Grabone Is Gone

txf on 16/10/2025 - 09:51

Just tried to get on to the website, then I saw this.

GrabOne Business Update
On 16 October 2025 Daniel Stoneman and Neale Jackson of Calibre Partners were appointed liquidators of Global Marketplace New Zealand Limited (In Liquidation), the company that operates the GrabOne business in New Zealand (‘the Company”).

Due to funding constraints, the business has ceased trading and the liquidators are immediately commencing a sales process for the Company's business and assets. As a result, the Company will not be promoting any existing or future Deals whilst in liquidation.

For consumers who hold unredeemed vouchers, the Company is unable to provide refunds. Consumers will need to take steps themselves - including contacting individual merchants - to assess how unredeemed vouchers will be treated.

For the avoidance of doubt, the liquidators do not adopt any agreement you had with the Company personally or otherwise, and the agreement remains between you and the Company.

For further information, please contact [email protected]

For and on behalf of Global Marketplace New Zealand Limited (In Liquidation)

General Discussion

Related Stores

GrabOne
GrabOne
Marketplace

Comments

Search through all the comments in this post.
  • xsolider on 16/10/2025 - 10:07

    "For consumers who hold unredeemed vouchers, the Company is unable to provide refunds. Consumers will need to take steps themselves - including contacting individual merchants - to assess how unredeemed vouchers will be treated."

    I've got an unredeemed wheel alignment voucher…

    • xsolider on 16/10/2025 - 10:22
      +7

      Just called the vendor and they kindly honoured it.

      • Foodie on 16/10/2025 - 13:06
        +1

        Makes sense to still honour who knows if you need a new tyre, balance done, consider them for puncture repair.
        Good on them.

      • Alan6984 on 16/10/2025 - 13:15

        Just called the vendor and they kindly honoured it.

        If this is just wheel alignment, it's not like there is a significant materials cost or anything, and if they do it at a time when they (or their mechanics) were not otherwise busy, there is really next to no marginal cost.

        As @Foodie says, that's why, many places will offer that kind of service for next to nothing - it can have little, if any, opportunity cost, and can bring in other good margin business.

  • Latex Fist on 16/10/2025 - 10:08
    +5

    I don't understand as to how it's even legal that consumers have to be the ones to chase the merchants. Like I'm sure it is, but I just don't understand it. There really should be more consumer protections in cases like these.

    • justaddwater on 16/10/2025 - 12:08

      you're a creditor to the company?

      • Latex Fist on 16/10/2025 - 12:21

        Is that a question?

    • Alan6984 on 16/10/2025 - 13:16

      I don't understand as to how it's even legal that consumers have to be the ones to chase the merchants. Like I'm sure it is, but I just don't understand it. There really should be more consumer protections in cases like these.

      Out of interest, who do you think should be up to 'chase the merchants'?

      • Latex Fist on 16/10/2025 - 15:06

        Well if I'm saying it shouldn't be the responsibility of the consumer, who would you think? You've purchased from a company, soooooo.. Maybe them? Maybe? Perhaps?

        My point regarding chasing the merchants is regarding the statement that the consumer has to contact the merchants to enquire as to how unredeemed vouchers will be treated. That should have been the responsibility of grabone to ensure that unredeemed vouchers will still be vaild

        • Alan6984 on 16/10/2025 - 21:16

          I don't understand as to how it's even legal that consumers have to be the ones to chase the merchants. Like I'm sure it is, but I just don't understand it. There really should be more consumer protections in cases like these.

          Well if I'm saying it shouldn't be the responsibility of the consumer, who would you think? You've purchased from a company, soooooo.. Maybe them? Maybe? Perhaps?

          So you are saying that it should be up to GrabOne to chase up GrabOne?

          Or are you saying that GrabOne should be chasing up the advertisers such as the 'Wheel Alignment Provider' that was mentioned above)?

          Given that GrabOne is bust, where are you proposing that the resources to do that come from?

