Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General v Mezin Hadad and Anor [2023] QCAT 518

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CITATION: Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney- General v Mezin Hadad and Anor [2023] QCAT 518 PARTIES: CHIEF EXECUTIVE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL (applicant) v MEZIN HADAD (first Respondent) and BEST BUY AUTO GROUP PTY LTD (second respondent) APPLICATION NO/S: OCR051-22 MATTER TYPE: Occupational regulation matters DELIVERED ON: 31 December 2023 HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Member King-Scott ORDERS: Mezin Hadad pay to the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General a fine of $10,000.00 by 28 February 2024; Mezin Hadad is jointly and severally liable with Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to pay compensation of $67,607.54 to the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General by 28 February 2024; Mezin Hadad be disqualified permanently from holding a licence under the Motor Dealers Chattel and Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld); Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd pay to the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney- General a fine of $50,000.00 by 28 February 2024; Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd is jointly and severally liable with Mezin Hadad to pay compensation of $67,607.54 to the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General by 28 February 2024; -- 1 of 43 -- 2 Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd be disqualified permanently from holding a licence under the Motor Dealers Chattel and Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld); The compensation to be distributed to each of the individuals named in the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General’s submissions filed on 31 October 2022 in the respective amounts set out therein. CATCHWORDS: PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – OTHER PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERS AND REPAIRERS – whether grounds for disciplinary action –where conduct significant because of dishonesty – false and misleading representations – failure to comply with documenting transactions – criminal behaviour – declining cooling off period – not honouring warranty – unregistered salesperson – where permanent disqualification needed to protect public – where fines imposed – compensation to multiple victims Australian Consumer Law (Queensland) Fair Trading Act 1984 (Qld) Motor Dealers Chattel and Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336. Re Seidler (1986) 1 Qd R 486 APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This is a referral by the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General under s.194(1)(g) Motor Dealers Chattel and Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) (MDCA Act) to commence disciplinary proceedings against Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and its sole director Mezin Hadad for multiple breaches of various provisions of the MDCA Act. [2] Both respondents, at the time of the breaches were licensed under the MDCA Act as a motor dealer and corporate motor dealer. The licenses have since expired.1 [3] Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and Mr Hadad have not responded to any of the directions made by the Tribunal to progress the matter. Legislation [4] Provisions relating to disciplinary proceedings and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction are found in Part 7 of the MDCA Act. The relevant provisions are as follows. 1 28 February 2022. -- 2 of 43 -- 3 194 Grounds for starting disciplinary proceedings (1) The following are grounds for starting a disciplinary proceeding against a licensee or motor salesperson— (a) … … (g) for a licensee— (i) the licensee is not a suitable person to hold a licence; or (ii) the licensee has carried on, or is carrying on, business under a licence with someone who is not a suitable person to hold a licence; or (iii) the licensee has, in carrying on a business or performing an activity, been incompetent or acted in an unprofessional way; or (iv) the licensee has failed to ensure that the licensee’s employed licensees or motor salespersons, or employees under the licensee’s supervision— (A) are properly supervised in the performance of their duties; or (B) comply with this Act; or (v) the licensee has failed to comply with a condition of the licensee’s licence; or (vi) the licensee is an executive officer of a corporation against whom QCAT finds grounds exist to take disciplinary action under section 199; or (vii) if the licensee is a corporation— (A) an executive officer of the corporation is not a suitable person to be an executive officer of a corporation; or (B) an executive officer of the corporation is disqualified under this Act from being an executive officer of a corporation; 195 Starting disciplinary proceedings The chief executive may apply to QCAT to conduct a proceeding to decide whether grounds exist under section 194 for taking disciplinary action against a licensee or motor salesperson. 199 Orders QCAT may make on disciplinary hearing (1) QCAT may make 1 or more of the following orders against a person in relation to whom QCAT finds grounds exist to take disciplinary action under this Act— (a) an order reprimanding the person; (b) an order that the person pay to the State, within the period stated in the order, a fine of not more than— (i) for an individual—200 penalty units; or (ii) for a corporation—1,000 penalty units; (c) an order that the person pay compensation (inclusive of any commission to which the person is not entitled) to someone else who has suffered loss or damage because of the act or omission that resulted in the finding; -- 3 of 43 -- 4 (d) an order that the person’s licence or registration certificate be suspended for the period stated in the order; (e) an order— (i) if the person is the holder of a licence or registration certificate when the order is made—that the licence or registration certificate be cancelled; or (ii) whether or not the person is the holder of a licence or registration certificate when the order is made—that the person be disqualified permanently, or for the period stated in the order, from holding a licence or registration certificate; (f) an order imposing conditions on, or amending or revoking the conditions of, the person’s licence or registration certificate; (g) another order QCAT considers appropriate to ensure the person complies with this Act. (2) QCAT may not make an order under subsection (1)(e)(ii) disqualifying the person from holding a licence or registration certificate if QCAT is satisfied that a court has, in relation to the matter giving rise to the disciplinary proceeding— (a) been asked to make an order under section 229 (1) or (4) disqualifying the person from holding a licence or registration certificate; and (b) declined to do so. (3) If QCAT makes an order under subsection (1)(e)(i) in relation to an individual that a licence or registration certificate be cancelled, QCAT must also order that the person be disqualified, for the period stated in the order, from holding a licence of the type to which the order relates or a registration certificate. (4) The chief executive may recover a fine, ordered by QCAT to be paid by the person to the chief executive, as a debt owing to the chief executive in a court with jurisdiction to recover debts up to the amount of the fine. Relevant provisions of the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (MDCA Act) [5] Section 74 (1) 74 Licensee to give statement to buyer of vehicle (1) A licensee must, immediately after selling a motor vehicle to a person (the buyer) in the course of carrying on the licensee’s business, give the buyer a statement, signed by the licensee, stating the particulars prescribed under a regulation about— (a) the vehicle; and (b) the vehicle’s owner immediately before the sale. Maximum penalty—200 penalty units. [6] Section 79 (2) (b) 79 Licensee to be in charge of motor dealer’s business at a place (1) … -- 4 of 43 -- 5 (2) A motor dealer that is a corporation and a principal licensee (corporate dealer) must ensure that— (a) the individual in charge of the corporate dealer’s business at its registered office is a motor dealer; and (b) if the corporate dealer has more than 1 place of business—at each other place of business an individual who is a motor dealer is in charge of the corporate dealer’s business at the place. Maximum penalty— (a) for an individual guilty under the Criminal Code, chapter 2 of an offence—200 penalty units; or (b) for a corporation—1,000 penalty units [7] Section 105 (1) 105 Contract must contain cooling-off clause (1) A contract for the sale of a used motor vehicle by a motor dealer must contain a clause clearly headed ‘COOLING-OFF PERIOD’ stating the following— (a) the day and time the cooling-off period starts; (b) the day and time the cooling-off period ends; (c) property in the motor vehicle does not pass to the buyer until the end of the cooling-off period, unless the buyer takes physical possession of the vehicle for a purpose other than— (i) a vehicle inspection; or (ii) a test drive; (d) the buyer or the buyer’s agent may possess the vehicle during the cooling-off period, but only to have the vehicle independently inspected or to test drive the vehicle; (e) the buyer may avoid the contract at any time during the cooling-off period by giving written notice to that effect to the dealer in accordance with this Act; (f) the amount of any non-refundable deposit paid by the buyer if the contract is avoided during the cooling-off period; (g) if the contract is avoided during the cooling-off period, the motor dealer must return to the buyer— (i) any trade-in vehicle offered by the buyer that the motor dealer has taken possession of; and (ii) any deposit paid by the buyer, less the amount of non-refundable deposit. [8] Section 118 (1) 118 Contract of sale (1) A motor dealer must ensure that a contract for the sale of a motor vehicle by the motor dealer— -- 5 of 43 -- 6 (a) is in writing; and (b) contains the particulars prescribed under a regulation in the way prescribed under the regulation. Maximum penalty—200 penalty units. [9] Section 121(1) 121 Employment of persons in motor dealer business (1) A motor dealer must not employ, as a motor salesperson, a person the motor dealer knows, or ought to know, does not hold a registration certificate as a motor salesperson. Maximum penalty—200 penalty units. [10] Section 194 (1)(g)(iii) [11] Section 216 (1) 216 False representations about goods (1) A licensee or motor salesperson must not represent in any way to someone else anything that is false or misleading about the sale or auction of goods. Maximum penalty—540 penalty units. [12] Schedule 1 ss. 11 and 12(2) 11. Warrantor to advise whether defect covered by statutory warranty (1) This section applies if a defect notice is given, and the vehicle is delivered, under section 9. (2) The warrantor must advise the buyer in writing (warranty advice) whether the warrantor accepts or refuses to accept that the defect is covered by the statutory warranty. (3) If the warrantor fails to give the warranty advice within 5 business days after receiving the defect notice and delivery of the vehicle, the warrantor is taken to have given a warranty advice accepting that the defect is covered by the statutory warranty. (4) In this section— business day, for the giving of a warranty advice by a warrantor, means a day, other than Sunday or a public holiday, when the warrantor’s place of business is open for business. 12 Warrantor’s obligation to repair defects (1) … (2) The warrantor must ensure that the defect is repaired within 14 days after the warrantor accepts that the defect is covered by the statutory warranty (repair period), unless the warrantor has a reasonable excuse. Maximum penalty—200 penalty units. -- 6 of 43 -- 7 Background [13] Following a report from the Queensland Police Service, Senior Investigation Officer Sharon Leonard for the Office of Fair Trading was directed to carry out an investigation of the respondents. [14] SIO Leonard established that the respondents operated from 4 addresses, namely: (a) Corner of Lupus St and Ferry Road, Southport Queensland (b) 46 Brisbane Road, Labrador Queensland (c) Corner of Margaret Street and Manchester Road; Carrara Queensland (d) 50 Compton Road, Woodridge Queensland [15] During the investigation SIO Leonard interviewed and obtained statements from the following consumers: (a) Shyanne Flannery (b) Laura Jones (c) Amy Bruckner (d) Robert Richards (e) Faith Lancaster (f) Christopher Langley (g) Virginia Crew (h) Skye-Maree Wentorf (i) Elissa Brookes (j) Luke Megginson (k) Sam Roberts [16] A number of the above consumers reported that they were served and had their vehicle sale processed by a salesman Arnaldo Lobo. Searches of the relevant registers confirmed Arnaldo Lobo was not the holder nor had ever been the holder of a motor salesperson registration certificate in Queensland. [17] On 16 October 2020 SIO Leonard and Principal Investigations Officer (PIO) Carolyn Morgan attended the respondents’ business address at that time, at the corner of Margaret Street and Manchester Road, Carrara. Upon arrival they became aware that Arnaldo Lobo had decamped in a vehicle after being advised of their attendance by the receptionist. A number of documents were seized and photographs taken. [18] Mr Hadad was not present but telephoned the business and spoke to the inspectors whilst they were on the premises. [19] On 18 February 2021 Mr Hadad was offered an interview. There were 35 alleged offences. Mr Hadad declined to be interviewed but provided a written statement. -- 7 of 43 -- 8 Breaches of the MDCA Act and Australian Consumer Law [20] The alleged breaches of the Australian Consumer Law (Qld) and Motor Dealers and Chattels Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) were particularised as follows: Shyanne Flannery Breach 1 Australian Consumer Law (Qld) – False or misleading representations about goods or services s. 151(1)(m) making a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 1 facts: On 9 August 2019 the affected consumer Shyanne Flannery attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd, Woodridge and purchased a Holden Commodore bearing Queensland registration 715ZCQ. The sale of the Commodore included a 12 month warranty which was issued by the dealership and administered by Integrity Car Care Pty Ltd reference 525072. On 15 July 2020 Ms Flannery was advised that the warranty she purchased for 12 months between 9 August 2019 and 8 August 2020 had been cancelled on 30 March 2020 due to non-payment by the dealer. It is alleged that the warranty that was included as part of the purchase by Ms Flannery was misleading and false. At no stage was Ms Flannery advised that the warranty was no longer being paid for by Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. Ms Flannery's right to claim repairs under the warranty was denied due to non-payment by Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. Breach 2 Motor Dealers and Chattels Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) – False representation about goods – s.216(1) a licensee or motor salesperson must not represent in anv way to someone else anything that is false or misleading about the sale or auction of goods. