An Auckland kitchen appliance supplier is at the centre of a dispute with at least eight customers who are demanding payments to be returned after failing to receive the goods they ordered.
The customers claimed Yuzhen Technology and Furniture Ltd owed amounts ranging from around $10,000 to $60,000, totalling more than $270,000.
A spokesperson for the supplier said it was “seeking legal advice”.
Several customers said they had filed a complaint against Yuzhen Technology and Furniture Ltd, previously known as Stone Appliance Ltd, with the Disputes Tribunal.
At least one customer had filed a complaint with police.
Property developer Tim Cai claimed Stone Appliance Ltd owed him about $21,000.
Cai belonged to a WeChat group describing themselves as victims of the business.
In April last year, Cai contacted the business to purchase commercial kitchen appliances, including cooktops, dishwashers and fridges, worth $223,664.
Cai was told the goods would be delivered by February 2025. The quote he received required a 50 percent deposit.
He paid a $10,000 deposit to secure the goods in May last year.
A month later, business owner Haozhen Shi – who is also known as Stone – asked Cai for an additional $20,000 to secure the order, citing high demand for the goods.
Cai agreed to pay half of the amount, he said.
When Shi asked Cai to pay another $20,000 in December, he refused.
Cai claimed he was later owed additional money after the business installed an inferior stovetop when replacing a broken unit.
Cai contacted the business for an update ahead of the due delivery date but was initially unsuccessful.
“Over a dozen phone calls and messages were sent,” Cai said. “Most calls and messages went unanswered.”
The company eventually told Cai it was in no position to deliver the goods or return the deposit.
Developer Reggie Wang ordered goods worth more than $55,000 from Yuzhen Technology and Furniture Ltd in November.
He paid a deposit and was contacted by the company in March, saying that the appliances Wang had ordered were ready for delivery.
“I was asked to pay the outstanding amount, which I did on the day,” Wang said.
However, the appliances Wang ordered never arrived.
“When I told them that I was in urgent need of the appliances, they replied that they were working on it,” Wang said.
“It has been three months and there is no additional information,” he said. “No goods have been delivered.”
Wang contacted a lawyer and was prepared to take the business owner to court.
Developer Kevin To claimed the supplier owed him about $61,000.
He paid Stone Appliance Ltd close to $100,000 for a shipment of appliances in 2021, but products worth nearly $20,000 never arrived.
The developer then paid another $62,000 in March 2024 after Shi said he needed money to secure the goods, and both parties agreed this would be used as credits at the company’s stores.
The developer had been working with Stone Appliance Ltd for a few years, and so he had no reason to doubt the company’s reliability.
“I was in a rush to get the appliances, so I paid him,” To said. “But the goods still weren’t delivered.”
In the following months, the developer used just over $20,000 worth of credits, leaving about $42,000 unused.
Despite contacting Stone Appliance Ltd many times to get an update on the delivery time for appliances that were ordered in 2021, To felt the supplier kept stalling him.
To finally got a reference number from Stone Appliances Ltd and paid $19,300 to the company’s supplier to secure the goods.
Businessman Sean Pan claimed the owner of Stone Appliances Ltd owed him $40,000.
Pan has an office next to Stone Appliances Ltd’s store in East Tāmaki.
Shi allegedly borrowed $50,000 from Pan in November last year, stating that he needed help to pay a deposit for a new house he was buying.
Being neighbours for a few years and having purchased appliances from the kitchen appliance supplier before, Pan trusted Shi.
“When he came to borrow money, he said that he had enough funds to pay me back, but he just didn’t have enough cash flow at the time,” Pan said.
“I thought that, first, we are neighbours and, second, he has two stores, so he wouldn’t default on such an amount.”
An indebtedness note signed by both men said the money would be paid back within a month.
However, Pan only received $10,000 in mid-January after numerous phone calls to Shi.
The rest of the loan had not been paid back despite further engagements in person and via phone calls and messages with Shi, Pan said.
He filed a complaint with police but was told officers could not act because there was not enough evidence to investigate at the time.
Police confirmed to RNZ that they had received a complaint.
“The complainant was advised at the time the report as it stood was a civil matter,” a police spokesperson said.
“Police provided the complainant with advice around undertaking civil proceedings to recoup debts.”
Shi’s wife, Karen Lo, director of Yuzhen Technology and Furniture Ltd, said the company was “reviewing the situation carefully and seeking legal advice”.
“Due to the complexity of the sensitive legal and family matters involved, we apologise that we are unable to answer all of your questions in detail at this time,” Lo told RNZ.
Carlos Cheung, National MP for Mt Roskill, held a meeting with several customers seeking refunds from Yuzhen Technology and Furniture Ltd on June 16.
Cheung encouraged people to take the matter to the police and see what could be done.
“Every single [alleged] victim needs to report to the police and create a police case first,” Cheung said. “No matter the police accept or reject their cases, they need to create a case [file].”
Vanessa Horne, general manager of competition, fair trading and credit at the Commerce Commission, said it had received an enquiry about Yuzhen Technology and Furniture Ltd in addition to a separate one about Stone Appliance Ltd.
“Any behaviour or marketing that misleads consumers is of concern to the commission and could be a breach of the Fair Trading Act,” Horne said.
“All traders must ensure any representations made regarding delivery timeframes and availability of product are accurate.”
Consumers were also covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act, Horne said.
“If a delivery is faulty, damaged or not delivered within a reasonable time, consumers can pursue remedies under the Consumer Guarantees Act, such as repair, replacement or refund.”
If a guarantee had not been met, consumers generally had the right to insist that a seller or services provider rectified it, Horne said.
Horne said the commission’s role was to enforce the Fair Trading Act, and it could act if a business misled consumers about their rights under the Consumer Guarantees Act, and people were encouraged to report a concern.
Abby Damen, communications and campaigns adviser at Consumer New Zealand, said accepting payment from buyers without intending to supply a good or service was a breach of contract and breached provisions of the Fair Trading Act.
“If you paid via credit card, call your bank to see if you’re able to get a chargeback to your card,” Damen said.
“If you can’t make contact with the trader, you can take the company to the Disputes Tribunal.”
rnz.co.nz