          I'm not saying you're wrong, but whatever it is that you are trying to say is not at all clear.

          My point regarding chasing the merchants is regarding the statement that the consumer has to contact the merchants to enquire as to how unredeemed vouchers will be treated. That should have been the responsibility of grabone to ensure that unredeemed vouchers will still be vaild

          Okay, so you are saying that the customer should have a claim against GrabOne, but if the voucher is not redeemable at the advertiser, then they already do?

          • Huntakillaz on 17/10/2025 - 08:45

            @Alan6984: Maybe it could be just embedded as part of the business contracts between business?

            Like a clause.

            • Alan6984 on 17/10/2025 - 09:29

              @Huntakillaz:

              Maybe it could be just embedded as part of the business contracts between business?

              Like a clause.

              You could certainly do that, but part of the problem here is that there appears to be some doubt regarding whether the customer has a contract with the advertiser or not. From the reporting, it sounds like there isn't, but reporters are not known for getting such details correct!

              If it formed part of the agreement between the advertiser and GrabOne, then I suspect that the rights therein would need to be assigned to the customer, either immediately, or upon some event (such as liquidation) - I have no idea how easy that would be to achieve, or if a clause would be sufficient - maybe it would.

              On the other hand, if GrabOne was acting as an agent of the advertiser, then the contract would always have been between the two principals, being the customer and the advertiser. I am doubting that was the arrangement though, and I have heard (or read) that GrabOne only paid the advertiser 'some weeks' after a voucher was redeemed indicating, to me at least, that it was not an agency arrangement.

              Also, if the advertiser was liable to supply as soon as the voucher was issued, regardless of whether they had received payment, then the advertisers would have to factor that risk into their valuation of the business proposal, and would quite rationally have been willing to pay much less to GrabOne for their involvement. I suspect that GrabOne had little incentive to set things up that way, and on the flip-side GrabOne would have managed their counterparty risk (with the advertiser) by withholding payment until certain conditions had been met (redemption of the voucher and supply of the goods or services).

              Part of the problem here is that customer (the 'public') don't understand the actual contract they are forming, and in the vast majority of cases, they actually don't want to know - most people would just be contemptuous of any attempt to get them to think it through, and there is an argument that they are making a rational decision there, if the total value of the contract was, to them, relatively small. They are making an implicit decision to not bother about it (since there is an opportunity cost to spending time on that, rather than something else that they value, such as watching grown men chase a ball around a field). If it goes wrong, as it has with GrabOne, that might be annoying to the customer, but probably not all that significant to them. Add to that the possibility that they might be purchasing as a gift for someone else, and the risk to the purchaser is then further transferred to the giftee, who made no (overt) economic sacrifice anyway.

              Personally, I am always reluctant to pre-pay for anything, and if I do, I try to make sure that it is with a party that I believe to be solid. I might consider buying a gift voucher from Woolworths (for example, if I got a discount) perhaps, but probably not from Corner Dairy down the road.

              Flights and accommodation are always an interesting one - how far in advance do you book and take the risk with, what many people might regard to be a fairly significant amount of money? I would consider pre-paying AirNZ if I thought it would secure me a significant 'discount' compared to waiting to paying later, and I would consider doing the same with a well known chain hotel, but personally I would be highly unlikely to pre-pay for an AirBnB as I would have far less confidence that the provider would meet their obligations when the time came.

              Each to their own of course, but we all have to take responsibility for our own decisions.

  • bigcheese on 16/10/2025 - 10:21
    +4

    If you have paid by credit / debit card then you may be able to get the money back via a chargeback.
    It is a time limited process so you don't want to muck around if you are unable to use the voucher.

    First step is to try to see if the vendor will honour the voucher as they might do.
    Failing that, here is a guide to the chargeback process.

