Refund for e-scooter ridden in the rain

When a six-month-old electric scooter stopped working the owner returned it and asked for a refund — only to be told it shouldn’t have been ridden in the rain.

Now, the Disputes Tribunal has ordered the return of the $1999 purchase price to the buyer, saying it “simply beggars belief”, and “defies common sense”, to suggest that a mode of transport suitable for commuting cannot be used when it is raining.

Adjudicator Graham Rossiter said a consumer had a right to a refund if the failure to meet the relative guarantee was of a “substantial character”. In this case, it was.

In December 2022, the buyer purchased an e-scooter for $1999 but after six months it stopped working.

The buyer requested a refund but the seller said no, because of the evident water damage.

According to the seller, he found it was “severely water-damaged, and all parts broken”.

Rossiter accepted the scooter was affected by significant water damage, and noted the seller had said a refund was not warranted because of this.

The seller said the scooter was used contrary to the supplier’s instructions that it should not be ridden in the rain.

Rossiter didn’t accept this. “The scooter was clearly, and expressly, sold on the basis that it was suitable for commuting, and even, offroad use.”

He said the buyer acknowledged he did sometimes ride the scooter when it was raining, but that was unavoidable. He said the scooter was kept under cover when not in use.

The buyer acknowledged a passage in the scooter manual that stated it wasn’t to be ridden in the rain.

However, the tribunal agreed with the buyer that the wording appeared in a section under the heading “safety precautions”, together with other guidance, such as not listening to music, or riding in “dangerous areas”.

The buyer said he did not understand the statement about not riding in the rain to be an absolute stipulation, and that he certainly would not have bought the scooter if he had any idea it could not be used, at all, if it was raining.

Furthermore, the scooter was sold for possible “off-road” use, and should therefore be able to be taken over ground that was soft, and potentially, wet.

“Again, I accept this argument, which I consider has substance,” Rossiter said.

Neither party was identified in the decision which was released late last year.

The scooter was expressly sold on the basis that it was suitable for commuting.

Graham Rossiter