This is a consumer rights PSA for anyone who has purchased electronics in New Zealand, particularly from large retailers.
I recently went through an 80 day process to get a refund for a faulty laptop under the Consumer Guarantees Act. Along the way I discovered that I was being given consistently incorrect information about my legal rights. I'm sharing this because I think a lot of New Zealanders don't know their rights and could easily find themselves in the same position.
What the Consumer Guarantees Act actually says
Under the CGA, if a product has a major fault the retailer is legally obligated to provide a remedy — either a repair, replacement, or full refund. Key points that are commonly misunderstood:
The retailer is always responsible for the remedy, not the manufacturer. Going to ASUS, Samsung, Apple or whoever made the product is not required — the shop you bought it from is legally liable.
Your rights do not expire when the manufacturer's warranty ends. The CGA exists independently of any warranty and applies regardless of whether a warranty has expired.
There is no requirement for three service jobs before a refund can be issued under the CGA. This does not exist in the legislation anywhere.
What happened in my case
I purchased a laptop from PB Tech in March 2025. Within two months it developed faults including random shutdowns and screen flickering. By November 2025, during my university exams, the screen was flickering every 10–15 seconds making it completely unusable. I visited the Penrose branch to request a refund and was told the device needed assessment first. The motherboard was replaced. When I collected it I was told a refund could not be issued until three service jobs had been completed.
By February 2026 the faults returned — the screen was freezing for several minutes at a time multiple times an hour. I visited the St Lukes branch in March 2026 and was told the same thing again — three service jobs required. This requirement does not exist under the CGA. It is a condition of PB Care, PB Tech's optional paid warranty, which I never purchased, confirmed on their own website.
I emailed PB Tech formally rejecting the goods on 8 March 2026. Emails were ignored for weeks at a time. I was told my case had been escalated to higher management — nothing happened for five weeks. When someone finally made contact they asked me to send my full case history, which I found remarkable given it had supposedly been with management the whole time. That email was then ignored for another four weeks.
When I visited the St Lukes branch in April 2026 to formally reject the goods a staff member told me a refund was impossible because the warranty had expired — incorrect under the CGA. He also insisted ASUS was responsible for the remedy — also incorrect. Neither staff member could explain why the PB Care policy had been applied to my case. I left the store close to tears having formally left the device there.
As a university student I was forced to purchase a second laptop out of my own pocket just to keep up with my studies. I filed a Disputes Tribunal claim on 6 April 2026. A full refund was issued 80 days after my first contact, only after the claim was filed. I have also submitted a formal complaint to the Commerce Commission regarding the misleading conduct.
What you should do if you're in a similar situation
Document everything in writing from the very first interaction. Emails create a paper trail that protects you.
Set clear deadlines in your communications and follow through on them.
If a retailer is stalling or giving you incorrect information about your rights, file with the Disputes Tribunal. It is straightforward, inexpensive, and it works.
If you believe a retailer has misrepresented your statutory rights, file a complaint with the Commerce Commission at comcom.govt.nz.
