Consumer Claims Tribunal decisions not honoured

The issue of Consumer Claims Tribunal (CCT) decisions not honoured badly needs addressing. In no uncertain terms there are too many pending cases.

Therefore it is very important for consumers to know about such cases and, more importantly, about traders who do not respect the law.

We are regularly featuring cases consumers referred to the CCT in which a decision was made by the arbiter in the consumers' favour, and the traders refuse to honour the arbiter's decision. The objective here is to persuade all traders to honour CCT decisions in accordance with the law.

All you have to do is send me a copy of the CCT arbiter's decision and we will add your case to our list featured below. Without beating about the bush, traders/shops who do not respect the law do not deserve our respect.

More importantly, they do not deserve our custom; hence, the monthly publication of lists of pending cases in which the traders refuse to honour the CCT arbiter's decision:

Mary A. Smith vs C. Gauci Waterproofing
Decision made on January 11, 2005: the CCT arbiter accepts Mary A. Smith's claim and orders C. Gauci Waterproofing to pay her Lm800 plus expenses.

Josephine Attard vs Flexi Marketing Ltd
Decision made on June 9, 2005: the arbiter accepts Josephine Attard's claim and orders Sandro Bianchi of Flexi Marketing Ltd to pay her Lm400, and Lm50 as moral damages plus expenses against Flexi Marketing Ltd.

Horace Farrugia vs Chris Borg - Ctronics
Decision made on December 15, 2005. On January 10, 2003, Horace Farrugia paid Chris Borg Lm230 for a Sony15" TFT monitor. Subsequently, on realising that the monitor was damaged, Mr Borg submitted a claim of Lm230. However Mr Borg did not reply.
The CCT arbiter partially accepted Mr Farrugia's claim and ordered Mr Borg to pay Mr Farrugia Lm120, with expenses to be paid by the defendant.
Subsequently, on February 16, 2006 the arbiter issued another order: On having taken cognisance of a note submitted by the claimant in which he asked the arbiter to decide who the monitor belongs to, the arbiter ordered that the monitor to be returned to the claimant.

Simone Calaio vs Cecile Boutique
Decision made on September 6, 2005. The CCT arbiter accepts Simone Calaio's claim and orders Cecile Boutique to pay her Lm30.

Joseph and Rita Xerri vs Viaggi Montebello
Decision made on May 30, 2006: The Xerris booked and paid for a flight to London which, due to some bombing, was subsequently cancelled. They argued that what happened was not their fault. The CCT arbiter partially upholds the claim and orders the defendant to pay the claimants Lm100 plus expenses.

Mary Ann Grima vs A to Z TV Teleshopping
Decision made on August 31, 2006. On January 17, 2006, Mary Ann Grima bought five items including a radio for Lm13. It transpired that nothing worked. She asked A to Z TV Teleshopping to refund her the Lm13 she had paid. However, rather than a refund, the staff at A to Z TV Teleshopping were only prepared to give her a credit note.
Despite having been advised about the hearing, nobody from A to Z TV Teleshopping attended the hearing. The CCT arbiter upholds Ms Grima's claim and orders A to Z TV Teleshopping to refund her Lm13 plus expenses.

Josephine Formosa vs European Holidays
Decision made on August 10, 2006. Josephine Formosa took a week's holiday in Tunisia. They were held up for about five hours at Malta International Airport and, when they were coming back, they were asked to leave the hotel at 11 a.m. instead of at 4 p.m. as they were previously told. Ms Formosa submitted a claim for Lm30.
The CCT arbiter decides in favour of Ms Formosa and orders European Holidays to her Lm20 plus expenses of Lm4.

Margaret Casha vs European Holidays
Decision made on August 10, 2006. This was an identical case to that of Ms Formosa, with an identical outcome since the two travelled together. Their claim in this context is that they were only paid Lm20 each. However they were supposed to be paid an extra Lm4 each for expenses.

Emanuela and Saviour Brincat vs Radamatic Ltd
Decision made on August 31, 2006. Emanuela and Saviour Brincat bought tiles from Radamatic Ltd. After the tile layer finished his work, Mr Brincat washed the tiles laid and it transpired that there were three different colour shades. The Brincats submitted a claim for Lm1,500 to have the tiles replaced.
The CCT arbiter partially accepts the Brincats' claim and orders Radamatic Ltd to pay them Lm500 plus expenses.