NANA recently commenced a CTTT claim on behalf of a newsagent against Tower Systems. NANA prepared the claim, paid to lodge it and provided resources to manage the matter.
This began when Chiang Lim, NANA CEO, called me a couple of weeks prior to lodging the CTTT claim to ask about a then recently installed Tower Systems newsagency site. I explained that after the first day of the installation, after all hardware had been installed and use commenced, and following an argument between husband and wife, the husband advised they could not proceed with the computer system. The story as to why they didn’t want to proceed changed several times that day and in the time since. At no time did they say they had not received what the ordered or that the software was not appropriate to their needs.
I explained to Chiang that the newsagent signed a contract to purchase the system after two meetings to look at and discuss the software and that there was no pressure on them to proceed. I also explained that since they did not honour the COD terms and had not done so for weeks, Tower had commenced recovery action.I also advised Chiang about the argument between the owners about the system. Chiang said he would look into it and get back to me.
The next I heard was the CTTT notice to appear at a hearing.
I’ve not heard from Chiang since. He didn’t show at the CTTT hearing – where the matter was dismissed because lo lack of appearance. Tower had challenged CTTT jurisdiction since legal action had reluctantly been commenced for payment prior.
In Chiang’s letter accompanying the CTTT application he claimed there was a language barrier. What Chiang did not research was whether Tower offered training in Mandarin and Cantonese. Both offers were made an the newsagent advised they were not necessary. The language Chiang indicated the newsagent preferred is not the language they actually preferred. Chiang also said a trial period of the software was not adequately offered yet he took no steps to determine if that was the case.
I expect there would be NANA members who would be disappointed that NANA has spent newsagent funds on this. While the association should support members wronged by suppliers, it should thoroughly investigate any claim to ensure that wrongdoing has actually occurred.
It appears that NANA rushed to take legal action and then let the matter drop once they realised they had acted in haste. They were quick to call with an allegation and then went missing once the evidence stacked up against them.
As for the newsagency, the matter has been resolved by agreement, system has been paid for and installation is proceeding.