    • The Hound on 16/10/2025 - 11:45
      +8

      FYI the liquidators absolutely hate the CC chargebacks because it screws up how they recover the money hehe

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/360846309/failed-music-fest…

      • Jizah on 16/10/2025 - 12:07
        +7

        "Some have even been taking up disputes with their banks in an effort to get their money back.

        The liquidators say the result of this practice is that those creditors who obtain chargebacks are paid in full, whilst the funds held in reserve are depleted.

        Blacklock Rose said that if this is allowed to stand it would mean some creditors receive payment in full, whilst others receive less than they would have received if these didn’t take place.

        “In our view that would defy the fundamental principles of treating all creditors equally,” they said."

        Um, don't they put Customers at like 10th in the list of who should receive their money back? Yeah bring on the chargebacks folks.

  • liz181 on 16/10/2025 - 11:14

    This getting ridiculous! I already lost out at smith city

    • The Hound on 16/10/2025 - 11:47
      +3

      Unfortunately there will be more. Just visited a retailer today and whole store looks dire.

      • huffboy on 16/10/2025 - 12:51
        +1

        warehouse?

        • kiwical on 16/10/2025 - 12:58

          Yes especially the warehouse. I'm sure they can struggle on until Christmas this year, but I wouldn't bet on them being around in their current form much after that.

          • fatboyj on 16/10/2025 - 13:40

            @kiwical: What about at Farmers? I have a $200 voucher for a significant birthday and found nothing there I want. Best I get along and just get anything.

            • kiwical on 16/10/2025 - 14:05
              +1

              @fatboyj: Farmers a bit harder to asses. They are privately owned unlike the warehouse, so the financials are not there to see. However it's a pretty large group of shops. Includes whitchoulls, a bunch of jewellery stores like Pascoes. The family who own it had an estimated worth of $519million in 2019. I doubt they are booming though. The darling of retail in NZ is probably Rod Duke. He runs Briscoes which consistently does well. Even in downtimes. Even he says things are looking a bit dicey so other shops will certainly be feeling it. It would indeed be sensible to use your voucher up.

            • Alan6984 on 16/10/2025 - 14:41

              @fatboyj:

              What about at Farmers? I have a $200 voucher for a significant birthday and found nothing there I want. Best I get along and just get anything.

              I don't know anything specific about Farmers, and there's never any guarantees of course, but one thing that might be considered is the level of advertising a given business is running, and whether it is brand (recognition) advertising or, say, discounts beyond what would be normal for a given business.

              Marketing is often one of the first line items to be cut when times are tough, so you would expect pure brand recognition spending to plummet if a business was in trouble, but you might simultaneously see an uptick in advertising of discount sales (in order to reduce inventory / improve liquidity).

              These are just indicative of course, but they are well trodden paths that everyone knows.

        • The Hound on 16/10/2025 - 14:54
          +1

          not Warehouse, not Farmers

      • kiwical on 16/10/2025 - 12:56
        +3

        Yep, not the time to be paying deposits, using in-store HP or laybuy, or buying vouchers anywhere really. Unless you can walk in pay for and walk out with the product maybe have second thoughts.

        • Alan6984 on 16/10/2025 - 13:17

          … not the time to be paying deposits, using in-store HP or laybuy, or buying vouchers anywhere really. Unless you can walk in pay for and walk out with the product maybe have second thoughts.

          I completely agree!

  • gunman on 16/10/2025 - 12:21
    +2

    Checking my email and I see they sent three marketing emails just yesterday. Hopefully not many purchased the deals

    • kiwical on 16/10/2025 - 13:06
      +8

      That annoys me the most. They would have known they are in trouble. They could have scaled back the voucher offers and concentrated on just their physical goods that they actually had stock to clear. They could even have had a fire sale of that stuff and wound down. Pretending you're going along fine yesterday, then it's oh sorry today I'm bust.

  • LupinS on 16/10/2025 - 15:00
    +2

    Just another reminder to not buy vouchers. Especially as gifts. They become worthless the moment the company decides they are. Or goes under.

