Aussie Bike Auto & Boat Loans Pty Ltd v Weblite Website Solutions [2014] QCAT 368

CITATION: Aussie Bike Auto & Boat Loans Pty Ltd v Weblite Website Solutions [2014] QCAT 368 PARTIES: Aussie Bike Auto & Boat Loans Pty Ltd (Applicant) v Associated IT Pty Ltd ABN 77129353493 T/A Weblite Website Solutions (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: MCDO2588-13 MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil dispute matters HEARING DATE: 19 May 2014, with further submissions required by 6 June 2014. HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Adjudicator Davern DELIVERED ON: 25 July 2014 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: The application is dismissed. CATCHWORDS: Consumer – trader dispute – development of search engine optimisation (SEO) to increase the popularity of internet websites – the Respondent is the second of three SEO organisations that the Applicant has engaged with – none have been able to contribute to any real increase in high quality web traffic – the websites promote products relating to finance and loans – no improvements should necessarily be expected from SEO programming if outcomes might be more reflective of market trends – the consumer should allow the trader an opportunity to address his concerns before engaging a new trader to take over the job. APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): APPLICANT: Mr Matthew O’Rourke – Director RESPONDENT: Mr Michael Lacey – Director -- 1 of 3 -- 2 REASONS FOR DECISION [1] This is an Application for a refund of fees paid to the Respondent for work done on some of the Applicant’s internet websites. Whilst the Application was filed on 13 December 2013 as a ‘minor debt’ claim, in substance it relates to a dispute between a consumer and a trader. The Applicant claims that they should be entitled to a refund because of the lack of results that the Applicant was expecting. [2] The subject contract was for the development and use of search engines to increase the websites popularity. The work is identified as search engine optimisation (SEO). The fees that were paid covered the monthly usage of the Website SEO from May 2013 to January 2014. [3] The initial contract (relating to the website aussieloans.com.au) was confirmed with the email transmission on 29 April 2013, in which Mr O’Rourke tells Mr Lacey ‘Please go ahead @$700 mth inc GST – 12 months – review it quarterly’. After further interaction between the parties there were adjustments in the contractual terms. At the end of May Mr O’Rourke agreed to allow Weblite to work on a sister site called needfinance.com.au. With an email transmission on 19 June 2013, Mr O’Rourke informs Mr Lacey ‘Could you send Carmel an invoice for $6600 – I’ll prepay our SEO 1st AUG – 31st JAN 2014’. In effect, the Applicant paid $700 for May and $1100 for each of the following months. [4] In relation to its website needs, the Applicant had previously dealt with a company called Dejan. Dejan also specialises in SEO packages. Mr O’Rourke initiated contact with the Respondent company. In his email transmission dated 23 April 2013, Mr O’Rourke informs Mr Lacey that: ‘I have been with Dejan.com.au for a while so the website should be sort of in control…you would think. The other nine sites are businesses that we deal with or where we once had an office and have since closed it. I would be happier to pat (pay) $700 inc GST per month and go from there. Please let me know if this would work with you. Also we have other websites to look at down the track – in all, we have 3 majors and 5 minor sites …’. All of the identified websites make reference to loans or finance. [5] Mr O’Rourke demonstrated a familiarity with the concepts of Search Engine Optimisation (SEO). In his submissions he declares that: ‘The purpose of the business relationship with Weblite was to improve Aussie’s SEO rankings on Google and other relevant search engines. Weblite was contracted to develop a relevant SEO plan for our business, one that would derive targeted and relevant keywords that will contribute high quality web traffic to our web site’. [6] The Respondent challenges QCAT’s jurisdiction in this dispute, on the basis that all of the work done fell within the NSW jurisdiction, where the Respondent company is based. From the exchanges between the parties to complete the original and altered contractual arrangements, there is a -- 2 of 3 -- 3 sufficient thread to connect the Queensland jurisdiction to deal with the substantive issues. [7] The evidence confirms that the Applicant has engaged a series of SEO contractors in an endeavour to promote various businesses that are managed by Mr O’Rourke. The products that Mr O’Rourke has been attempting to promote involve finance and loans. However, the lack of any major increase in the rankings might be more reflective of what has been happening with market trends, and that no improvements should necessarily be expected from SEO programming in the market place during the relevant period. [8] In late September Mr O’Rourke says that he advised Weblite that he wanted to cancel the relationship immediately, because the rankings were worse off overall since Weblite took over. In October 2013 the Applicant employed the SEO organisation Uniquewebsites. Mr O’Rourke alleges that consequently the rankings are starting to head north. If Mr O’Rourke’s statistics of new finance applications are anything to go by, then he has not provided a convincing argument to support his case ie. (2013) April-27, May-23, June-23, July-22, August-24, September-27, October-9, November-19, December-14, (2014) January-28, February-22. [9] The Applicant has now received the benefit of SEO programming from three different contractors, Dejan, Weblite, and now Uniquewebsites. The evidence suggests that none of them have been able to contribute towards any real increase in high quality web traffic to the Applicant’s websites. [10] No sufficient evidence has been produced to substantiate any tangible failure in what the Respondent has delivered in accordance with the contract. Added to this the Applicant has switched to an alternate contractor without having given the Respondent any opportunity to address the Applicant’s concerns. Consequently, the Application must be dismissed in its entirety. -- 3 of 3 --