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 2 facts: On 9 August 2019 the affected consumer Shyanne Flannery attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd, Woodridge and purchased a Holden Commodore bearing Queensland registration 715ZCQ. At this time Ms Flannery was provided with a Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers form 12 which had documented that there was no cooling off period. On the form 12 it was recorded as the buyer taking possession of the vehicle on 9 August 2019, however the buyer did not take possession of the vehicle on that day after Ms Flannery was advised by Best Buy Auto Group that it was no longer ready for collection. It is alleged the vehicle was delivered to Ms Flannery's home about 5 days later. Laura Suzanne Jones Breach 3 Australian Consumer Law (QLD) - False or misleading representations about goods or services — section 101(1)(m) Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 3 facts: On 1 July 2020 Ms Jones attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty -- 8 of 43 -- 9 Ltd to pay for and collect a vehicle bearing Queensland registration 237ZUO which she was purchasing from Best Buy Auto. During this time Ms Jones was provided with an Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers form 12 by the motor dealer Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. Ms Jones was advised at this time that the vehicle did not come with a cooling off period and was documented on the form 12. Breach 4 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — False representations about goods - section 216(1) A licensee or motor salesperson must not represent in any way to someone else anything that is false or misleading about the sale or auction of goods. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 4 facts. On 30 June 2020 the affected consumer, Laura Jones attended Cars Always Wanted to collect and pay for a vehicle sold to her by Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. The vehicle was a Holden Captiva. During discussions about the vehicle Ms Jones was advised by Best Buy Auto that the vehicle had recently had a service and the vehicle was all good. Arrangements were made for Ms Jones to collect the vehicle the following day. On 1 July 2020 Ms Jones attended Best Buy Auto to pay for and collect the vehicle. Ms Jones requested to be able to pay for the vehicle via eftpos, however she was advised that if she paid via eftpos that her funds would not clear and she would not be able to collect her funds that day. It is alleged this information was misleading to make Ms Jones pay for the vehicle by cash. During this time Ms Jones was provided with an invoice by motor dealer Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. The kilometres recorded on the invoice and form 12 was 230,718kms. Ms Jones was advised that the safety certificate was not available for her at that time to view and was later sent via MMS. The safety certificate recorded the kilometres as 231,445 and was dated 1 July 2020. It is alleged the information recorded on the documents for the sale of the vehicle were misleading. Breach 5 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Warrantor’s obligation to repair defects - section 12(2) - The warrantor must ensure that the defect is repaired within 14 days after the warrantor accepts that the defect is covered by the statutory warranty (repair period), unless the warrantor has a reasonable excuse. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 5 facts: On 7 July 2020 Ms Jones returned to Best Buy Auto to report that there was something wrong with the vehicle. It is alleged at this time she was advised that the Holden Captiva was a large vehicle and the noise was normal. On 14 July 2020 the vehicle was taken for an independent inspection by Ms Jones. There was a diagnosis that there was faults with the vehicle. Ms Jones sent a letter in compliance with the act advising of the fault providing a copy of the report. Ms Jones was not contacted via writing within the required 5 business days, nor repaired within the required 14 days of warrantor ensuring the defect is fixed. On 27 August 2020 Ms Jones contacted via mobile phone. During this conversation Ms Jones advised you she had reported her complaint about the -- 9 of 43 -- 10 purchasing of the vehicle and its faults. It is alleged you advised Ms Jones, ‘If you have, I am not legally allowed to talk to you. So if you have I cannot legally talk to you”. This conversation was electronically recorded. About 1 October 2020 Ms Jones received a letter from Cars Always Wanted - Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd advising “We want to assure you that your complaint will be handled”. The vehicle was never repaired as required under the provisions of the statutory warranty. Skye-Maree Wentorf Breach 6 Australian Consumer Law (QLD) - False or misleading representations about goods or services — section 151(1)(m) - makes a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 6 facts: On 20 July 2020 the affected consumer Skye-Maree Wentorf attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. At this time Ms Wentorf was interested in purchasing a vehicle, a Ford Territory. Ms Wentorf was advised that if she agreed to purchase the vehicle that she would be able to enter into a payment plan with the dealer. Ms Wentorf was advised to enable the purchase of the vehicle under the payment plan she would be required to pay a deposit of $4,500 and trade-in her own vehicle a Mitsubishi Mirage for the amount of $2,000. Ms Wentorf agreed to the purchase of the vehicle under this agreement. Breach 7 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Obligation to give clear title — section 96(2)(a) - must ensure the buyer has clear title to the motor vehicle at the time property in the vehicle passes to the buyer — if the selling agent owns the motor vehicle or is appointed to sell the vehicle on consignment for someone other than another motor dealer or chattel auctioneer—the selling agent. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 7 facts: On 27 July 2020 Ms Wentorf attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to collect and pay the remainder of the deposit for the purchase of the Ford Territory. Ms Wentorf collected the Ford bearing Queensland registration 587ZSX at Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd on 31 July 2020. At this time Ms Wentorf was not provided with any documentation showing the vehicle had a clear title. To date Ms Wentorf has not been able to register her vehicle into her name. Breach 8 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — - Licensee to give statement to buyer of vehicle - section 74(2) A licensee must, immediately after selling a motor vehicle provide the buyer a statement, signed by the licensee, stating the prescribed particulars. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 8 facts: On 27 July 2020 Ms Wentorf attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to collect and pay the remainder of the deposit for the purchase of the Ford Territory. Ms Wentorf collected the Ford at Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd on 31 July 2020. At this time Ms Wentorf was not provided with any -- 10 of 43 -- 11 documentation including a statement to the buyer providing the details about the Ford Territory and the vehicle's owner. To date Ms Wentorf has not been provided a statement to the buyer from the licensee. Breach 9 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Harassment or coercion section 108 A motor dealer or other person must not harass or coerce a person for the purpose of dissuading or preventing the person from exercising a right conferred on the person by this division. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 9 facts: On 31 July 2020 Ms Wentorf in company with her mother attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd with the intent to obtain a refund to enable her to buy a vehicle she could have on the same day. Ms Wentorf requested a refund and was advised that the vehicle would be ready that day after an 11 day wait. Ms Wentorf felt she was in a position she was unable to get out of and was coerced to continue through with the purchase of the Ford or she would never receive a refund of her $4,500 or get her Mirage back. Breach 10 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Contract of sale - section 118(1) A motor dealer must ensure that a contract is in writing and detailed. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 10 facts: On 27 July 2020 Ms Wentorf attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to collect and pay the remainder of the deposit for the purchase of the Ford Territory. Ms Wentorf collected the Ford at Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd on 31 July 2020. At this time Ms Wentorf was not provided with any documentation including a contract in writing for the sale of the Ford Territory. To date Ms Wentorf has not been provided a contract by the motor dealer. Breach 11 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Contract of sale - section 118(1) The motor dealer must promptly give the buyer, prospective buyer or option holder a receipt that is headed 'Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014’ and states the particulars detailed in the provision. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 11 facts: On 20 July 2020 Ms Wentorf attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and paid a cash amount of $500 to the motor dealer. At this time the motor dealer did not complete and supply a receipt for the deposit payment of $500 for a Ford Territory. On 27 July 2020 Ms Wentorf attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to collect and pay the remainder of the deposit for the purchase of the Ford Territory. The motor dealer issued a receipt reference 0131 to Ms Wentorf that failed to have headed 'Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014' on the receipt and failed to contain the following information on it as required: (h) the vehicle's body model; (i) the vehicle's colour; -- 11 of 43 -- 12 (j) the vehicle's engine number (k) the vehicle’s identification number; (n) the name of the person giving the receipt. Amy Bruckner Breach 12 Australian Consumer Law (Qld) – False or misleading representations about goods or services s. 151(1)(m) making a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 12 facts: On 19 August 2020 Ms Brucker attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to collect a vehicle she had purchased. The vehicle was a Subaru Liberty bearing Queensland registration 536XQR. Ms Bruckner was provided with a Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers form 12 by motor dealer Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. The cooling off period was documented as included. The cooling off period was recorded on the contract as commencing at 9am on 20/8/20 and ending at 5pm 21/8/20. The vehicle was not collected until approximately 5pm on 21/8/20. The form 12 included statutory B warranty expiring on either the vehicle travelling more than 1,000kms since taking possession. The kilometres were recorded on the form 12 as 165,496 dated 21/8/20. The safety certificate supplied on the same date has the kilometres for the same vehicle recorded as 165,885. The vehicle was sold with a safety certificate advising that the vehicle had passed an inspection. The following day the vehicle was inspected by a qualified mechanic which identified major and minor faults with the vehicle. The cost of repairs was quoted as $4,718.15. On Friday 22 August 2020 Ms Bruckner returned the vehicle under the cooling off period and was told to go away by Best Buy Auto and return the vehicle Monday 25 August 2020, dismissing and misleading Ms Bruckner’s right to return the vehicle under the cooling off period. Breach 13 Australian Consumer Law (Qld) – False representations about goods - section 216(1) A licensee or motor salesperson must not represent in any way to someone else anything that is false or misleading about the sale or auction of goods. