Late appeal over a squeaking bumper refused: buyer kept to repair order, not a $4,000 payout (NCAT, 2026)

What happened

The buyer travelled to a licensed motor vehicle dealer's premises in Sydney and bought a second-hand 2020 Audi Q5 for $67,000 on 5 November 2023. The car had travelled 61,894 km at the date of purchase. The buyer lives in Melbourne.

The buyer brought a claim in the Tribunal's Consumer and Commercial Division, saying the car was not of acceptable quality. He complained of a squeak in the rear bumper bar, which became apparent when the car was driven above 60 km/h, and of scratches on the bodywork near the windows. He asked for $4,063 for replacing the rear bumper, $3,745.85 for repairing the scratches, and $13,350 for loss of value of the car.

After a special fixture hearing on 15 December 2025, the Tribunal gave orders with written reasons on 22 December 2025. It accepted that the rear bumper squeak was a breach of the consumer guarantee of acceptable quality, because the buyer had complained about it at the time. The rest of the claim was dismissed. The Tribunal was not satisfied the bumper problem was a major failure, so instead of ordering money it ordered the dealer to replace the bumper. It reasoned that the cost of getting the car from Melbourne to Sydney was not the sole responsibility of either side: it was not a reasonable repair cost for the dealer to bear transport from interstate where the buyer had chosen to take the car, but the buyer should not bear it alone either, since no transport would be needed if the defect had not existed.

The buyer lodged a Notice of Appeal on 2 April 2026, more than two months after the 28-day appeal period had run. He said the delay happened because he had contacted the dealer to negotiate a money amount that would save both sides the time and expense of transporting the car. At the appeal hearing on 12 August 2026 the buyer did not appear and had not asked for an adjournment; a director appeared for the dealer. He had also not complied with an earlier direction to file written submissions and documents.

What each side wanted

In the appeal the buyer did not point to any error of law. He argued the first decision was not fair and equitable because the cost and inconvenience of delivering the car to Sydney outweighed the benefit of the repair, and that being without a car for up to 28 days was an unfair burden. He asked the Appeal Panel to order the dealer to pay him $4,000 instead of carrying out the repair. His only material was the Notice of Appeal, a document sent on 30 July 2026 and an internet search he said showed the dealer was no longer trading; he provided no ASIC search and no recording or transcript of the first hearing. The dealer's director appeared and the dealer did not oppose the separate, short extension of time the buyer later needed to ask for written reasons.

What the tribunal decided

The original orders were that the dealer or its contractor replace the rear bumper of the car, in a proper and workmanlike manner, within 14 days of the buyer delivering the car to the dealer; that the buyer was "solely responsible" for delivering the car to the dealer; and that within 28 days of delivery the dealer or its contractor return the car to the buyer at his residential address. The rest of the application was dismissed.

On appeal, the Appeal Panel made two orders: leave to extend time to lodge the appeal was refused, and the appeal was dismissed. No money was ordered either way. The repair orders made on 22 December 2025 therefore stand.

The Appeal Panel also extended time for the buyer's late request for written reasons, made on 15 September 2026 instead of within 28 days, because the extension was brief and the dealer did not oppose it.

Why the tribunal decided it that way

An internal appeal to NCAT's Appeal Panel must normally be lodged within 28 days of being notified of the decision or given the reasons, whichever is later. That period can be extended under section 41 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW). The Appeal Panel looked at the length of the delay, the reason for it, the prospects of the appeal succeeding and any prejudice to the other side. It held the reason given, that the buyer had been trying to negotiate with the dealer, was not a reasonable explanation for an appeal lodged well out of time.

The Appeal Panel also found the appeal lacked enough merit to justify extending time. An appeal can be brought as of right only on a question of law; anything else needs leave, that is the Appeal Panel's permission. The buyer identified no error of law. For decisions of the Consumer and Commercial Division, leave can only be granted where the appellant may have suffered a substantial miscarriage of justice because the decision was not fair and equitable, or was against the weight of the evidence, or because significant new evidence has arisen that was not reasonably available earlier. Simply disagreeing with the result and calling it unfair is not enough; an appellant must show more than that the Tribunal was arguably wrong.

On the substance, the first Tribunal had a discretion about the right remedy. Because the squeak was not a major failure under the sections of the Australian Consumer Law dealing with remedies, the consumer could not insist on a refund or a money payment, and the Tribunal could order the supplier to fix the problem. The Tribunal used its power under section 79N(b) of the Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) to order the repair and considered that fair and equitable to both sides. The Appeal Panel noted the buyer pointed to no material from the first hearing showing the bumper replacement would cost $4,000; the written reasons referred to a report that the noise could be fixed by replacing the bumper bar, but not to any cost.

The Appeal Panel observed it could have dismissed the appeal outright for the buyer's failure to appear or for failure to prosecute the matter, but chose to deal with it on the merits instead.

What this means if you are in a similar position

If you are in a similar position, this decision shows how two separate hurdles work. The first is time: an appeal filed outside the 28-day window needs an extension, and talking to the other side about a settlement has been held not to be an adequate explanation for a long delay. The second is the ground of appeal itself. Saying a result feels unfair, or that complying with an order is inconvenient, is treated as disagreement with the outcome rather than as the kind of error that opens up an appeal.

It also shows how remedies work for faulty goods. Where a problem is found to be a breach of the acceptable quality guarantee but is not a major failure, the Tribunal can require the supplier to repair the goods instead of paying money, and it can decide who bears the practical burden of getting the goods to the repairer. If you want a money amount instead of a repair, the figures and the evidence supporting them need to be before the Tribunal at the first hearing, because an appeal is not a chance to run the case again. Not attending the appeal hearing, and not filing the submissions and documents the Tribunal has directed, also puts a matter at risk of being dismissed on that basis alone.

In disputes of this kind most people start with a written demand to the dealer that sets out the fault, what they want done and by when, and only lodge a tribunal application if the dealer does not respond.

How to apply: our step-by-step guide to a NCAT application. More decisions: NCAT cases and motor vehicle dealers.

Source: Parker v HMA Wholesalers Pty Ltd t/as Group 1 Prestige [2026] NSWCATAP 332 (read the full decision). This summary was prepared from the published decision for general information. It is not legal advice, and the tribunal’s own reasons are the authoritative record.