Showing 21 - 23 of 23 results.
Complaint Target – test of mechanics attending breakdown and repairing a car’s cooling system – use of hidden camera – complainant most expensive repairer – insufficient explanation of reason for costs given – unbalanced – inaccurate – unfair FindingsStandards 4, 5, and 6 – consumer advocacy programme – complaint essentially that complainant not dealt with fairly – subsumed under Standard 6 – as with all other participants one of two manufactured faults not found – services otherwise good – adequate explanation given of invoice – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary [1] The hidden camera segment on Target on 22 September 2002 featured mechanics called to a simulated breakdown situation. The car in question had two manufactured faults. The four companies selected were rated according to their performance at the breakdown, the work on the repair, and their charges....
ComplaintTarget – preparation and presentation of programme unfair - florists tested – test conducted unfairly – assessor not independent or impartial – response unfairly edited FindingsStandard G4 – test and setting up process not unfair – other standards not relevant – no uphold This headnote does not form part of the decision. Summary An episode of Target broadcast on TV3 on 28 November 1999 beginning at 7. 00pm featured six florists who were graded on their ability to complete an order. Ms Newcombe and Mr Hall complained to TV3 Network Services Ltd that the broadcast had portrayed their business unfairly. They alleged that a number of broadcasting standards had been breached both by the broadcast and the preparation of the programme. TV3 responded that the test had been devised on the advice of an independent technical consultant and that the florists had been selected randomly....
Complaint under section 8(1C)(c)(i) of the Broadcasting Act 1989Target – item looked at the business practices of a private chiropractic practice called The Spinal Health Foundation and its resident chiropractor, Dr Sean Parker – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair Findings Standard 4 (balance) – item did not discuss a controversial issue of public importance – not upheld Standard 5 (accuracy) – item did not imply that Dr Parker was offering personal loans to patients or that pre-pay arrangements were unethical – statement relating to possible breaches of ethics was sufficiently qualified – not upheld – decline to determine point relating to changing of paperwork under section 11(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 Standard 6 (fairness) – questions asked of Dr Parker were generic – complainant given adequate opportunity to respond – broadcaster treated Dr Parker fairly – not upheld This headnote does not form part of the decision....