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 13 facts: On 19 August 2020 the affected consumer, Ms Amy Bruckner attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd T/A Cars Always Wanted and purchased a Suburu Liberty, Ms Bruckner paid for the purchase in full. Ms Bruckner was advised that the vehicle would be provided with a tyre and side mirror prior to her collecting the vehicle. This was also documented on the receipt reference 0150 issued by Best Buy Autos. On 21 August 2020 Ms Bruckner attended Cars Always Wanted to collect her car. She was advised that the vehicle was ready for collection and all repairs had been completed. The following day the vehicle was inspected by a qualified mechanic which identified major and minor faults with the vehicle. The cost of repairs was quoted as $4,718.15. -- 12 of 43 -- 13 Breach 14 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Warrantor’s obligation to repair defects - section 12(2) - The warrantor must ensure that the defect is repaired within 14 days after the warrantor accepts that the defect is covered by the statutory warranty (repair period) unless the warrantor has a reasonable excuse. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 14 facts: On 22 August 2020 Ms Bruckner attempted to return the vehicle to Best Buy Auto in less than 24 hours after purchasing the vehicle. Ms Bruckner returned to Best Buy Auto on 25/8/20 as requested, with the vehicle she purchased from Best Buy Auto. The vehicle was left with Best Buy Auto. On 24/8/20 Ms Bruckner provided a letter to Best Buy Autos advising she was exercising her rights to return the vehicle. At this time a letter was provided to Ms Bruckner advising that the vehicle was being left “in regard to mechanical issues as per the request of our company”. On 9 October 2020 Ms Bruckner located the vehicle she had returned to Best Buy Auto outside the front of her house. There was no correspondence left. The fault identified had not been repaired under statutory warranty. On the same day Ms Bruckner received a letter in the post from Best Buy Auto advising “we want to assure you that your complaint will be handled’. Breach 14 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Motor dealer receipts - section 16(2) - The motor dealer must promptly give the buyer, prospective buyer or option holder a receipt that is headed 'Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014’ and states the particulars detailed in the provision. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 15 facts: On 19 August 2020 Ms Brucker attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and paid the full price for the purchase of a Suburu Liberty for the amount of $5,990. Ms Bruckner paid the full amount by Eftpos. The motor dealer provided a receipt reference 0150 however failed to have the receipt headed 'Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014’ on the receipt and failed to contain the following information on it as required: (h) the vehicle's body model; (i) the vehicle’s colour; (j) the vehicle's engine number (k) the vehicle's identification number; (n) the name of the person giving the receipt. Robert Richards Breach 16: Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 - False or misleading representations about goods — section 216(1) - must not represent in any way to someone else anything that is false or misleading about the sale or auction of goods. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd -- 13 of 43 -- 14 Breach 16 facts: On 24 August 2020 the affected consumer, Mr Robert Richards attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to look at a Holden Cruze and take it for a test drive. At this time Mr Richards observed that the engine light was on and brought it to the attention of the motor salesperson. Mr Richards agreed to purchase the Holden Cruze on the condition that the engine light was rectified, the vehicle was registered in Queensland and that he could collect the vehicle prior to the 31 August 2020. Mr Richards was advised that the vehicle would be ready for collection, registered in Queensland and the engine light rectified by 27-28 August 2020. On 28 August 2020 Mr Richards attended Best Buy Auto and was advised that the Holden Cruze engine light was not repaired and was not registered in Queensland and to return on 31 August 2020 to collect the vehicle. On 31 August 2020 Mr Richards was advised by Best Buy Auto that the engine light was repaired and had been registered in Queensland. It is alleged the engine light had not been repaired and this information is misleading and false. Mr Richards drove to the dealership and was advised the outstanding amount of $8,750 would be required to be paid by cash as the amount would not be cleared in the bank if paid via eftpos that day. This information is alleged to be false and misleading causing Mr Richards to pay the amount in cash of $8,750. Breach 17 Australian Consumer Law (Qld) – False or misleading representations about goods or services s. 151(1)(m) making a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 17 facts: On 31 August 2020 Mr Richards attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. Mr Richards was provided with a tax invoice reference 000629 and had a date recorded as 24/08/2020. Mr Richards also received a contract for the purchase of a used car with the deal date being recorded as 24/08/2020. The kilometres recorded were 102,767kms. On page 5 the cooling period was documented as being included and commenced at 12:38pm on 24/08/2020 and ended at 5:00pm on 25/08/2020. It is alleged this information was false and misleading as the vehicle was not collected until 31 August 2020. Mr Richards was provided with a Motor Dealer and Chattel Auctioneers form 12 which was documented with the same cooling off period. Breach 18 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Warrantor’s obligation to repair defects - section 12(2) - The warrantor must ensure that the defect is repaired within 14 days after the warrantor accepts that the defect is covered by the statutory warranty (repair period), unless the warrantor has a reasonable excuse. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 18 facts: On 18 September 2020 Mr Roberts sent a letter to the warrantor Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd outlining the repairs that were required to be completed under the statutory warranty with a copy of the invoice supplied from a qualified repairer. Mr Roberts attended the warrantor's business delivering the vehicle in person for repairs. To date the warrantor has not responded via writing and has failed to repair the vehicle under the statutory warranty. -- 14 of 43 -- 15 Breach 19 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Motor dealer receipts - section 16(2) - The motor dealer must promptly give the buyer, prospective buyer or option holder a receipt that is headed 'Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014’ and states the particulars detailed in the provision. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 15 facts: On 24 August 2020 Mr Richards attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and paid the deposit for the purchase of a Holden Cruze for $500. Mr Richards paid the deposit by eftpos. The motor dealer provided a receipt reference 0156 however failed to have the receipt headed ’Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014’ on the receipt and failed to contain the following information on it as required: (h) the vehicle's body model; (i) the vehicle’s colour; (j) the vehicle's engine number; (k) the vehicle's identification number. Faith Lancaster Breach 20 Australian Consumer Law (Qld) – False or misleading representations about goods or services s. 151(1)(m) making a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 20 facts: On 29 August 2020 the affected consumer Mrs Faith Lancaster attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd in company with her partner and father in-law to collect a vehicle, a Lancer Queensland Registration 260WAQ which she had already paid for through a financial institution. During her attendance Ms Lancaster was provided with a Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers form 12 and Contract for the purchase of a used car that recorded the vehicle as not having a cooling off period. The vehicle was required to have a cooling off period. It is alleged the documentation provided to Ms Lancaster was false and misleading. The Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers form 12 further documented that the vehicle Ms Lancaster purchased did not come with any warranty. Page 3 of the form 12 included highlighted information stating that the vehicle was not covered by statutory warranty as it was a written-off vehicle. The PPSR dated 28/08/2020 for the Lancer recorded the vehicle as a repairable write-off with the repairs inspected on 8 October 2015. The vehicle was sold with registration. It is alleged that the information provided to Ms Lancaster about warranty for the vehicle was false and misleading. Breach 21 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — False representations about goods - section 216(1) A licensee or motor salesperson must not represent in any way to someone else anything that is false or misleading about the sale or auction of goods. -- 15 of 43 -- 16 Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 21 facts. On 28 August 2020 Ms Lancaster was contacted by Best Buy Auto and informed that the Lancer that she had purchased had been fitted with new tyres and the car was ready to go in good condition. On 29/09/2020 Ms Lancaster's Lancer was inspected by an authorised safety examiner. The vehicle's tyres failed the inspection carried out. Other items that failed the inspection included the seats, restraints, steering, suspension, brakes, engine, driveline, and emissions. It is alleged the information provided to Ms Lancaster that the tyres had been replaced and the vehicle was in a good condition was false and misleading. On 29 August 2020 the licensee provided a copy of the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers form 12 Contract for the purchase of a used car and tax invoice reference 000626. All documents were dated 29/08/2020. The kilometres of the Lancer were recorded as 159,253 kms on each document. The safety certificate provided to Ms Lancaster was dated 28/08/2020 with the kilometres recorded as 160,250. It is alleged the information recorded by the licensee to Ms Lancaster about the kilometres was false and misleading. Breach 22 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Warrantor’s obligation to repair defects - section 12(2) - The warrantor must ensure that the defect is repaired within 14 days after the warrantor accepts that the defect is covered by the statutory warranty (repair period) unless the warrantor has a reasonable excuse. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 22 facts: On 8 September 2020 Ms Lancaster contacted the warrantor via writing to advise of the Lancer having a list of problems. Ms Lancaster lived more than 200 kms from the warrantor's place of business. Ms Lancaster was never contacted by the warrantor to organise the repairs on Ms Lancaster's Lancer. It is alleged the warrantor Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd failed to comply with the statutory warranty requirements under the act. Sarah Wilson Breach 23 Australian Consumer Law (Qld) – False or misleading representations about goods or services s. 151(1)(m) making a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 23 facts: On 11 September 2020 the affected consumer Ms Sarah Wilson attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. Ms Wilson purchased a Holden Commodore bearing Queensland registration 723ZDN. On 18 September 2020 Ms Wilson took her vehicle for an inspection to an authorised mechanic due to a loud noise coming from the vehicle. Ms Wilson was provided with a list of repairs the vehicle required including 2 rear tyres, 2 front engine mounts, oil leaking from the engine, front right wheel bearing, left rear wheel bearing and the nut lock was missing to remove the wheel nuts. -- 16 of 43 -- 17 On the same day Ms Wilson sent the report to Best Buy Auto to exercise her right to the warranty. Ms Wilson was not responded to via writing about the warranty and repairs. On 25 September 2020 Ms Wilson again sent a further email via writing and attached the repairs list again provided by the mechanic to Best Buy Auto. To date Ms Wilson has not been responded to and the her right to exercise the vehicle warranty has been denied. It is alleged the information provided to Ms Wilson about the warranty and her rights was not complied with by Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. Hannah Megginson Breach 24 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — False representations about goods - section 216(1) A licensee or motor salesperson must not represent in any way to someone else anything that is false or misleading about the sale or auction of goods. