The Commerce Commission is undertaking a compliance project focused on online flower retailer Bloomex after receiving 232 concerns about the business.

Head of Fair Trading and Product Safety Investigations Simon Pope said 177 concerns had been received since 8 July 2025, the day Chris Lynch Media first reported complaints about Bloomex.

The Commission had previously reminded Bloomex of its obligations under the Fair Trading Act and provided guidance on practices that could breach the law.

“The Commission is currently undertaking a compliance project targeted at Bloomex, in response to concerns from the public,” Pope said.

He said the Commission had previously engaged with Bloomex, reminded the company of its obligations under the Fair Trading Act and provided guidance on practices that could breach the law.

A compliance project involves a dedicated team undertaking sustained work focused on a particular business, industry or issue.

Pope said the team would analyse the concerns received, meet directly with Bloomex, outline potential breaches of the Fair Trading Act and suggest changes that could reduce the risk of further breaches.

The Commission would then monitor whether changes had been made and assess any additional concerns received.

“If issues continue to occur, the Commission will consider further action,” Pope said.

“We have numerous tools available to change a business’s behaviour and protect Kiwis, such as court proceedings or warnings.”

Pope said compliance projects often produced faster results than an investigation and possible court proceedings.

The Commission’s action comes as customers across New Zealand complain about bouquets they said arrived wilted, late or looking markedly different from arrangements advertised online.

Chris Lynch Media has received complaints about Bloomex from customers in Christchurch, Auckland, Whangārei, Hawke’s Bay and Dunedin, as well as Melbourne.

Bloomex is a Canadian owned flower and gift retailer that accepts New Zealand orders through several websites, including Bloomex, NZ Blooms and Mel’s Flowers.

Several customers said the websites gave them the impression they were ordering from a florist in the recipient’s local area.

Pope said businesses must not mislead people about products, delivery promises or where a company was based. “Under the Fair Trading Act, it is illegal for businesses to mislead people,” he said.

“This includes, for example, misleading people about the quality of a product, the ability to deliver a product within an advertised timeframe and representations around where a company is based.” Pope said businesses should not represent themselves as local companies when they were based elsewhere.

He said the Commission had recently completed a separate compliance project involving ghost stores, which are online retailers accused of misrepresenting themselves as local New Zealand businesses.

That project resulted in 30 websites targeting New Zealand customers being removed.

Melbourne resident Paris Baker paid $94.95 for flowers to be delivered to her sister in Auckland ahead of a friend’s funeral.

Bloomex notified Baker that the order had been delivered, but her sister had been home throughout the day and had not received it directly. She later found the box behind bricks in the carport.

“When she opened the box during a video call, the flowers looked completely different from the picture on the website,” Baker said.

Bloomex later told Baker the arrangement she selected was unavailable and had been substituted. She said the company did not warn her before sending the replacement.

“If I had known this, I would have cancelled my order and ordered from somewhere else.” Baker was offered store credit but said that did not resolve the problem because the flowers were intended for a funeral.

Coral Parker paid $153.99 for a sympathy arrangement that she said arrived in an almost dead condition. Parker contacted Bloomex seven times over eight days. She rejected offers of another delivery or store credit because the flowers had been ordered for a bereavement and could no longer serve their intended purpose.

Bloomex refunded Parker $46.20, leaving her $107.79 out of pocket.

The company said the amount represented an approved 30 percent refund. Its records showed Parker had previously been offered store credits of $20, $30 and $40, as well as a replacement arrangement.

Rebecca Tohill paid about $320 for a Christmas hamper she believed was worth about $50. After the company declined to provide a refund, Tohill said ASB reversed the credit card charge.

Months later, her husband ordered through Mel’s Flowers without realising it was connected to Bloomex. He paid $160 for the largest arrangement available. Tohill said the flowers arrived in an impressive box, but the bouquet was small and already beginning to wilt.

“This vendor is a total waste of money and people get trapped into it too easily,” she said.