    Nice bits of polymer with The Queen's picture on them are always worth something on the other hand (well…..much, much, muchmore likely at least)

    • Everettpsycho on 16/10/2025 - 17:26

      I think I've only ever purchased off grab one while walking in to the venue or sat at the table ordering. Never leave the vouchers hanging about in your account, mainly because you might forget you had it.

  • Stoic on 16/10/2025 - 15:35

    Anyone made a dispute with their bank/credit card provider when they've paid via something like afterpay or zip?

  • scott on 16/10/2025 - 21:15
    +3

    News has hit stuff.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/360856441/grabone-operator-…

    Grabones arrangement with businesses seems to be that grabone pays weeks after vouchers have been redeemed, so some business are in the whole for weeks worth of voucher claims. (and obviously any future vouchers they accept are going to go into the pile with the other unsecured creditors).

    In general, it seems business with low marginal costs (i.e. swimming pool & snow planet) are happy to honor vouchers (and wear the likely zero revenue) to keep people happy and protect their brand image. But business with high marginal costs (Stuff talked to a butcher), area already massively in a financial hole from this and can't afford to go deeper.

    I respect both positions.

    Strongly advise anybody with a voucher that won't be honored to work through the disputes process (if they paid via credit card / zip / afterpay), ASAP.

    I think we really need a shake up of NZ liquidation laws, to this sequence:

    • Retail Customers (who have paid for goods / services they have not received)
    • Staff pay (Up to the day of liquidation + holiday pay owing +say 2 weeks max of their redundancy period, with balance of redundancy going into the unsecured creditor pile). Directors, Shareholders fees / pay treated as unsecured creditors
    • Business customers (first $25k only, who have paid for goods / services and not received)
    • IRD
    • Suppliers: First $25k of money owing.
    • Secured Creditors
    • Unsecured Creditors.

    Current situation is nuts, in that those who have the least ability to check the credit worthiness of a company. My proposal moves banks, large suppliers & large customers towards the bottom of the pile, those being the entities best positioned to evaluate the credit risk of the business

    • Alan6984 on 16/10/2025 - 21:25

      Current situation is nuts, in that those who have the least ability to check the credit worthiness of a company. My proposal moves banks, large suppliers & large customers towards the bottom of the pile, those being the entities best positioned to evaluate the credit risk of the business

      Interesting proposal.

      Far less lending though.

      Leading to far fewer and smaller businesses.

      Leading to far fewer jobs, lower tax revenue, and less public services / social welfare.

      Leading to more poverty.

      But at least people who pre-pay for goods and services are better protected, so hurrah!

      • scott on 16/10/2025 - 22:04
        +1

        I missed putting liquidator / administrator fees at the top of the list, which is essential if we want somebody to take on that role.

        Yes, there will be less lending to risky businesses, I don't really feel this is a bad thing.

        Seems to be many business that have traded for far to long in shaky financial circumstances increasing damage to society. Unitality we want failing businesses to fail fast and free up their resources (staff, premises etc) for business that are operating profitability.

        I clearly value consumer protection very highly (I think we should avoid consumers being ripped off where ever we can), but understand others will have different views (Not getting a refund from a failed music festival promoter is unlikely to cause financial hardship)

        Your depiction of general economic decay ignores that there are negatives to the status quo:
        - With a sequence of such failures, consumers will be reluctant to carry unsecured creditor risk by pre-paying, which will be difficult for industries that rely on decent chunks of pre-payment (i.e. built to order stuff).
        - Prior to a court case in 2014, staff would miss out in liquidation, which has a high risk of causing hardship. Even though this priority already exists, I would like to see it formalized in law. An argument could be made that staff should go above retail customers.
        - I feel the taxpayer should get a high ranking.
        - A business going into liquidation can cause cascading failures of their suppliers. Saw this a bit in the prior construction industry downturn, which did lead to some law changes. I put a cap on this as I feel those suppling high volumes should run their own credit assessments. Some suppliers run really lean operations, so their failure can lead to employees missing out (even if they are at the top of the list).
        - Credit card chargeback process's mean some unsecured creditors can jump to the top of the list under the current process (depending on how they paid). Encourages consumers to use credit cards for prepayments, which means the 1 - 2% merchant fee acts as a dead weight loss to society.

