JHE v JHF

The claimant engaged the respondent company to move her household on 25 September 2025. After a site visit on 18 August 2025, the respondent gave a fee estimate dated 19 August 2025 for a total of $2,458, covering six truck loads and six loads of stair labour, free packing materials based on 200 carton boxes, and some special handling. The estimate also listed rates for extra loads, including $308 per additional full truck load and $80 per additional load of stair labour. The claimant accepted it and paid a $1,000 deposit, described as both a carton box deposit and a reservation deposit and refundable on collection of the boxes.

On the moving day she was told the total would be $7,437, made up of twelve truck loads, extra stair labour, transit insurance for a mirror and packing services for 154 boxes at $12 each. The tribunal observed that the breakdown did not tally with the stated total. Feeling she had no real choice as the charges were presented late in the afternoon and into the evening, she paid. She then brought Small Claims Tribunals Claim No 19091 of 2025 to recover what she paid above the estimate, under section 6(1) of the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act 2003, and to recover the deposit.

1. Whether the price charged was substantially higher than the estimate within paragraph 10 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the CPFTA
2. Whether the claimant expressly agreed in advance to the higher price
3. Whether any order should be made on the claimant's claim for the deposit

The price charged was roughly three times the estimate, which plainly counted as substantially higher, and neither side disputed this.

The claimant had agreed in advance to the $600 mirror insurance, but not to the rest. Although the estimate printed rates for extra loads, agreeing to the possibility of extra charges is different from expressly agreeing in advance to the higher price actually charged. Suppliers who give estimates have the expertise the consumer relies on, so the statute places the risk of a poor estimate on them. Having inspected the home and quoted for 200 boxes, the respondent should have estimated the loads with reasonable accuracy; it did not explain the jump from six to twelve loads, its claim that more furniture was added on the day was unsubstantiated, and a messy house was beside the point. The higher price came only when the move was more than halfway through, leaving the claimant no practical choice. The packing charges were never agreed either; she had asked for more boxes and the respondent delivered the last 100 only on the day, so the movers' help came without any discussion of price.

On the deposit, the boxes had not yet been returned and the respondent was not trying to forfeit it, so there was no live issue. The tribunal fixed the number of boxes to be returned at 200 to resolve the ambiguity.

The tribunal allowed the claim in part. It found that the respondent engaged in an unfair practice and awarded $4,379, being the excess over the estimate and the agreed $600 transit insurance, plus $30 in disbursements, and ordered the respondent to pay $4,409 by 16 March 2026. It made no order on the deposit, finding instead that the deposit is recoverable on return of 200 boxes, less $5 for each box not returned.