Sentencing — misrepresentations — enforcing credit contracts — illegal repossessions — Commerce Commission v Love Springs CRI-2012-004-011695 ADC — Commerce Commission v Westpac Banking Corporation CRI-2005-004-004062 District Court Auckland 2006 — Commerce Commission v Auckland Academy of Learning 2017 DC 27148 — Commerce Commission v Reckitt Benckiser (New Zealand) Ltd 2017 20170203 District Court Auckland — Commerce Commission v Bike Retail Group Limited [2017] NZDC 2670 — Commerce Commission v Youi Insurance Group Ltd [2016] NZDC 2585 — Fair Trading Act 1986, s 13 — Credit Repossession Act 1997, s 35 — District Courts Act 2016, s 65A. The defendant companies (who had the same directors) appeared for sentence on 125 charges relating to misrepresentations in enforcing credit contracts. The victims of the misrepresentations (the debtors of the defendant companies) had their property illegally repossessed and paid more interest and costs than they owed. The defendants employed tactics such as repossessing property when they had no right to, illegally adding extra costs, interests and sums to loans and requiring debtors to increase payments higher than amounts ordered by court. Multiple times the defendants ordered locksmiths to force entry to their debtors' homes so that they could enter and take items of the debtors' property. The Court found that the offending was serious. The victims were vulnerable and the defendants employed illegal tactics and exploited the power imbalance between them and their debtors. The offending had a major impact on the victims, some having almost all of their belongings repossessed. The Court observed that the defendants used repossession as a means of coercing their debtors. The total start point for fine was $800,000: $500,000 for the category 1 offences (repossession charges); $170,000 for the category 2 offences (illegally adding interests and costs to the debtors' loans); $100,000 for the category 3 offences (misrepresenting the amount debtors owed after attachment orders); and $30,000 for the category 4 offences (misrepresenting the benefits of refinancing). The fine was apportioned as $535,000 for the first defendant, and $265,000 for the second. The first defendant's fine was reduced $50,000 for cooperation with the prosecutors; the second defendant's by $30,000 for cooperating with the authorities and in recognition of reparation. The Court also ordered reparations in respect of 20 victims, and emotional harm payments totalling $53,000. Judgment Date: 30 May 2018.