Whangārei customer Lee Thoresen paid $129 for what was advertised as same day delivery. Thoresen said the flowers were dispatched from Onehunga and arrived four days later, battered and mostly dead.

Paul Hickmott ordered flowers for Mother’s Day from what appeared to be a Havelock North business. He said they were sent from Onehunga and arrived three days early, disrupting plans for his brother to visit their mother, who has dementia.

An Auckland customer placed separate orders through Bloomex and NZ Blooms without realising the brands were connected. He said neither delivery matched what he ordered.

Janet Lee paid $90 for a deluxe bouquet advertised for delivery the following day. She said it arrived five days after the order was placed and bore no resemblance to the photograph.

Bloomex New Zealand director of operations Andrew Lokhonia disputed suggestions the complaints established a pattern across the company’s wider operation.

He said Bloomex had served more than 300,000 New Zealand customers and a collection of complaints received by a journalist did not establish how frequently such problems occurred.

Do you know more? Email [email protected]

 

Lokhonia said fulfilment depended on the destination, product and availability. Orders could be produced through Bloomex operations in Auckland or Christchurch, or supplied by a local partner florist.

He rejected suggestions the company claimed to operate physical stores in every location where it delivered. “Advertising delivery to a town or city is not the same thing as representing that Bloomex operates a physical retail storefront in that town,” Lokhonia said.

He said NZ Blooms disclosed on its website that it was operated by Bloomex Limited and that products ordered through the website were supplied by the company.

Lokhonia said Bloomex operated several brands to support different products, marketing strategies and sales channels while sharing infrastructure. “The brands are not intended to conceal the underlying operator.”

He said Bloomex’s resolution options could include a replacement, resend, monetary refund or store credit, depending on the circumstances and the customer’s legal entitlement.

When substitutions were required, the company usually attempted to contact the purchaser or recipient by telephone, he said. If neither person could be reached, Bloomex could proceed with a substitute arrangement rather than allow a time sensitive order to miss its delivery date.

Bloomex said it required order numbers and other identifying information to investigate several complaints in detail. The company also denied it was company policy to disconnect or block customers who complained.

Pope said the Consumer Guarantees Act required products to be of acceptable quality, fit for their intended purpose, arrive on time and in good condition, and match their description, sample or demonstration.

A business could choose to repair or replace a product, or provide a refund, when a fault was minor. Customers could request a refund when a product had a substantial fault.

Pope said a person’s entitlement depended on factors including the product, its intended use, what the customer was told and how it was purchased. “It is illegal for a business to mislead people about their rights under the Consumer Guarantees Act,” he said.

Customer Nick Lovegrove has filed a claim with the Disputes Tribunal. He alleged Bloomex advertised products it did not have, supplied inferior substitutes and failed to meet its obligations under the Consumer Guarantees Act.

Bloomex confirmed the matter had been subject to a Disputes Tribunal process but declined to discuss its legal strategy, communications or any settlement discussions.

This is not the first time Chris Lynch Media has reported complaints about the company.

In July 2025, customers accused Bloomex of poor service, substandard flowers and marketing that gave them the impression they were dealing with a local florist.

Bloomex rejected those allegations and said its location pages advertised delivery areas rather than physical shops.

In March 2024, Australia’s Federal Court ordered Bloomex to pay $1 million in penalties after the company admitted breaching Australian consumer law.

The case concerned misleading star ratings, discounts based on prices the company had not generally charged and inadequately disclosed surcharges.

“Bloomex misled consumers about the quality and price of its products for a long time,” Australian Competition and Consumer Commission member Liza Carver said at the time.

Lokhonia said the proceeding concerned the Australian operation and historical representations on its Australian website.

He said Bloomex Australia and Bloomex New Zealand were separately operated businesses and the case did not find that the New Zealand company had breached New Zealand law.

Pope encouraged affected customers to provide the Commission with a detailed written account and as much supporting material as possible. That could include the advertised photograph and description, proof of purchase, a photograph of the product received and correspondence with the business.

Concerns can be reported through the Commerce Commission website.