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 24 facts. On 23 September 2020 the affected consumer, Mrs Hannah Megginson attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and agreed to the purchase of a Kia Carnival bearing Queensland registration 201YWL. Mrs Megginson paid a deposit amount of $1,000 to Best Buy Auto for the purchase of the Kia Carnival. Prior to collecting the Kia and paying the outstanding amount of $1,990 and trade-in of Mrs Megginson's own vehicle. Best Buy Auto agreed to attend to repairs of the Kia. These repairs included the rear driver's side door, 2 x new tyres, a vehicle service and 6 months registration. The collection date was agreed as 24 September 2020. On 25 September 2020 Mrs Megginson in company with her husband attended Best Buy Auto due to no communication to arrange pick up of the Kia. During their attendance it was noted that none of the repairs had been completed on the Kia. They were further advised that the mechanic was unable to fix the hinge on the door as agreed and they would be required to take the vehicle to Kia. They were further advised that the spark plugs now required replacing. Mrs Megginson advised that she no longer wished to purchase the vehicle and would like her deposit back as Best Buy Auto were unable to deliver the vehicle in the agreed condition. Mrs Megginson was advised that she would receive a full refund. On 30 September 2020 Mr Megginson attended Best Buy Auto as there had been no refund processed. Mr Megginson was asked to complete a refund form so the refund of $1,000 could be processed. To date a refund has never been processed by Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd of $1,000. It is alleged the information provided by Best Buy Auto during the sale process was false and misleading. Breach 25 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Motor dealer receipts - section 16(2) - The motor dealer must promptly give the buyer, prospective buyer or option holder a receipt that is headed 'Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014’ and states the particulars detailed in the provision. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd -- 17 of 43 -- 18 Breach 25 facts: On 23 September 2020 Mrs Megginson attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and paid the deposit for the purchase of a Kia Carnival for the amount of $1,000. Mrs Megginson paid the deposit by cash. The motor dealer provided a receipt reference 0909 however failed to have the receipt headed ‘Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014’ on the receipt and failed to contain the following information on it as required: (h) the vehicle’s body model; (i) the vehicle's colour; (j) the vehicle’s engine number; (n) the name of the person giving the receipt. Christopher Langley Breach 26 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — False representations about goods - section 216(1) A licensee or motor salesperson must not represent in any way to someone else anything that is false or misleading about the sale or auction of goods. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 26 facts. On 15 September 2020 the affected consumer Mr Christopher Langley attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to view an Audi bearing Queensland registration 092JIO that had been advertised on Facebook Marketplace. Mr Langley attended in the company of his son. Mr Langley agreed to purchase the Audi and was requested to leave the vehicle there for repairs to be completed on the vehicle. These included repair of the dry engine noise, spare tyre, rear left side rubber door seal, broken glass in the rear hatch door panel and the front driver’s side door rubber seal. Mr Langley was advised that the rest of the vehicle was in good condition. On 25 September 2020 Mr Langley took delivery of the vehicle from Best Buy Auto. On 29 September 2020 Mr Langley took the vehicle to a qualified mechanic for a safety inspection and report on any defects. A very extensive list of repairs on the Audi were identified by the mechanic, including a recommendation for the vehicle not to be driven due to the engine noise in the head. It is alleged that the information provided by Best Buy Auto about the vehicle being in good condition was misleading and false. Breach 27 Australian Consumer Law (Qld) – False or misleading representations about goods or services s. 151(1)(m) making a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 27 facts: On 25 September 2020 Mr Christopher Langley attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to pay for and collect an Audi bearing Queensland registration 092JIO. Mr Langley was provided with a copy of the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers form 12 and a contract for the purchase of a used car. Page 5 of the contract recorded the cooling off period as commencing 9.21am on 16/9/2020 and ending 5:00pm on 17/9/2020 which was prior to the vehicle being paid for and collected on 25/9/2020. Page 2 of the form 12 has documented the cooling off period as commencing 9.21am on 16/9/2020 and ending 5:00pm on -- 18 of 43 -- 19 17/9/2020 which was prior to the vehicle being paid for and collected on 25/9/2020. This document was signed by the dealer and Mr Langley on 25/9/2020. Mr Langley was provided with a tax invoice reference 000667 by the dealer documenting the date as 16/09/2020 when the sale transaction was completed on 25/9/2020. The contract for the purchase of the vehicle was documented as deal date: 16/09/2020 when the sale transaction was completed on 25/9/2020. It is alleged that Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd has provided misleading and false information to Mr Langley relating to the cooling off period and the purchase date of the vehicle. Breach 28 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Warrantor’s obligation to repair defects - section 12(2) - The warrantor must ensure that the defect is repaired within 14 days after the warrantor accepts that the defect is covered by the statutory warranty (repair period) unless the warrantor has a reasonable excuse. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 28 facts: On 30 September 2020 Mr Langley sent a letter via email to the warrantor Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd with the list of repairs required that had been provided by the mechanic. Mr Langley did not receive a response from the warrantor. On 8 October 2020 Mr Langley returned the vehicle to the warrantor with another copy of the letter. To date the vehicle was never repaired and no remedy was offered to Mr Langley. The vehicle was located by the Queensland Police in Carrara. Police seized the Audi and later returned the vehicle to Mr Langley. It is alleged that the warrantor failed to comply with the act. Breach 29 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — Motor dealer receipts - section 16(2) - The motor dealer must promptly give the buyer, prospective buyer or option holder a receipt that is headed 'Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014’ and states the particulars detailed in the provision. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 29 facts: On 15 September 2020 Mr Langley attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and paid the deposit for the purchase of an Audi for the amount of $500. Mr Langley paid the deposit by cash. The motor dealer provided a receipt reference 0907 however failed to have the receipt headed ‘Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014' on the receipt and failed to contain the following information on it as required: (i) the vehicle's colour; (j) the vehicle’s engine number; (n) the name of the person giving the receipt. Bethany Rogers Breach 30 Australian Consumer Law (QLD) - False or misleading representations about goods or services — section 151(1)(m) making a false or misleading -- 19 of 43 -- 20 representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 30 facts: On 6 October 2020 the affected consumer, Bethany Rogers saw a Ford Falcon advertised on Facebook Marketplace for $1,990. The ad stated that “all vehicles are sold with road worthy certificates” and “our quality pre-owned vehicles have undergone mechanical inspections and come with a wide range of warranty options”. The same day Ms Rogers attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to look at the Ford Falcon that she had seen on Facebook Marketplace. Ms Rogers inspected the vehicle bearing Queensland registration 459MFH. Ms Rogers noticed that there was no sign stating that the vehicle did not come with warranty. Ms Rogers purchased the Ford Falcon for the agreed amount of $1,500. Ms Rogers was advised the only form of payment that was accepted was cash. Ms Rogers paid Best Buy Auto $1,500 in cash. Ms Rogers was issued a receipt and no other documents. Breach 31 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 - Contract of sale - section 118(1) (1) A motor dealer must ensure that a contract for the sale of a motor vehicle by the motor dealer is in writing and contains the particulars prescribed by the regulations. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 31 facts: On 6 October 2020 the affected consumer, Bethany Rogers attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and paid for the purchase of a Ford Falcon. The motor dealer issued a receipt of payment for the vehicle. The motor dealer failed to provide a contract to Ms Rogers for the sale of the Ford. Elissa Brookes Breach 32 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 – Contract of sale – section 118(1) (1) A motor dealer must ensure that a contract for the sale of a motor vehicle by the motor dealer is in writing and contains the particulars prescribed by the regulations. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 32 facts: On 5 November 2020 the affected consumer Elissa Brookes attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. Ms Brookes agreed to the purchase of a Holden Cruze bearing Queensland registration 794VJF. Ms Brookes was not provided with a contract of sale or a form 12 under the Motor Dealers Chattel Auctioneers Act. It is alleged that Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd failed to comply with the act. Breach 33 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 – Harassment or coercion section 108 a motor dealer or other person must not harass or coerce a person for the purpose of dissuading or preventing the person from exercising a right conferred on the person by this division. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 33 facts: On 5 November 2020 the affected consumer Elissa Brookes -- 20 of 43 -- 21 attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd. Ms Brookes agreed to the purchase of a Holden Cruze bearing Queensland registration 794VJF. The agreed purchase price was $7,800. Ms Brookes paid for the Holden and was told to drive the car to Queensland Transport to transfer the registration of the vehicle from the trader to her name. Ms Brookes commenced driving the Holden to Queensland Transport. During the journey Ms Brookes noticed that there was something wrong with the Holden as it was shuddering. Ms Brookes drove the vehicle straight back to Best Buy Auto and told them she wished to return the vehicle as there was something seriously wrong with the car. Ms Brookes was advised that she could not return the vehicle and that Best Buy Auto would repair the vehicle for her. It is alleged that Best Buy Auto coerced Ms Brookes from exercising her right to return the vehicle in compliance with the act. Breach 34 Australian Consumer Law (QLD) – False or misleading representations about goods or services — section 151(1)(m) making a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 34 facts: On 12 November 2020 Ms Brookes attended Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and provided a copy of the report from the authorised mechanic who had inspected the Holden. Ms Brookes left the Holden with the dealership and was advised that they vehicle would be fixed, and she would be contacted when the car was ready for collection. Between 13 November 2020 and 11 December 2020 Ms Brookes made numerous attempts to call the dealer and get an update on what was occurring with the vehicle. The dealer advised that Ms Brookes "knew where the vehicle was and to come and get it" however Ms Brookes did not have the keys to collect the vehicle, Ms Brookes reported the keys stolen to the police which resulted in Ms Brookes having both the vehicle and keys in her possession on 18 January 2021. The vehicle had not been repaired as represented by Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to Ms Brookes. It is alleged Ms Brookes was misled and provided false information about the services her vehicle would receive between purchasing the vehicle on 5 November 2020 to the dealer having possession of the vehicle between 12 November 2020 and 17 January 2021. Central Auto Auctions Pty Ltd Breach 36 Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 — False representations about goods - section 216(1) Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Breach 36 facts: On 14 August 2020 the licensee Mezin Hadad of Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd attended the business of the affected consumer Central Auto Auctions and spoke with the director. The licensee advised to the director that he wished to sell a vehicle that he had being a 2015 Mercedes Benz bearing registration 093ZYK to Central Auto Auctions Pty Ltd. On 17 August 2020 the licensee returned to Central Auto Auctions Pty Ltd and sold the vehicle for the amount of $30,500, this included the inclusion of the vehicle log books. And invoice was issued by Central Auto Auctions to