A Vancouver car share company was on the receiving end of a tribunal dispute over car repair costs and a “deposit.”
CL, the customer, brought a case against Modo Co-op, a member-owned Vancouver-based car share company, after he was charged $989.77, including repair costs and interest, for damage to one of Modo’s cars. CL denied responsibility and alleged that Modo kept a $500 deposit after he refused to pay for the repairs.
Modo states that CL is responsible under the agreement between the parties and claims that the $500 wasn’t a deposit. The tribunal decision states that the $500 was for CL’s share purchase. Modo added that it was entitled to place a lien on CL’s shares after he refused to pay for the damage.
- You might also like:
- Evo Car Share launches new program that could land you free cash
- Why does the $5 'AddFare' exist on the Canada Line for trips from Vancouver airport?
- B.C. renter's actions lead to loss of damage deposit in legal fight
The customer booked a vehicle for April 8, 2023. Modo emailed the customer on June 21, 2023, regarding the damage the car had sustained. The damage is described as a scrape and a crack to the car’s front passenger side. CL denied responsibility, but after some back-and-forth, Modo added a $963.54 repair charge to the customer’s invoice plus $24.23 in interest.
The tribunal turned to the membership terms and conditions. Part of those terms is that members are required to perform a pre- and post-trip check of the vehicle to ensure it’s in good condition. If any discrepancies are discovered, the customer must send a description and photo using the Modo app, or by emailing or calling Modo.
The following line from Modo’s terms is crucial:
“If you don’t tell us before you drive, you may be liable for the cost to repair the damage.”
After the vehicle is dropped off, the terms state that the customer must “complete a post-trip walk-around inspection and report any new damage that occurred.”
The customer argued that the terms were “ambiguous,” taking issue with the lack of limits on repair costs. However, the tribunal disagreed, responding that it didn’t feel that the terms were ambiguous. The customer didn’t refute the fact that he didn’t complete a pre-trip check, but stated that the reason he didn’t was because another vehicle was parked too close to the car’s right-hand side.
“This made it impossible for him to inspect the front passenger-side corner without first backing up and starting his booking,” the tribunal decision said.
Modo says the customer didn’t report being unable to complete the inspections required by the agreement. Modo added that it had never had an issue with the parking space.
The tribunal stated the customer could have backed the car out of the parking space to perform the inspection before starting his booking “without the risk of being held responsible for any damage he found and reported.”
“If this were not the case, it could lead to absurd incentives and results, such as members trying to hide car damage in the hope that the next user would be blamed for it,” the decision says.
CL also complained about the fact that Modo took 74 days to contact him about the damage, with Modo responding that it wasn’t unusual, as they deal with a lot of damage reports.
The next member to use the same vehicle did so three hours and fifteen minutes after CL. CL suggested that vandalism could have occurred within this timeframe. The tribunal found this speculative and stated that, although it could be true, CL had never conducted a post-booking inspection. Therefore, he’s liable for any later-reported damage.
The tribunal dismissed all claims against Modo.