to the mechanic as part of the trade-in. They had also forked out around $8000 in lawyers’ fees.
The mechanic cannot be identified due to the pending court case.
The decision stated that in July 2022 the couple took their 2007 Range Rover to the mechanic when he said it had been recalled by the manufacturer “due to faulty turbos” and that they would be replaced.
After they delivered the vehicle, the mechanic allegedly offered to sell them a different, slightly newer 2010 Range Rover, telling them he’d found someone who wanted to buy their vehicle.
He allegedly offered to trade in the couple’s vehicle and take $5000 cash to seal the deal on the 2010 model.
The tribunal noted the mechanic had been a registered motor vehicle trader, but his registration had expired the year before.
Weeks after the transaction, he phoned the couple and allegedly said he’d become aware that a bank held an interest over the vehicle they had just acquired, as security for a loan to the previous owner.
He allegedly told them he needed to take back the Range Rover as the bank “needed to see it to release its security interest”.
The couple complied, believing that it would be returned within days. In the meantime, he loaned them another Range Rover he said was his own, personal vehicle.
The couple became concerned when their vehicle was not returned. They were told it had been impounded by the bank but efforts were being made to get it released, the tribunal heard.
The decision stated the couple were then given varying reasons why the vehicle was unable to be retrieved, prompting them to seek legal advice.
Lawyers who searched the Personal Property Security Register found there was a security interest registered to the bank, but it had been registered in November 2022 - months later than the mechanic had allegedly claimed.
The police were contacted on November 25, 2022.
The mechanic has also been charged and will appear in court next month.
The couple’s solicitors then sought the release of their vehicle, and the bank began its own investigation.
It found the mechanic had allegedly acquired the Range Rover he traded to the couple from another person, but hadn’t paid for it.
The mechanic took back possession of the Range Rover from the couple, allegedly using the ruse of the security interest when threatened with police action by the man who hadn’t been paid.
But rather than deliver the vehicle to the bank, he returned it to the man from whom he’d purchased the vehicle, but not paid.
This man then sold the Range Rover to someone else who’d obtained finance to buy it and the bank then took a security interest over it.
The decision stated the couple were shocked by the alleged deception, and upon further digging found out that the Range Rover handed to them on loan, while awaiting the return of their vehicle, was alleged to have also had a security interest registered over it, in the name of the person who was the third respondent in the tribunal case.
The mechanic and his business were the first and second respondents.
The third respondent disclosed that he had engaged the mechanic to service his vehicle but was then allegedly convinced by him to sell it because he had found a potential buyer for it.
It is claimed the mechanic then failed to pay the respondent for the vehicle, despite telling him it had been sold.
The police were notified once more.
The respondent gave evidence that his insurance company appointed a loss adjuster who deemed the vehicle stolen and he was subsequently paid out for the lost vehicle.
In the decision, the couple said the respondent was as much a victim of the mechanic’s alleged behaviour as they were, and they all claimed to have been “duped”.
NZME understands that the mechanic has lodged an appeal against the tribunal’s decision.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