the licence reference 000615. -- 21 of 43 -- 22 On 18 August 2020 the licensee was contacted by Central Auto Auctions and requested to provide the log books for the Mercedes Benz. This never occurred. On 9 September 2020 Central Auto Auctions was advised that the Mercedes Benz that the licensee had sold them had been reported stolen. Central Auto Auctions was required to surrender the vehicle to the Queensland Police Service. It is alleged that the information provided to Central Auto Auctions about the vehicle by the licensee was false and misleading. Mr Hadad’s response [21] Mr Hadad responded to the allegations in an undated document. He claimed to be in ill health and was in no condition to be interviewed. He claimed to have been a Motor Car Dealer for 26 years and operated out of the same premises with the same trading name and motor dealer’s licence. He claimed he was the biggest used car motor dealer in Australia and held over 700 vehicles in stock. He had never had an issue with the Department of Fair Trading or my customers and had always acted in good faith and abided by the MDCA Act. [22] Mr Hadad said that he and his wife had divorced which had been emotionally and financially draining for him. From 2018 to 2021 he claimed to have been suicidal and had attempted to take his life on 5 separate occasions. He had been admitted to a Queensland mental health ward. [23] I should interpolate here that Mr Hadad has filed no medical or any other evidence to support these allegations or his responses below. [24] He dealt with the alleged breaches as follows: Breach 1. Was a civil dispute between the him and the warranty company and they should be honouring the warranty; Breach 2. Cannot comment; Breach 3. Cannot comment; Breach 4. This is the customers word as there has never been any instruction that the customer must pay for the car via cash this would and could support the fact of staff stealing money and or attempting - There is no difference to a motor dealer if the purchase is paid in cash or card. In relation to the odometer reading the kms at RWC exceed the recorded sale kms so I can’t see how this is an issue unless I am missing something. Breach 5. I attempted to resolve this issue with the customer who became very abusive and I also did not consent to her taping me in Australia this is illegal. Breach 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 — The customer was given all paperwork. The vehicle that she purchased needed work and it was explained to her that it would be a few days. This customer did attend with her mother and advised that she needed the car to move so to try and assist her I lent her another SUV and advised that she could use it over the weekend as a loan car and she was to bring back and swap with her purchased vehicle. Her finance from memory was declined and this customer never returned this vehicle and took the car interstate. -- 22 of 43 -- 23 During this time I had attempted to take my life and none of the staff followed her up and it was a few months later where I remembered about the vehicle, she wouldn't answer my calls and it got to the point where I had to send her emails for the return of the car or that I would have to report the car stolen. She is still making fortnightly payments of $100 to my bank account until today and I am shocked to see this as a complaint. Breach 11-35 Cannot comment as I have no access to the paperwork. Breach 36 This allegation was false and a brief was sent to my lawyer where all charges were dropped. I am genuinely at a loss and can’t comment on something that I’m not aware of and I know the extremity of the allegations and having been a motor dealer for 26 years I am seeking assistance. [25] Mr Hadad stated that in a span of 2 years he literally went from a tycoon to a mental health patient and attempted to take his life, his whole life was in ruins, and he had lost his house after the mortgagee went into possession. [26] SIO Leonards further investigations revealed the following: (a) Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd was previously known as Cars Always Wanted Pty Ltd until a change of name on 9 October 2018. (b) A search of Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd revealed that Mezin Hadad was the sole director. Ms Leonard established that Mr Hadad was placed on an undertaking with the Australian Securities Investment Commission (ASIC) on 17 February 2017 under the corporation name Best Buy Auto Finance Pty Ltd ACN: 138 529 183 Australian credit licence number 404110 in NSW for the finance and sale of vehicles to consumers. The undertaking recorded Best Buy Auto Finance Pty Ltd was previously known as ln house Finance Group (Sydney) Pty Ltd. Conditions2 of the undertaking were that Mezin Hadad adhere to the following: (i) Providing a contribution to community benefit program, reference 3.4; (ii) To honour each warranty in relation to a relevant contract, reference 3.6; (iii) A report outlining the refunds provided to consumers and their contracts, reference 3.7-3.9; (iv) $100,000 to be maintained in a trust account during the remediation process 3.12; (v) The respondent to notify consumers of the refund process and how much they will be receiving 3.13. (c) Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd was previously known as ln house Finance Group (Sydney) Pty Ltd. Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd was deregistered on 7 April 2023. 2 Enforceable Undertaking to Australian Securities and Investments Commission dated 17 February 2017 and Variation of Enforceable Undertaking dated 21 May 2019 under s. 322(1) National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cwth). Exhibit SL5 to Affidavit of Sharon Leonard dated 28 October 2021 -- 23 of 43 -- 24 Infringement Notices [27] The following infringement notices were issued by the Office of Fair Trading to respondents for breaches of the MDCA Act by Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd INF number Date of offence Offence MDCA Act provision Penalty INF- 1009086 1/7/20 Motor Dealer employs unregistered salesperson s.121(1) $1,334 INF- 1009087 31/7/20 Motor dealer fail to ensure contract in writing containing prescribed particulars s. 118(1) $533 INF- 1009088 9/10/20 Warrantor fail to comply with obligation to repair accepted defects within 14 days Sch. 1 s.12(20 $266 INF- 1009089 31/7/20 Licensee fail to give copy of buyer’s statement to buyer immediately after statement signed s.74(1) $533 INF- 1009090 21/8/20 Motor dealer fail to promptly issue motor dealer receipt containing prescribed particulars s.16(2) $266 [28] The following infringement notices were issued by the Office of Fair Trading to respondents for breaches of the MDCA Act by Mezin Hadad INF- 1009091 1/7/20 Motor Dealer employs unregistered salesperson s. 121(1) $1,334 INF- 1009092 31/7/20 Motor dealer fail to ensure contract in writing containing prescribed particulars s. 118(1) $533 INF- 1009093 9/10/20 Warrantor fail to comply with obligation to repair accepted defects within 14 days Sch. 1 s.12(2) $266 INF- 1009094 31/7/20 Licensee fail to give copy of buyer’s statement to buyer immediately after statement signed s.74(1) $533 INF- 1009095 21/8/20 Motor dealer fail to promptly issue motor dealer receipt containing prescribed particulars s.16(2) $266 Grounds for disciplinary action Disciplinary Ground 1 [29] Section 194(1)(b)(i) For a licensee - the Respondents have contravened or breached the Act, namely employed a person as a motor salesperson, a person the motor dealer knows, or ought to know, does not hold a registration certificate as a motor salesperson, in contravention of section 121(1) of MDCA Act. -- 24 of 43 -- 25 Facts [30] Between 30 June 2020 and 19 January 2021, the Respondents engaged Mr Arnaldo Lobo to work at all Best Buy Autos, car yards. [31] On 14 August 20219 the Respondents arranged for Ms Flannery’s vehicle to be transported to her home residence in Goodna QLD. On 18 November 2019 Ms Flannery took the vehicle to a mechanic for checking as the warning light was on. Ms Flannery had this defect repaired under warranty. Disciplinary Ground 2 [32] The Respondents made false representations about the sale of goods to consumers in contravention of s.216(1) MDCA Act. Facts Shyanne Flannery3 [33] On 7 August 2019 the affected consumer Shyanne Flannery obtained finance to purchase a used vehicle. On 9 August 2020 Ms Flannery went to Best Buy Autos in Woodridge to look at cars for purchase. [34] Ms Flannery was approached by Mr Hadad who sold her a Holden Commodore for $5,990.00. As part of the sale Ms Flannery purchased a 12 month after market extended warranty from Integrity Car Care, through Mr Hadad. [35] On 14 August 2019 the Respondents arranged for Ms Flannery’s vehicle to be transported to her home residence in Goodna QLD. On 18 November 2019 Ms Flannery took the vehicle to a mechanic for checking as the warning light was on. Ms Flannery had this defect repaired under warranty. [36] On or about 24 November 2019 the engine warning light came back on, so Ms Flannery took the car to a mechanic for an inspection. The mechanic quoted $3,216.00 for repairs to the vehicle. [37] On 15 July 2020 Ms Flannery made a warranty claim through Integrity Car Care and was informed on 23 July 2020 that her claim was rejected as Best Buy Autos had ceased making warranty payments in March 2020. [38] The Respondents made misrepresentations to Ms Flannery in relation to the state and roadworthiness of the vehicle. The Respondents also falsely accepted money from Ms Flannery for an external warranty provider but failed to pay increments for the lifetime of the warranty. Laura Jones4 [39] On 30 June 2020 the affected consumer, Ms Laura Jones attended Best Buy Autos, Labrador to view a Holden Captiva vehicle, and was told by the salesperson Mr Lobo that the vehicle was in good condition. [40] On 1 July 2020 Ms Jones returned to Best Buy Autos to purchase the Holden Captiva, for $7990.00; this included the trade-in of her current vehicle. 3 Statement of Shyanne Tamara Flannery dated 24 December 2020 4 Statement of Laura Suzanne Jones dated 10 September 2020 -- 25 of 43 -- 26 [41] The Respondents provided the consumer with a signed Form 12, contract of sale. The Respondents stated the car came with a statutory B warranty, which would only expire after the car travelled more than 1000 kilometres. [42] The Respondents made misrepresentations to Ms Jones regarding the distance the vehicle had travelled as opposed to that recorded on the contract of sale and safety certificate. The Respondents misrepresented to Ms Jones in the sales contract that the odometer reading was 230,718 kms. However, on the safety certificate, which was dated the day of purchase, but not forwarded to Ms Jones until later that night, showed the odometer reading was 231,445. Effectively shortening the warranty period under the statutory warranty provisions. [43] The Respondents also told Ms Jones that the vehicle did not come with a cooling off period and recorded this information on the Form 12, contract of sale, in contravention of section 105(1) MDCA Act. Amy Bruckner5 [44] On 19 August 2020 the affected consumer Ms Amy Bruckner attended Best Buy Autos, Labrador to view and purchase a Subaru Liberty vehicle. [45] Arnaldo Lobo was acting as a salesperson at the time and advised Ms Bruckner that the vehicle was in good condition and a new tyre and side mirror would be provided as part of the purchase. The repairs were documented on the receipt issued to the consumer. [46] On Friday 21 August 2020 Ms Bruckner received a call from Mr Lobo at Best Buy Autos saying the vehicle had passed the safety inspection examination and was ready for collection. This was despite earlier being told it was not going to be ready until the following Monday. [47] The Respondents provided a signed Form 12, contract of sale, including statutory B warranty. The kilometres recorded on the form 12 read 165,496 and was dated 21 August 2020. [48] A safety certificate issued the same date recorded the vehicle as having driven 165,885 kms, approximately 400 kilometres more than the contract recording. This resulted in the warranty period being reduced prior to the consumer taking possession of the vehicle. The Form 12 also recorded the cooling off period ending prior to the vehicle being collected by the consumer. [49] On 22 August 2020 Ms Bruckner had the vehicle independently inspected. The inspection identified both major and minor faults with the vehicle and stated repairs were required to the value of $4,718.15. These repairs included new tyres. [50] The Respondents made misrepresentations to Ms Bruckner regarding the distance the vehicle had travelled as opposed to that recorded on the contract of sale and safety certificate. The Respondents misrepresented to Ms Bruckner in the sales contract that the odometer reading was 165,496 kms, as opposed to the safety certificate, which 5 Statement of Amy Maree Bruckner dated 27 October 2020 -- 26 of 43 -- 27 was also dated the day of purchase and showed the odometer reading was 165,885kms. Robert Richards6 [51] On 24 August 2020 the affected consumer, Mr Robert Richards attended Best Buy Autos, Labrador to view a Holden Cruze vehicle, with the possibility of purchasing the vehicle. It was noted the vehicle had a few faults that required repair, most significantly the engine light was on. [52] The salesperson, Arnaldo Lobo agreed to complete repairs to the vehicle prior to delivery to Mr Richards should he purchase it. This included rectifying an engine light issue and changing the registration from New