In December 2022, the buyer purchased an e-scooter for $1999 but after six months, the scooter 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 that the scooter was affected by significant water damage, and noted that 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, off-road use.”
He said the buyer acknowledged that 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 manual, supplied with the scooter, 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 tribunal concluded that the machine was not reasonably resilient, and of acceptable quality according to the Consumer Guarantees Act, after only six months of use.
It said a case for a refund was made out, including that the seller did not suggest that the scooter was capable of being repaired.
In an unrelated blog dedicated to the use of electric scooters in the rain, the Electric Scooter Shop in Auckland, which is not connected to the case, said most manufacturers offered some level of Ingress Protection (IP) rating on their scooters, which was an international standard across a range of goods.
A level 4 rating meant an item (such as a scooter or a cellphone) was protected against water being splashed from all directions.
A Level 5 rating meant an item was protected against “jets of water”.
The store had found through experience that not all IP ratings were created equal: Some scooters with the same rating had “markedly different levels of protection”.
“The truth is, the majority of major issues and failures we see during wetter periods are caused by water ingress,” the store said.
The tribunal did not refer to the scooter’s IP rating.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