 

READ FULL RESPONSE FROM:  Andrew Lokhonia, Director of Operations Bloomex New Zealand

Hello Chris,

We have reviewed the specific order numbers you provided against our internal records and, where available, call recordings.

At the outset, some of the matters in your email are customer allegations rather than established facts, and in several instances our records provide additional or materially different context. We ask that any reporting clearly distinguish between what a customer alleges and what has been verified.

1. Order 10637446

Our records show that the resolution history was more extensive than the sequence described in your question.

The recorded calls show that the customer was initially offered a $20 store credit, which was subsequently increased to $30 and then $40. A replacement/resend was also offered.

The matter was ultimately escalated and a 30% monetary refund was approved.

The order value was $153.99. Thirty percent of that amount is $46.20 when rounded to the nearest cent, which is exactly the amount successfully refunded. Our internal record specifically records authorization of a 30% refund before the $46.20 transaction was processed.

The $46.20 was therefore not an unexplained or arbitrary amount; it was the approved 30% refund.

More broadly, Bloomex resolution options can include a replacement/resend, monetary refund or store credit, depending on the circumstances of the complaint and the customer’s legal entitlement.

2. Order 10640585

This matter has been the subject of a Disputes Tribunal process.

We do not consider it appropriate to discuss publicly our litigation strategy, private communications between the parties or any settlement discussions relating to a Tribunal matter.

We therefore will not comment further on that aspect of the case.

3. April 22 funeral order

We cannot identify the order from the information provided in your email.

Please provide the specific order number before publication so we can investigate the allegation properly.

The order number will allow us to establish:

• what delivery instructions the purchaser provided;
• the precise delivery address;
• whether fulfilment was through a Bloomex local driver, a local partner florist or NZ Post’s perishable-delivery service;
• the proof of delivery;
• whether a substitution occurred;
• what telephone numbers were supplied for the purchaser and recipient; and
• what contact attempts were made regarding any substitution.

Bloomex deliveries have proof-of-delivery information associated with them. Accordingly, the allegation that flowers were left in a carport “behind a stack of bricks” is something we can objectively investigate, but we need the order number to do so.

Regarding substitutions, our procedure is to attempt to contact the purchaser and/or recipient by telephone when a substitution is required

This typically involves multiple contact attempts, to both the purchaser and recipient before proceeding.

Where neither the purchaser nor recipient can be reached after repeated attempts, Bloomex may proceed with an appropriate substitution rather than automatically allowing a time-sensitive flower order to miss its delivery date.

4. Order 10613676

It is not accurate to describe Order 10613676 simply as “undelivered.”

NZ Post’s records supplied to Bloomex show that the parcel was recorded as delivered at 10:09am on 28 November 2025 and were signed for by a recipient. The customer subsequently advised Bloomex that neither he nor the intended recipient could locate the delivery.

The issue therefore became a disputed-delivery investigation, rather than an order for which there was no delivery record.

Bloomex subsequently reviewed the courier records and offered several resolutions, including a complimentary resend and full store credit. Following further management review, Bloomex also offered either a refund of the amount paid for the flowers or a resend with additional delivery safeguards, including an instruction for identification to be requested at delivery. The customer never responded to this email.

We have also reviewed our payment records and can find no chargeback filed against this particular order.

If you have information indicating otherwise, please send it to us so that we can reconcile it against our records.

Your email separately refers to a customer whose bank reversed a transaction after Bloomex declined a refund. You have not identified that order. Please provide the relevant order number so we can verify that allegation as well.

5. Local fulfilment and the relationship between Bloomex, NZ Blooms and Mel’s Flowers

The premise in your question that orders “are not fulfilled locally” is not correct.

Fulfillment varies according to the destination, product and availability. An order may be:

• produced through Bloomex’s Auckland or Christchurch production operations;
• fulfilled by a local partner florist for time sensitive orders for same day delivery. 

Bloomex advertises its ability to deliver flowers to locations, generally using terminology such as “flower delivery to”, “send flowers to” and “flower delivery in”.

