In 2015, the Commerce Commission revealed that it had visited 32 mobile traders, or truck shops, around New Zealand and Home Direct was the only one complying with its obligations.

The Commerce Commission has taken action against the one mobile trader it previously said was not breaking the rules.

It has started proceedings against Home Direct, seeking a declaration that its consumer contracts contained unfair terms relating to its "voucher entitlement scheme".

It is the first time the commission has sought such a declaration since, in March 2015, it became unlawful under the Fair Trading Act 1986 to include, apply or rely on terms that have been declared by a court to be unfair.

Home Direct sells household goods via mobile shops, online and via telephone. Its customers were invited to opt-in to a "voucher entitlement scheme" when they signed up to purchase goods. Under the voucher scheme, direct debit payments did not stop after the goods were paid off. Instead they were converted every week into "voucher entitlements" which could be used towards purchasing more goods from Home Direct.

READ MORE:

* 2017 was the year of big, big Fair Trading Act fines

* Commerce Commission truck shop crackdown nets near $1m in fines

* Claims truck shops charging mark-ups of 700 per cent



The commission alleges that terms of the scheme are unfair, because "vouchers" could not be refunded or exchanged for cash, and expired after 12 or 24 months (depending on when the customer joined the scheme), with the proceeds forfeited to Home Direct.

"The commission seeks a declaration that these terms are unfair. In our view they create a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties and they are not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of Home Direct," said Commissioner Anna Rawlings.

Home Direct managing director Michael Wright said the action was disappointing.

"Home Direct takes compliance very seriously. We cooperated with the commission during its recent investigation into the voucher terms. It seems unusual they have now elected to issue civil proceedings over two minor terms when we have worked in good faith with them for years."

He said the business had made voluntary changes to address concerns.

"We are hardly the first retailer to issue vouchers with a 'no refund' clause. Many other retailers have similar clauses in their gift voucher terms. We extended our voucher expiry date from 12 to 24 months last year to ensure we aligned with major New Zealand retailers, many of whom extended their expiry dates at a similar time.

"Unlike other retailers, our voucher scheme was not a gift card scheme. It was an optional prepay model that was supported by thousands of customers over a decade. Importantly, it offered people a method of saving for the product they wanted, interest free, to help manage their budgets without incurring additional costs."

He said Home Direct was giving up the voucher scheme because of the compliance costs involved.

"The commission's insistence on now pursuing legal action against two specific contract terms in the voucher scheme is disappointing and in our view, unnecessary in terms of cost and time. We have worked hard to address the commission's concerns but do not consider the no-refund or expiry period terms are unfair as they are in line with many other retailers."

The commission has been working through a large project of work relating to mobile traders, which has resulted in fines of more than $1.5 million.

In 2015, it revealed that it had visited 32 mobile traders, or truck shops, around New Zealand and found all but one, Home Direct, were not complying with their obligations under the Fair Trading Act and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act.