South Wales to Queensland and registering the vehicle in Mr Richards’ name. [53] On 31 August 2020 Mr Lobo advised Mr Richards the vehicle repairs had been completed and the vehicle had been registered in Queensland. Mr Richards paid $10,750.00 for the vehicle. [54] Mr Mr Lobo assured Mr Richards that the vehicle came with a statutory A warranty. The vehicle build date was 2016 and kilometres were recorded as 102,767 in the contract of sale. Class A Statutory warranty covers a person when the vehicle: “Has an odometer reading of less than 160,000km on the day of its sale. Has a built date of no more than 10 years before the day of its sale. The 'class A’ warranty expires after 3 months or the first 5,000km, whichever occurs first.” [55] Mr Lobo also provided Mr Richards with a signed Form 12 contract of sale document, which recorded the cooling off period commencing on 24 August 2020 and ending on 25 August 2020, a date already passed assuring Mr Richards these were the correct dates to record on the contract. [56] On 1 September 2020 Mr Richards contacted Best Buy Autos to inform the Respondents that the vehicle fault light was not repaired as it had come back on. Mr Richards requested an electrician be arranged to fix the issue. Mr Lobo agreed but failed to arrange this. [57] On 15 September 2020, Mr Lobo booked Mr Richards’ vehicle in with a qualified mechanic to have the faulty light checked. Mr Richards later received a quote for repairs to the faulty light to the value of $2000.00. [58] Mr Richards made several attempts between September 2020 and January 2021 to have the Respondents repair his vehicle. In January 2021 Mr Richards had the car assessed again and was informed the entire engine needed to be replaced for the quoted cost of $14,565.00. Mr Mr Hadad failed to repair the vehicle, despite it being under warranty. Faith Lancaster7 [59] On 20 August 2020 the affected consumer, Ms Faith Lancaster attended Best Buy Autos Labrador to view a Mitsubishi Lancer she saw advertised on Gumtree by Mr Lobo. After viewing, Ms Lancaster purchased the vehicle for $6,000.00. 6 Statement Robert Allan Richards dated 21 December 2020 7 Statement of Faith Lancaster dated 27 October 2020 -- 27 of 43 -- 28 [60] On 28 August 2020 Mr Lobo contacted Ms Lancaster to inform her that the vehicle she had purchased was ready for collection, and it had been fitted with 4 new tyres and was in good condition. [61] On 29 August 2020 Ms Lancaster attended Best Buy Autos Labrador to collect the vehicle. Mr Lobo arranged for the Form 12, contract of sale, to be provided to Ms Lancaster. The contract was dated 29 August 2020 and had been pre signed by Mr Hadad. [62] At the time of signing the receptionist pointed out to Ms Lancaster that the vehicle was a statutory write off and could not be registered again. Ms Lancaster thought that remark strange as she was told she was purchasing a registered car. [63] Ms Lancaster went through the contract and was told there was no cooling off period. When asked why, she was informed by Mr Lobo that the car was a write off and not subject to cooling off. [64] Ms Lancaster also received a safety certificate dated 28 August 2020. The certificate did not record any faults or defects with the car. She was also given a Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) document relating to the Lancer. [65] On 30 August 2020 Ms Lancaster took the vehicle to a mechanic for inspection. She was informed the car had some problems. Ms Lancaster inspected her contract again and noted the Respondents had recorded the kilometres as 159,253. The safety certificate dated 28 August 2020 recorded the kilometres travelled as 160,250 kilometres. [66] On 29 September 2020 Ms Lancaster had a safety inspection carried out on the Mitsubishi Lancer by an authorised safety examiner. The vehicle failed the inspection including the tyres, seats, restraints, steering, suspension, brakes, engine, driveline, and emissions. [67] The Respondents made misrepresentations to Ms Lancaster in relation to the vehicle being a statutory write off to avoid being subject to cooling off and warranty provisions. The Respondents also misrepresented to Ms Lancaster in the sales contract that the odometer reading was 159,253 kilometres and that the vehicle was in good condition and had new tyres fitted. Christopher Langley8 [68] On 15 September 2020, the affected consumer Mr Christopher Langley, attended Best Buy Autos Southport to view an Audi vehicle he had seen for sale on Facebook Marketplace. [69] Mr Langley dealt with Mr Lobo who identified himself as the salesperson. After test driving the Audi, Mr Langley agreed to purchase the vehicle for$7,990.00. Mr Langley left a deposit of $500.00 and was provided with a receipt. [70] Mr Lobo informed Mr Langley that the car required numerous repairs before it was ready for collection. Collection was to take place at the Labrador caryard rather than Southport. 8 Statement of Christopher Eric Langley dated 17 November 2020 -- 28 of 43 -- 29 [71] On 25 September 2020, Mr Langley attended Best Buy Autos Labrador to collect the vehicle. He was provided with a pre signed Form 12 contract of sale. The form was signed by Mr Hadad, who was not present at the time. Mr Langley signed the form on 25 September 2020. [72] Mr Langley later noticed the sales contract document stated the sale had occurred on 16 September 2020 with the cooling off period commencing the same date. This also shortened the statutory warranty by 10 days. [73] On 29 September 2020 Mr Langley had the vehicle independently inspected by a qualified mechanic. That inspection identified the vehicle required an extensive number of repairs. The inspector also warned the vehicle should not be driven due to an engine noise in the head. [74] The Respondents made misrepresentations to Mr Langley when they claimed the vehicle had passed a safety inspection test as well as a number of other misrepresentations, including the contract date and warranty period. Disciplinary Ground 3 [75] The Respondents failed to ensure contracts for sale of motor vehicles existed in contravention of section 118(1) of MDCA Act. Skye-Maree Wentorf9 [76] On 27 July 2020 the affected consumer Ms Skye Wentorf attended Best Buy Autos Labrador and viewed a Ford Territory vehicle she had an interest in purchasing. [77] The motor salesperson Mr Lobo entered negotiations in relation to the price of the vehicle with Ms Wentorf. Mr Lobo then introduced Ms Wentorf to Mr Hadad who was present at the business. [78] Mr Hadad appeared desperate to sell the car and became overbearing; saying that if Wentorf placed a deposit of $4,500.00 on the Ford territory that day, she could enter into a payment plan with him for the rest of the finances. [79] Ms Wentorf was asked to pay $500.00 in cash and deposit the remaining amount of $4000.00 into a Commonwealth Bank of Australia account. Ms Wentorf did as Mr Hadad instructed and deposited the remaining deposit of $4,000.00 in the account provided by the respondents. [80] Ms Wentorf agreed to the financial arrangement with Mr Hadad and was told the vehicle would be available for collection on 31 July 2020. When Ms Wentorf attended Best Buy Auto, to collect the vehicle she was informed the vehicle was not registered as yet. Ms Wentorf asked for her money back. Mr Lobo was reluctant to refund the deposit and said he would get the car registered immediately. [81] When Mr Lobo later presented the car to Ms Wentorf, she noticed a crack remained in the windscreen and other faults were not yet repaired as promised. Mr Lobo asked Ms Wentorf to return the following week to sign the contract and have the repairs done. [82] The Respondents failed to complete the repairs or supply Ms Wentorf with a contract of sale or other paperwork relating to the sale of the vehicle 9 Statement of Skye-Maree Wentorf dated 11 February 2021 -- 29 of 43 -- 30 Elissa Brookes10 [83] On 4 November 2020 the affected consumer Elissa Brookes went to the Respondents car yard business, Cars Always Wanted, in Compton Road, Woodridge to view potential cars for purchase. Mr Lobo identified himself as the salesperson at the business that day and showed Ms Brookes a Holden Cruise she was interested in. Mr Lobo took Ms Brookes for a test drive and negotiated the price for the vehicle. [84] On 5 November 2020 Ms Brookes purchased the Holden Cruise for $7,800.00 cash. The Respondents failed to provide Ms Brookes with a Form 12 contract of sale. Disciplinary Ground 4 [85] The Respondents immediately after selling a motor vehicle failed to give the buyer of the motor vehicle a statement in contravention of section 74(1) of MDCA Act. Facts Skye-Maree Wentorf [86] On 31 July 2020 Ms Wentorf returned to Best Buy Autos Labrador to collect the Ford Territory she had purchased along with any documents as proof of previous ownership and a sales contract. [87] The salesperson Mr Lobo advised Ms Wentorf that the sale documents were not available and would be provided the following week, however the sales documents were never supplied. Disciplinary Ground 5 [88] The Respondents having accepted warrantor's obligations to repair defects failed to reply to a notice in writing or repair the defects in contravention of schedule 1, section 12(2) of MDCA Act. Facts Laura Jones [89] On 14 July 2020 Laura Jones took the Holden Captiva vehicle she had purchased from the Respondents on 1 July 2020 to a qualified mechanic for an independent inspection. [90] The mechanic identified a number of faults with the vehicle, which required repair by the Respondents. [91] Due to the vehicle being subject to statutory warranty Ms Jones advised the Respondents in writing of the vehicle faults identified by the mechanic and requested the faults be corrected. [92] The Respondents failed to respond in writing within 5 business days, as required under the Act and failed to ensure defects were fixed within 14 days. 10 Statement of Elissa Michelle Brookes dated 9 December 2020 -- 30 of 43 -- 31 Faith Lancaster [93] On 8 September 2020 Ms Faith Lancaster sent the Respondents an email advising of faults with the Mitsubishi Lancer she had purchased from Best Buy Autos on 28 August 2020. [94] Ms Lancaster advised the Respondents the vehicle was subject to the provisions of a statutory warranty and was seeking repairs. [95] Ms Lancaster further advised the Respondents that her residence was over 200 kilometres from the Respondents place of business and requested the Respondent nominate a suitable repairer closer to her. [96] The Respondents failed to respond to Ms Lancaster or complete any repairs to her vehicle. Robert Richards [97] On 18 September 2020 the affected consumer, Mr Robert Richards sent the Respondents a letter via email advising of faults with the Holden Cruze he had purchased from Best Buy Autos on 31 August 2020, and which was subject to a statutory A warranty. [98] Mr Richards personally attended the Respondents place of business to deliver the vehicle for repairs. The Respondents failed to respond to Mr Richards or repair his vehicle. Christopher Langley [99] On 30 September 2020, Christopher Langley, after purchasing a vehicle from the Respondents on 15 September 2020, sent an email to the Respondents with a copy of the report from Wippels Autos, who mechanically inspected the vehicle. [100] The Respondents failed to respond to Mr Langley, despite the vehicle being subject to statutory warranty provisions. [101] On 8th October 2020, Mr Langley organised for the vehicle and a letter to be delivered from Toowoomba to the Respondents in Carrara. The letter outlined the issues with the vehicle and requested repairs. [102] On 9 October 2020 the Respondents confirmed the vehicle had arrived at Best Buy Autos, Carrara and that Mr Langley would be updated with the status of his vehicle. [103] Mr Langley’s vehicle was later found by Queensland Police in the abandoned car yard in Carrara. The Respondents failed to contact Mr Langley and failed to complete any repairs under warranty. Disciplinary Ground 6 [104] The Respondents being licensed motor dealers failed to ensure each place of business had a licensed individual in charge, in contravention of section 79(2)(b) of MDCA Act. Facts [105] On 16 October 2020 Office of Fair-Trading inspectors attended the defendants place of business, Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd Carrara. [106] Staff on site nominated Mr Arnaldo Lobo as being the person in charge. When Mr Lobo became aware that inspectors were onsite, he drove away from the business. -- 31 of 43 -- 32 [107] Documentary evidence obtained from the business premises showed Mr Lobo had been performing the activities of the licensee from 30 June 2020. [108] An evidentiary certificate obtained from OFT Industry Licensing Unit under the provision of Section 225 (4) (b) (i) database established that Mr Lobo is not and has not been the holder of a motor dealers' licence or registration certificate under the provisions of the MDCA Act. Disciplinary Ground 7 [109] The Respondents failed to promptly give the buyer, prospective buyer or options holder a receipt headed Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 outlining the particulars required, in contravention of section 16(2) of MDCA Act. Facts Skye-Maree Wentorf [110] On 31 July 2020 when selling a vehicIe to Skye Wentorf, the Respondents failed to issue a motor dealer receipt that was compliant with the regulations. [111] The receipt issued by the Respondents was not headed Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 and failed to include the vehicle body model, vehicle engine