        • Alan6984 on 17/10/2025 - 00:08

          Yes, there will be less lending to risky businesses, I don't really feel this is a bad thing.

          Perhaps missing the point slightly?

          Every business on the planet is 'risky' to some degree. If your system was introduced, no business magically becomes more risky. The aggregate risk is the same, but the risk burden would be shifted (reallocated) between creditor categories.

          The risk to the (secured) lender increases due to their being pushed down the line (and reduces to the customer who has pre-paid, with some other movements to other categories).

          That means that there would be less lending overall, and it would be at higher risk premiums (interest rates), which would, all other things being even, reduce economic growth (the RBNZ raises rates to reduce economic activity, and lowers them as they did last week to increase economic activity).

          Unfortunately, there are no free lunches, even if we might wish it were so. What there are, all too often, is unintended consequences when polices are introduced or changed without real consideration.

    • kiwijunglist on 17/10/2025 - 07:10
      +1

      Making the retail customers whole again requires employees who can access the computer systems and logistics of moving stock and shipping. Etc. So this would require employees working after the company is bust and those employees wouldn't get paid. It works also require the company to keep trading and to pay for shipping and electricity etc.

      To refund customers their vouchers etc it requires computer systems and employees and logistics and accounts people. These individual amounts would be very small. The logistical cost to refund each amount would be very high in comparison to the money owed, which is very different compared to a large value secured debt.

      I know someone who was getting a kitchen built and the company went bust. Her property (appliances that she had purchased from elsewhere) were on the premises. Fortunately she was able to get into the warehouse/workshop and grab her appliances.

      • Alan6984 on 17/10/2025 - 08:22

        Making the retail customers whole again requires employees who can access the computer systems and logistics of moving stock and shipping. Etc. So this would require employees working after the company is bust and those employees wouldn't get paid. It works also require the company to keep trading and to pay for shipping and electricity etc.

        To refund customers their vouchers etc it requires computer systems and employees and logistics and accounts people. These individual amounts would be very small. The logistical cost to refund each amount would be very high in comparison to the money owed, which is very different compared to a large value secured debt.

        Yep - All very good points.

        The resources don't magically appear from nowhere - someone (else) would have to pay for them.

  • Meeko V on 16/10/2025 - 21:58

    I've heard so many shops have been closed while I had a long holiday during April to September this year. This is crazy. Before I came back, I heard Kathmandu is closing too. Just wonder which will be the next.

    • Savy101 on 17/10/2025 - 16:49

      How can you afford a 6 month holiday? What's the secret? What and where and how :)

      • Jizah on 17/10/2025 - 17:31
        +2

        Prison.

        • Savy101 on 18/10/2025 - 14:07

          No wonder the smile is gone. no more soap drop benefits

        • Meeko V on 18/10/2025 - 15:52

          Haha, thankfully my six months came with sunsets, not cellmates.

  • mpc on 17/10/2025 - 08:11
    +1

    Don't believe everything you hear. They're closing 21 stores worldwide (none in NZ) https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/kathmandu-owner-to-close-21-st…

    • dealsgalore on 17/10/2025 - 08:14
      +1

      The henderson store has been replaced with animates recently

      • bigcheese on 20/10/2025 - 10:26
        +2

        Literally gone to the dogs!

  • L3tstaxth1s on 20/10/2025 - 10:20

    So BF sales this year are gonna be lean?

    • Huntakillaz on 20/10/2025 - 21:01

      Last year wasn't great either it's been getting worse each year.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join