B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has ruled a man is responsible for damage to a carshare vehicle and won’t be getting any of his money back.
According to a May 27 decision, Chun Fai Lok had a membership with Modo Co-operative.
Modo claimed Lok owed it $987.77, including repair costs and interest, for damage caused to one of its vehicles.
Lok, however, denied responsibility, and said Modo improperly kept his $500 “deposit” after he refused to pay.
As part of his tribunal claim, Lok sought a declaration that he does not owe Modo $987.77 for the repair costs and interest, $500 as reimbursement of his deposit and termination of his Modo membership.
Modo, however, said that under the parties’ agreement, Lok is responsible for the car’s damage. It said the $500 was for Lok’s share purchase, and not a “deposit.”
Modo said it was entitled to place a lien on Lok’s shares after he refused to pay for the damage.
Tribunal member Megan Stewart said Lok booked a Modo car for April 8, 2023.
On June 21, 2023, Modo emailed Lok about damage it said the car sustained during the booking. Modo described the damage as a scrape and crack to the car’s front passenger-side corner.
“Lok denied responsibility,” Stewart said.
After some back and forth, Modo added a $963.54 charge to repair the damage to Lok’s August 2023 invoice.
“That amount plus $24.23 in interest adds up to the $987.77 Modo says Mr. Lok owes it,” Stewart said.
Lok asserted the agreement’s terms of checking the vehicle before and after as well as reporting and responsibility for costs were ambiguous.
“I find the terms are not ambiguous,” Stewart said. “They indicate a member may be responsible for any new damage the next member reports, if that damage was not previously reported. A member will also be responsible for the full costs of damage repairs that occurred during a member’s booking and that they did not report.”
Stewart said there were a number of things Lok could have done to alleviate the situation but did not do.
“I find Mr. Lok was responsible for the car’s damage, and I dismiss his claim,” Stewart ruled.
