Buyers put off by lounger fad
Wellington recorded the largest percentage increase in median price compared to December 2015, followed by Nelson/Marlborough and Waikato/Bay of Plenty.
Days to sell falls further
The number of days to sell increased by one day to 31 days last month, compared with December 2015. Compared with November the number of days to sell fell by one day.
Otago had the fewest number of days to sell at 21 days followed by Nelson/Marlborough at 23 days and Wellington, Taranaki and Manawatu/Wanganui all at 26 days. Northland had the most number of days to sell at 36 days, while in Auckland the number of days to sell was 33 days.
Auction sales steady
There were 1152 dwellings sold by auction nationally in December, representing 18 per cent of all sales and a decrease of 231 on the number of auctions in December 2015.
Transactions in Auckland represented 50 per cent of national auction sales, with the number of auctions in Waikato/Bay of Plenty representing 19 per cent, and the number of auctions in CanterburyWestland representing 15 per cent.
These three regions represented 85 per cent of auction sales in December 2016.
Between December 2015 and December 2016, the number of homes sold for more than $1 million rose by 12 per cent to 848 homes to equal almost 13 per cent of all dwellings sold.
The number of dwellings sold under $600,000 has declined by 884 between December 2015 and December 2016 compared to a fall of 780 for all dwellings. Kiwis are feeling misled and put off by air loungers as the product fails to live up to expectations.
Air loungers are the latest furniture phenomenon, with popular brand Lizard Air Loungers sold through infomercials and online at showtv.co.nz.
Users are supposed to fill them up by pulling them through the air from side to side and then rolling them up at the end.
But it wasn’t long before people started realising how hard the product actually was to use.
Wairarapa man Cam Waru experienced the difficulty of filling the air lounger when his mum got one as a gift. ‘‘We thought, ‘It’s a nice day, we’ll crack out the air lounger and see if we can make it look like [it does on TV].’’’
Unfortunately, it did not work as easily as hoped. Even after some air got into it, it had to be rolled up several times to stay inflated.
It was also uncomfortable to use, Waru said, particularly for ‘‘a guy of my size’’. Waru said he felt misled by the product and would not buy it in the future.
Wellington man Jeff Stout thought the air lounger would be great for him and his partner.
‘‘We like to go on holiday a fair bit in summertime and thought it might be quite an easy thing to put together and transport easily compared with other loungers you can buy in camping stores.’’
But he was disappointed when he could not inflate the product.
When he called the supplier, he was refused a refund and told to keep trying to inflate it. He was also told to watch the instructional video, which he had watched a number of times already.
Stout said he has been put off completely by the experience. ‘‘I almost resorted to getting out an electric fan to get some air into it.’’
These experiences fall in line with Consumer NZ’s First Look report on the air December last year.
After failing to inflate the lounger in both slight breeze and strong wind conditions, testers managed to get it inflated on the beach with a gentle sea breeze. But it deflated quickly, after just 10 minutes of someone sitting on it.
ShowTV has been approached for comment.
Simpson Grierson lawyer Tristan Sage said whether consumers received a refund or not from the supplier depended on whether the supplier has met its obligations under the Consumer Guarantees Act.
The act imposed guarantees on goods, with one being that they must be fit for purpose, free from minor defects, safe and durable.
There was also a guarantee for fitness for particular purposes and this applied where representations were made on what the air loungers did. Goods must be used in a way that a ‘‘reasonable consumer’’ would use them.
Suppliers must either repair or replace goods that fail to meet the standard of acceptable quality and/or fitness for a particular purpose within a reasonable time.
It is only if the issue cannot be remedied within a reasonable time, or the defect is of a ‘‘substantial character’’, that consumers may reject the goods and insist on a refund, Sage said. loungers in