number, vehicle identification number and the name of the person issuing the receipt. Amy Bruckner [112] On 21 August 2020 when selling a vehicle to Amy Bruckner, the Respondents failed to issue a motor dealer receipt that was compliant with the regulations. [113] The receipt issued by the Respondents was not headed Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 and failed to include the vehicle body model, vehicle engine number, vehicle identification number and the name of the person issuing the receipt. Robert Richards [114] On 24 August 2020 when selling a vehicle to the affected consumer, Robert Richards, the Respondents failed to issue a motor dealer receipt that was compliant with the regulations. [115] The receipt issued by the Respondents was not headed Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 and failed to include the vehicle body model, vehicle engine number, vehicle identification number and the name of the person issuing the receipt. Christopher Langley [116] On 15 September 2020 when selling a vehicle to the affected consumer, Christopher Langley, the Respondents failed to issue a motor dealer receipt that was compliant with the regulations. [117] The receipt issued by the Respondents was not headed Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 and failed to include the vehicle body model, vehicle engine number, vehicle identification number and the name of the person issuing the receipt. -- 32 of 43 -- 33 Luke Megginson11 [118] On 23 September 2020 when selling a vehicle to the affected consumer, Luke Megginson, the Respondents failed to issue a motor dealer receipt that was compliant with the regulations. [119] The receipt issued by the Respondents was not headed Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 and failed to include the vehicle body model, vehicIe engine number, vehicle identification number and the name of the person issuing the receipt. Elissa Brookes [120] On 5 November 2020, when selling a vehicle to the affected consumer Elissa Brookes, the Respondents failed to issue a motor dealer receipt that was compliant with the regulations. [121] The receipt issued by the Respondents was not headed Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 and failed to include the vehicle body and model, vehicIe engine number, vehicle identification number and the name of the person issuing the receipt. [122] All the receipts issued to consumers listed the business name Best Buy Autos on the receipt, with the motor dealers licence number MDO25396. This is a NSW licence number and cannot be used in Queensland. The address provided on each receipt was in Campbelltown New South Wales. The contact phone number was also recorded as being in New South Wales. The ABN: 67 134 795 412 on each receipt was recorded as the corporations registered address in New South Wales. Disciplinary Ground 8 [123] Section 194(1)(g)(i) MDCA Act for a licensee - the Respondents are not suitable persons to hold a licence. The following it is submitted relate specifically to section 398(12) of the Criminal Code Act 1889 QLD. (stealing of a vehicle) Facts Samuel Roberts (Frizelle’s Sunshine Automotive Group)12 [124] On 11 August 2020 Mr Hadad attended Audi Centre Gold Coast, 62 High Street, Southport, which is owned by Frizelle's Sunshine Automotive Group. Mr Hadad informed the sales manager Mr Roberts that he was interested in buying an Audi RS3, which was on display as a demonstration model. [125] Mr Hadad informed Mr Roberts that he owned a rental car company and was going to use the Audi for advertising that business. Mr Hadad was informed the vehicle would cost $92,000.00. [126] Mr Hadad then had a discussion with another sales manager and negotiated a deal to purchase a yellow Audi S3 and a green Audi RS3. Later that afternoon Mr Hadad and his business partner Amanda Easton attended Audi to collect the vehicles. [127] Mr Hadad purchased the vehicles under Best Buy Autos and handed over $1,000.00 cash for a deposit. Mr Roberts had a conversation with Ms Easton while compiling 11 Statement of Luke Megginson dated 10 December 2020 12 Statement Samuel James Roberts dated 25 September 2020 -- 33 of 43 -- 34 sales documents. Ms Easton informed Mr Roberts that she worked as a fraud investigator for NRMA. This is a complete fiction. [128] It was agreed that a loan would have to be made out for the vehicles, however the sales manager agreed Mr Hadad could take the yellow Audi for 24 hours. Mr Hadad then negotiated to purchase a third Audi, in blue. [129] At around this same time Mr Hadad also organised to pick up a Mercedes Benz as a loan vehicle from the Audi Centre in South Brisbane showroom, which also owned by Frizelle's Sunshine Automotive Group. Mr Roberts was not aware of the loan arrangement of the Mercedes. [130] On 12 August 2020 Mr Roberts sent an email to both Mr Hadad and Easton regarding the contracts. No reply was received. [131] On 13 August 2020 Mr Roberts contacted Easton asking where the yellow Audi was. She told him she would pay for the cars in full the following day. Mr Roberts insisted the Audi be returned to complete registration documents. [132] On 14 August 2020 Mr Roberts tried to contact both Mr Hadad and Easton, without success. Mr Roberts became aware that same day that Mr Hadad also still had possession of the Mercedes under loan from Audi Centre South Brisbane. [133] On 18 August 2020 after the vehicles were not returned to Audi, Mr Roberts informed Mr Hadad that police would be notified if the cars were not returned. [134] On 19 August 2020 Mr Hadad sent a text to Mr Roberts saying he did not steal the car and asked if Mr Roberts was playing games with his family. Mr Roberts replied that he needed the cars paid for or returned. [135] During that morning an email conversation occurred between Mr Hadad and Mr Roberts. Mr Hadad requested the prices of 2 of the Audi's be changed to allow for approval of a loan. This was not agreed to. Mr Hadad was advised at this time that the full amount for the Audi S3 ($43,000.00) and the Mercedes ($32,000.00) was required to be paid by him that morning or the vehicles were required to be returned. [136] Unknown to Mr Roberts the Mercedes had already been sold by Mr Hadad to Central Auto Auction on 17 August 2020. [137] The Mercedes was later retrieved by police and seized for forensic purposes. Queensland Police commenced an investigation into Mr Hadad. Virginia Crew13 [138] On 14 August 2020 Mr Hadad approached Virginia Crew the director of Central Auto Auctions, Eagle Farm, and advised her that he wished to sell her a Mercedes Benz. This was the Mercedes Benz Mr Hadad is alleged to have stolen from Frizelles Auto Group. [139] On 17 August 2020 Mr Hadad returned to Central Auto Auctions and finalised the sale of the Mercedes to Ms Crew for $30,500.00. Mr Hadad then used the $30,500.00 as credit to purchase 8 vehicles from the auction house. 13 Statement of Virginia Gail Crew dated 28 September 2020 -- 34 of 43 -- 35 [140] On 18 August 2020 Mr Hadad advised Ms Crew that he would deliver the logbook belonging to the Mercedes to her. [141] On 9 September 2020 Ms Crew conducted a security check on the Mercedes, as she was in the process of selling it and found that the vehicle was listed as stolen. [142] In relation to the Respondents lack of suitability to hold a licence, the applicant further relies on complete information supplied by all of the above witnesses Flannery, Jones, Bruckner, Richards, Lancaster, Wentorf, Langley, Megginson, Brookes, Crew and Roberts. Disciplinary Ground 9 [143] Section 194(1)(g)(iii) MDCA Act For a licensee - the Respondents have in carrying on a business or performing an activity, been incompetent or acted in an unprofessional way. Facts Sharon Leonard14 [144] On 5 May 2021 Office of Fair Trading enforcement action was taken against the Respondents in relation to a number of breaches pursuant to the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 214 (MDCA Act) and the Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Regulation 2014 (MDCAR). [145] The Infringement notices in the table above were not paid and were forwarded to the State Penalties and Enforcement Registrar (SPER). Skye-Maree Wentorf [146] On 27 July 2020 Ms Skye Wentorf attended Best Buy Autos Carrara, where she viewed a Ford Territory. The salesperson Mr Lobo told Ms Wentorf that Mr Hadad would allow her to enter into a payment plan, if she purchased the car and paid a deposit of $4,500.00 that day. Ms Wentorf agreed to this and paid the deposit. [147] In August 2020 Ms Wentorf drove the Ford Territory to Adelaide to see her grandmother, who had become ill. The Respondent, Mr Hadad called Ms Wentorf many times while she was in Adelaide, demanding payments from her. He made these demands, even though Ms Wentorf had been asking for his bank details so she could make payments as arranged. [148] Mr Hadad later told Ms Wentorf that the Ford was out of registration, and he had placed a block on it being registered in any other state. Ms Wentorf was unable to register the vehicle because she did not have a safety certificate or contract of sale. As of 17 December 2021, the vehicle is still encumbered to the Respondents although the Respondents have been paid in full by Ms Wentorf. This means Ms Wentorf cannot register the vehicle or sell it. [149] Ms Wentorf was unable to drive the vehicle after December 2020 and it remains in Adelaide, unregistered. Mr Hadad also made threats to Ms Wentorf, saying “I know people all over the place and I know where you live. I can organise someone to come and get the car whenever I want”. 14 Statement of Sharon Leonard dated 24 June 2021 -- 35 of 43 -- 36 Amy Bruckner [150] On 22 August 2020, the affected consumer Ms Amy Bruckner returned the Subaru Liberty vehicle she had purchased from the Respondents on 19 August 2020, after having it mechanically inspected and detecting defects. Ms Bruckner also delivered a letter stating she wanted a refund. [151] The Respondents requested Ms Bruckner leave the vehicle to allow a mechanical inspection. At this time a letter was provided to Ms Bruckner by the Respondents advising that the vehicle was being left for inspection due to mechanical issues. [152] The Respondents advised Ms Bruckner they would contact her to advise the status of the vehicle. Ms Bruckner made it clear she was returning the car and expected a full refund. [153] On 9 October 2020 Ms Bruckner found the vehicle parked out the front of her residence with the car keys in the letterbox. The vehicle had not received any repairs as required under the statutory warranty. A letter was located in Ms Bruckner’s letterbox and stated, “We apologise for any delays in response and want to ensure you that your complaint will be handled”. Faith Lancaster [154] On 28 August 2020, the Respondents sold a Mitsubishi Lancer Ms Faith Lancaster. [155] On 29 August 2020 the Respondents informed Ms Lancaster that the Mitsubishi Lancer did not come with warranty as it was a written off vehicle. The Respondents highlighted this information on the signed Form 12, contract of sale, which was handed to Ms Lancaster on that day. [156] It was ascertained the vehicle was not a written off vehicle as it was sold to Ms Lancaster as a registered vehicle. The Respondent had also advertised the vehicle to be sold registered and with a warranty. Robert Richards [157] On 15 September 2020, after detecting a fault with his Holden Cruze Mr Richards contacted Best Buy Autos informing the Respondents the fault had not been repaired, as they stated would happen prior to Mr Richards collecting the car. [158] After having difficulty contacting the Respondents through text message and phone calls Mr Richards attended Best Buy Autos at Carrara. Mr Hadad was in attendance at the time and when it was put to him that the car needed to be repaired, he said to Mr Richards “I don't like to be dictated to”. Luke Megginson [159] On 23 September 2020 the wife of Mr Luke Megginson attended Best Buy Autos Labrador and viewed a Kia Carnival to purchase. The cost of the vehicle was $4,990.00. [160] The Respondents stated the vehicle would have required repairs completed prior to delivery of the vehicle on 24 September 2020. The Respondents accepted a deposit of $1,000.00 from Mrs Megginson for the vehicle. -- 36 of 43 -- 37 [161] On 25 September 2020 Mr and Mrs Megginson went to Best Buy Autos Labrador to ascertain why they had not received the car. It was noted the vehicle had clear damage to it and none of the repairs had been done. [162] The Respondent had failed to complete any repairs as agreed as part of the sale of the vehicle and further advised some repairs could not be completed, by their mechanic. [163] Mr Megginson exercised his right to terminate the agreement and requested the deposit refunded. The Respondent failed to refund the deposit. Elissa Brookes [164] On 5 November 2020 the affected consumer Elissa Brookes purchased a Holden Cruze from the Respondents. As Ms Brookes drove the car away from the car yard, it began to shudder. Ms Brookes returned the car and requested a refund as she was told the car was in good condition and had passed a safety inspection. The safety certificate was signed that same day. [165] Mr Lobo removed the trade plate from the car, which he'd allowed Ms Brookes to use to take the car to Main Roads and Transport to register and walked away, leaving Ms Brookes without any assistance. Ms Brookes had no alternative than to drive the car to her home without any registration plates. [166] As Ms Brookes was driving home the car began overheating and the engine