Advertising delivery to a town or city is not the same thing as representing that Bloomex operates a physical retail storefront in that town.

We do not claim to operate physical storefronts in every location to which we deliver.

The relationship between the brands is also publicly disclosed. NZ Blooms, for example, expressly states on its website that it is operated by Bloomex Limited in New Zealand, that products and services are supplied by Bloomex Limited, and that an order placed through the website creates a contract with Bloomex Limited.

If you would like us to investigate the specific Whangārei or Dunedin transactions you refer to, please provide the order numbers. We can then confirm precisely where and how those individual orders were fulfilled.

6. Why operate multiple consumer-facing brands?

Different brands allow us to operate different product positioning, merchandising, marketing strategies and customer-acquisition channels while sharing operational infrastructure.

This is a common multi-brand retail model used by many businesses around the world.

Separate email addresses also allow customer inquiries to be routed and tracked according to the brand and website through which the customer placed the order.

The brands are not intended to conceal the underlying operator. As noted above, NZ Blooms expressly identifies Bloomex Limited as the New Zealand operator and supplier.

7. Allegations of customers being disconnected or blocked

No. It is not Bloomex practice or policy to disconnect, block or prevent a customer from contacting us because they have made a complaint.

Bloomex provides customer support 24/7 by telephone, email and live chat.

If a customer alleges that she was deliberately disconnected seven times or that Bloomex blocked her email address after a complaint, please provide:

• the order number;
• telephone number used;
• dates and approximate times of the calls;
• email address involved

We can then retrieve the applicable call recordings, telephone records and email logs.

8. Refund authority after an order has been delivered

No. It is not Bloomex policy that when an order becoming “delivered”, it automatically eliminates the possibility of a monetary refund, as seen in orders 10637446 & 10613676

Bloomex’s resolution framework allows for replacement/resend, monetary refund or store credit, depending on the circumstances of the complaint and the customer’s legal entitlement.

9. Australian Federal Court proceeding

The Australian Federal Court proceeding concerned the Australian operation and historical representations on the Australian website regarding online star ratings, discount/strikethrough pricing and disclosure of surcharges.

Bloomex Australia and Bloomex New Zealand are separately operated businesses with separate management teams.

Bloomex New Zealand is governed by New Zealand law and operates its own New Zealand policies, procedures and management structure.

The Australian proceeding was not a finding that Bloomex New Zealand had breached New Zealand law.

10. The 98.7% figure

The 98.7% figure is an internal operational metric and is not derived from Trustpilot.

It is calculated by comparing the number of customers serviced with the number of customer-service tickets opened during that period.

In simplified terms, if approximately 1.3% of customers serviced generated a customer-service ticket during the measurement period, the corresponding figure displayed would be approximately 98.7%. 

Broader allegation of a “consistent pattern”

Finally, your email states that the complaints you have received follow a “consistent pattern.”

Bloomex takes legitimate customer complaints seriously. However, a collection of complaints submitted to a journalist does not, by itself, establish how frequently those events occur across the wider business, especially if a business has serviced over 300,000 New Zealand customers. 

If the article intends to make a broader claim about systemic practices, please provide:

• the number of unique Bloomex orders independently verified;
• the number of complaints based on first-hand customer documentation;
• whether duplicate reports have been excluded; and
• which specific orders you intend to rely upon.

Where you provide identifiable orders, as you have done with several of the matters above, we are prepared to investigate them individually and provide our records.

For the April 22 funeral order, the alleged customer who was blocked/disconnected, the alleged bank reversal, and the Whangārei/Dunedin fulfillment examples, we specifically request the relevant order numbers and identifying transaction details before publication so that Bloomex has a meaningful opportunity to investigate and respond.

Please ensure that any subsequent article distinguishes clearly between customer allegations and independently established facts, particularly where Bloomex’s contemporaneous records materially differ from the account provided to you.

Andrew Lokhonia
Director of Operations
Bloomex New Zealand
+64 800 758 915