Consumer Claims Tribunal decisions not honoured

Due to the extreme lack of respect shown by traders to the Consumer Claims Tribunal (CCT), whereby they blatantly refuse to honour the CCT arbiter's decisions, we continue to name these traders every month until they honour the arbiter's decisions.

I appeal to the consumers and traders listed below to inform us in writing if their case has been resolved so that we can remove their cases from our list.

Since we have had cases in which traders informed us that they had resolved their cases and, subsequently, we were informed by the consumers involved that they had not honoured the CCT decision, I appeal to the consumers concerned to inform us.

It is rather disturbing to note that we have so many CCT decisions not honoured. However, although I hate featuring these cases, it is important for consumers to know about traders who do not honour CCT decisions.

Such traders do not deserve our custom and this is why we feature our lists. According to our records, the following cases have not been honoured by the traders involved:

Mary A. Smith vs C. Gauci Waterproofing

Ms Smith commissioned C. Gauci Waterproofing to do a waterproofing job on her roof and paid the defendant Lm800. After about a year, when it rained, the waterproofing did not sustain the rain. Ms Smith submitted a claim to the CCT.

The CCT arbiter on January 11, 2005, accepted Ms Smith's claim and ordered C. Gauci Waterproofing to pay her Lm800 plus expenses.

Josephine Attard vs Flexi Marketing Ltd

The CCT arbiter on June 9, 2005, accepted Ms Attard's claim and ordered Sandro Bianchi of Flexi Marketing Ltd to pay her Lm400, and Lm50 as moral damages, plus expenses.

Horace Farrugia vs Chris Borg of Ctronics

On January 10, 2003, Mr Farrugia paid Mr Borg Lm230 for a Sony 15" TFT monitor. On realising that the monitor was damaged, Mr Farrugia submitted a claim of Lm230. However, Mr Borg did not submit a reply to the claim.

The CCT arbiter on December 15, 2005, partially accepted Mr Farrugia's claim and ordered Mr Borg to pay him Lm120 plus expenses.

Subsequently, on February 16, 2006, the CCT arbiter issued another order, on having taken cognisance of a note submitted by Mr Farrugia, that the monitor must be returned to Mr Farrugia.

Simone Calaio vs Cecile Boutique

Ms Calaio paid a Lm30 deposit on a dress costing Lm65 at Cecile Boutique. When she went to pick up the dress she noticed a defect in workmanship around the neckline. She asked Cecile Boutique to give her the chance to choose another dress, to no avail.

The CCT arbiter on April 25, 2006, ordered Cecile Boutique to pay Ms Calaio Lm30. I appeal to Mr Jones (owner of Cecile Boutique) to comply.

Joseph and Rita Xerri vs Viaggi Montebello

The Xerris booked and paid for a flight to London which, due to some bombing, was subsequently cancelled. Viaggi Montebello sustained that what happened was not their fault. The CCT arbiter on May 30, 2006, partially accepted the Xerris' claim and orders Viaggi Montebello to pay them Lm100 plus expenses.

Mary Ann Grima vs A to Z TV Teleshopping

On January 17, 2006, Ms Grima bought five items, including a radio, or Lm13. Subsequently, it transpired that nothing worked. She asked A to Z TV Teleshopping to refund her Lm13. 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 of the case. The CCT arbiter on August 31, 2006, upheld Ms Grima's claim and ordered A to Z TV Teleshopping to refund her Lm13 plus expenses.

Josephine Formosa and Margaret Casha vs European Holidays

In two separate cases, Ms Formosa and Ms Casha 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 and Ms Casha submitted a claim for Lm30.

The CCT arbiter on August 10, 2006, decided in favour of Ms Formosa and Ms Casha, ordering European Holidays to pay them Lm20 each plus expenses of Lm4. They claim to have received Lm20 each but not the Lm4 each for expenses. I appeal to European Holidays to honour the decision in full by paying them the expenses.

Emanuela and Saviour Brincat vs Radamatic Ltd

The Brincats bought 97 m2 of Gres floor tiles from Radamatic Ltd. After the tile layer finished his work, Saviour Brincat washed the tiles and it transpired that there were three different colour shades. Radamatic Ltd wanted to change only some of the tiles rather than all of them.

On having taken cognisance of the claimants' version as well as the defendant's version, the CCT arbiter on August 31, 2006, noted that the claimants' version was more credible. The arbiter ordered Radamatic Ltd to pay the Brincats Lm500 plus expenses.

Paul and Antoinette Mangion vs Seguna Woodworks

The Mangions bought a leather sofa from Seguna Woodworks for Lm722. After some time, the stitching of the sofa started coming off, so the Mangions claimed Lm284 from Seguna Woodworks. This constituted the cost of repairing the sofa. Seguna Woodworks stressed that it was due to having moved the cushions.

However, on having seen the photos of the sofa, and on having listened to both sides of the case, the CCT arbiter on February 15 accepted the Mangions' argument and ordered Seguna Woodworks to pay them Lm200 plus expenses.

Carmen Zammit vs Mobile Phone Centre

Ms Zammit bought a mobile phone from Mobile Phone Centre and in January, 2006, the phone had problems with its speaker. In April, 2006, it had further defects in its charging system. Ms Zammit referred the case to the CCT Arbiter.

Despite being notified about the CCT hearing date, the defendant did not attend the hearing. However, the CCT arbiter noted on February 15 that Ms Zammit's version was credible and ordered Mobile Phone Centre to pay her Lm35 plus expenses.