warning light came on. Ms Brookes took a photograph of this. Ms Brookes inspected the car further and noted a tyre had deflated. Ms Brookes felt Mr Lobo had been deceitful as in the test drive he only allowed her to drive around the block and under the speed limit. [167] On 6 November 2020 Ms Brookes returned the car to the Respondent's car yard in Woodridge, where Mr Lobo agreed the repairs would be completed. On 10 November 2020 Ms Brookes was informed the car had been repaired. Ms Brookes collected the car and found the same overheating issue when driving home. [168] On 12 November 2020 Ms Brookes had the car independently assessed and was told the engine had a blown head gasket and was sagging to the right side. Ms Brookes immediately returned the car to the Respondents car yard, where she left the car and car keys. [169] Ms Brookes continued to ring the Respondents between 12 November 2020 and 8 December 2020, only to be told by Mr Hadad that all the car keys were at his home and he was in Sydney. [170] On 11 December 2020 Ms Brookes received and independent quote for the car repairs to the value of $4,840.54. Ms Brookes vehicle remained in the Respondents car yard, without any repairs. [171] Ms Brookes eventually reported the matter to New South Wales Police. Soon after Mr Hadad sent the car keys to Ms Brookes in the mail. She then collected the car from the car yard. However, no repairs have been completed. Applicant’s submissions [172] The respondents were licensees at the time of the conduct. The licences expired on 28 February 2022 and had been in existence for 3 years. -- 37 of 43 -- 38 [173] The respondents have treated their obligations under the legislation with disdain. There has been a complete failure to comply with the standard of behaviour expected of licensees. [174] The licencee committed multiple breaches of MDCA Act. The pattern of behaviour was widespread. (a) Section 121(1) — employed a salesperson who was not registered. (b) Section 216(1) — made false representations to Shyanne Flannery, Laura Jones, Amy Bruckner, Robert Richards, Faith Lancaster and Christopher Langley. (c) Section 118(1) — failed to ensure written contracts of sale were in existence for Skye-Maree Wentorf and Elissa Brookes. (d) Section 74(1) — failed to give to Skye-Maree Wentorf a prescribed statement containing details of the vehicle and the vehicle’s owner prior to the sale. (e) Sections 11 and 12(2) Schedule 1 — failed to reply to and repair defects to vehicles sold to Laura Jones, Faith Lancaster, Robert Richards and Christopher Langley. (f) Section 79(2) (b) - fail to ensure a licensed individual was in charge of the business premises. (g) Section 16(2) MDCA Regulation - fail to give a receipt containing prescribed details to Skye-Maree Wentorf, Amy Bruckner, Robert Richards, Christopher Langley, Luke Megginson and Elissa Brookes. (h) The respondents denied the consumers full and proper disclosure of matters relevant to their purchases. (i) The respondent has deliberately acted in an unprofessional manner and to such a degree that his behaviour makes him unsuitable to hold a licence or certificate under PAMDA. (j) The respondent's conduct was not confined to consumers. (k) The respondents received into their possession 3 vehicles including a Mercedes Benz vehicle from the sales manager of Frizelle's Sunshine Automotive Group which trades as the Audi Centre. On 18 August 2020 Mr Hadad was told to return the vehicles. On 19 August Mr Hadad was told by the sales manager that $32,000 for the Mercedes was required to be paid that day or the vehicles returned. On 17 August Mr Hadad sold the Mercedes to Central Auto Auctions (CAA) for $30,500 which was used as credit by Mr Hadad to buy 8 vehicles from CAA. CAA conducted a security check for the Mercedes and discovered that it had been reported stolen. The police seized the Mercedes. The police charge arising from this matter is yet to be finalised. CAA no longer has the Mercedes to sell. (l) The respondents' conduct when dealing with people in the motor dealing industry is that of persons who are unsuitable to hold licences. (m) The respondents have a significant infringement notice history, of being issued with 10 infringement notices which are identified in the Table above. -- 38 of 43 -- 39 (n) The respondents have engaged in high pressure and threatening behaviour towards Sky- Maree Wentorf. (o) The circumstances in which the vehicle was not repaired and left at Amy Bruckner's house are unprofessional. (p) Informing Faith Lancaster that the vehicle was written off and did not come with a warranty was false. (q) A failure to return the deposit paid by Luke Megginson. (r) A removal of the trade plate from the car purchased by Elisa Brookes and failure to carry out repairs. Orders sought [175] It is submitted by the Applicant that the purpose behind the orders to be made by QCAT is to promote protection of the public and maintenance of professional standards in the motor dealing industry. [176] It is submitted that the respondents gross neglect and deliberate criminality has undermined the standards and reputation of the motor dealing industry. [177] The respondents have deliberately acted in an unprofessional manner and to such a degree that the behaviour makes the respondents unsuitable to hold a licence under MDCAA. [178] Section 199 orders sought by the applicant are; (a) The maximum fine for an individual is 200 penalty units and for a company 1,000 penalty units. As at 1 July 2020 a penalty unit was $133.45. Annexure A incorrectly states as applicable 540 penalty units as applicable. It is submitted that the company be fined $50,000.00 and the individual $ 10,000. (b) The holder of a licence may be disqualified for a period or permanently. The power exists even if the person no longer holds a licence at the time of the disciplinary order. (c) The applicant seeks an order that the company be disqualified permanently from holding a licence under MDCAA and that the individual be permanently disqualified from holding a licence or registration certificate under MDCAA. Both respondents were licensed at the time of the conduct. The respondents ceased holding licences on 28 February 2022. (d) Mr Hadad was the director and only individual licensee connected with the company. It is submitted that if the Tribunal finds that the company should be disciplined then s 194 (1) (g) (vi) MDCA Act empowers the Tribunal to make disciplinary orders under section 199 of the Act against an executive officer. [179] A power exists to order compensation to a person who has suffered loss or damage. Annexure A, page 5 paragraph 10 contains the compensation amounts totalling $67,607.54 applied for by the applicant. QCAT may elect to order the total amount be paid by one respondent or split between both respondents. The applicant seeks an order that Mr Hadad be ordered to pay the total amount of the compensation. There are no other persons disclosed by the evidence as being in control of the company. (a) Shyanne FLANNERY $ 6,600.00 -- 39 of 43 -- 40 (b) Laura JONES $ 1,090.00 (c) Amy BRUCKNER $ 5,999.00 (d) Robert RICHARDS $ N/A (own QCAT action) (e) Faith LANCASTER $ 6,000.00 (f) Skye-Maree WENTORF $ 3,500.00 (g) Christopher LANGLEY $ 7,990.00 (h) Luke MEGGINSON $ 1,000.00 (i) Elissa BROOKES $ 4,928.54 (j) Central Auto Auctions $ 30,500.00 TOTAL $67,607.54 Findings Disciplinary ground 1 [180] In deciding the liability of a party in a disciplinary matter the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. Carter, J made the following comments in Re Seidler15: In Australia and in England the appropriate standard of proof in disciplinary actions has been closely examined by the courts and this standard is regularly applied in practice by disciplinary bodies. The standard of proof is proof on the balance of probabilities possessing as that standard does the required measure of flexibility so that the more serious the allegation, the higher the degree of probability that is required. [181] In disciplinary matters the Briginshaw16 test is applicable. Sir Owen Dixon described the test in the following terms: The truth is that, when the law requires the proof of any fact, the Tribunal must feel an actual persuasion of its occurrence or existence before it can be found. It cannot be found as a result of a mere mechanical comparison of probabilities independently of any belief in its reality. No doubt an opinion that a state of facts exists which may be held according to indefinite gradations of certainty; and this has led to attempts to define exactly the certainty required by the law for various purposes. Fortunately, however, at common law no third standard of persuasion was definitely developed. Except upon criminal issues to be proved by the prosecution, it is enough that the affirmative of an allegation is made out to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal. But reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or facts to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the Tribunal. 15 1986] 1 Qd R 486 at 490. 16 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336. -- 40 of 43 -- 41 [182] I am satisfied that the facts have been established on the balance of probabilities taking account the seriousness of the matters and potential consequences to the respondents. I am satisfied that the respondent Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd has contravened Section 194(1)(b)(i) of MDCA Act. Mr Hadad as the sole director, executive officer and principal licensee of Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd and on the facts is the sole controller of the business has also contravened the Act for employing Mr Lobo. Disciplinary Ground 2 [183] The facts supporting the breaches of s.216(1) MDCA Act by both respondents are overwhelming and I find that they have contravened the MDCA Act. Disciplinary Ground 3 [184] I find that the respondents have contravened s. 118(1) of MDCA Act in that they failed to ensure contracts for sale of motor vehicles existed. Disciplinary Ground 4 [185] I find that the Respondents contravened 74(1) of MDCA Act in failing to give the buyer of the motor vehicle a statement of prescribed particulars immediately after selling a motor vehicle. Disciplinary Ground 5 [186] I find that the respondents having accepted warrantor's obligations to repair defects failed to reply to a notice in writing or repair the defects in contravention of schedule 1, section 12(2) of MDCA Act. Disciplinary Ground 6 [187] The Respondents being licensed motor dealers failed to ensure each place of business had a licensed individual in charge, in contravention of section 79(2)(b) of MDCA Act. I find that the offence has been proved. Disciplinary Ground 7 [188] The Respondents failed to promptly give the buyer, prospective buyer or options holder a receipt headed Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 outlining the particulars required, in contravention of section 16(2) of MDCA Act. I find the offence proved. Disciplinary Ground 8 [189] Section 194(1)(g)(i) MDCA Act for a licensee - the Respondents are not suitable persons to hold a licence. The facts establish a very strong case of theft following what appeared to be a premeditated plan by Mr Hadad and another Easton. The facts relied upon here and the other breaches satisfy me that Mr Hadad is not a suitable person to hold a licence. It follows that the same applies to Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd as Mr Hadad was its principal. Disciplinary Ground 9 [190] Putting aside the deceit of Mr Hadad and others working for him, I am satisfied that if his actions and those employed by him were not motivated by dishonesty the actions were certainly unprofessional and incompetent. Section 194(1)(g)(iii) MDCA -- 41 of 43 -- 42 Act has been breached by Mr Hadad and Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd in carrying on a business or performing an activity in an incompetent and unprofessional manner. Resolution [191] I am satisfied that grounds exist for taking disciplinary action against Mezin Hadad. I make the following orders: (a) Mezin Hadad pay to the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney- General a fine of $10,000.00 by 28 February 2024; (b) Mezin Hadad is jointly and severally liable with Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd to pay compensation of $67,607.54 to the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General by 28 February 2024; (c) The compensation to be distributed to the individuals in the respective amounts set out in the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General’s submissions filed on 31 October 2022. (d) Mezin Hadad be disqualified permanently from holding a licence under the MDCA Act [192] I am satisfied that grounds exist for taking disciplinary action against Mezin Hadad. I make the following orders: (a) Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd pay to the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General a fine of $50,000.00 by 28 February 2024; (b) Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd is jointly and severally liable with Mezin Hadad to pay compensation of $67,607.54 to the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General by 28 February 2024; (c) The compensation to be distributed to the individuals in the respective amounts set out in the Chief Executive, Department of Justice and Attorney-General’s submissions filed on 31 October 2022; (d) Best Buy Auto Group Pty Ltd be disqualified permanently from holding a licence under the MDCA Act. . -- 42 of 43 -- 43 -- 43 of 43 --