Customers who paid $76,000 for portable espresso makers in 2017 are still waiting

Customers who collectively paid more than $76,000 three years ago for “the world’s first portable espresso machine” are still waiting to brew their first cup of coffee.

Josh Mittendorff said in December 2017 he and his partner, Brianna Eillin, had made a prototype of the Porta Presso and expected to start shipping the machine to customers in the first half of 2018.

The Porta Presso was pitched as a portable Co2 canister and lithium battery operated espresso machine that grinds beans, boils water, extracts coffee and heats and froths milk all seamlessly in a compact device.

The couple raised $76,656 from 304 customers on crowdfunding platform Indiegogo.

But people who paid for a Porta Presse say they have been ignored by the company, with the last update on the project posted to the Porta Presso Facebook page in September last year.

READ MORE:
* Portable coffee maker business accused of deleting negative Facebook comments
* Couple who fundraised $80,000 to make portable coffee machine yet to make one
* Broken Pledge: Kiwi band gutted after PledgeMusic collapse
* Consumers left in the dark about dodgy business dealings, commercial law professor says

Australian Shane Martyn said he had contributed to projects on crowdsourcing pages in the past but his experience with Porta Presso had made him wary.

Porta Presso has been in the works since 2017. People who gave the company money via crowdfunding website Indiegogo want to know why it is taking so long to deliver the machine.
Renee Clayton/Stuff
Porta Presso has been in the works since 2017. People who gave the company money via crowdfunding website Indiegogo want to know why it is taking so long to deliver the machine.

“When I first saw it, I thought this is great, it looks really good. It seemed like it was really going on. But then it dragged on and on. You wouldn’t hear anything for months and months.”

Martyn said he had been asking for an update on the company’s social media for months.

He received a Facebook message on Thursday, after the company was contacted by Stuff, offering him a refund.

The message was vague, didn’t address him by name, or say who the sender was and asked for a New Zealand bank account, which Martyn said he didn’t have.

Martyn said he was sceptical he would ever receive the coffee maker or his money back.

“I think they need to realise that, OK, it's not going to happen and refund everyone their money. They have our card details, they could just pay it back.”

A number of people commenting on the company’s social media page said emails requesting refunds were bouncing back and messages were being ignored.

Others said they had received refunds after sending multiple messages.

Mittendorff said he “had one of the best design companies in the world working full time on this project”.

Porto Presso was working with engineering company Lkker Scm​ in China , he said.

Mittendorff said he had underestimated the complexity of the project which was initially quoted $70,000 by a New Zealand engineering company.

“We had never done anything like this before, nor do we have an engineering background, so had no reason to question whether or not this was attainable. Upon completion, the total cost of this project will have cost us well over a million,” he said.

The additional costs were being funded from their own pockets.

Porto Presso had a functioning prototype and was working on mechanical optimisation before finalising the moulds with its factory in China, he said.

In 2017, Josh Mittendorff and his partner Brianna Eillin raised $76,656 from buyers around the world for their portable espresso machine.
Renee Clayton/Stuff
In 2017, Josh Mittendorff and his partner Brianna Eillin raised $76,656 from buyers around the world for their portable espresso machine.

Mittendorff said the company was willing and able to refund anyone who requested it.

He encouraged the coffee machine’s “backers” to accept a refund and to buy the coffee machine at a later date.

“While it is taking a lot longer than anticipated, we are still 100 per cent committed to this project.”

The company’s .com website, listed at the bottom of its latest update, no longer works, however, the .co.nz website does.

University of Auckland associate professor of commercial law Alex Sims said crowdfunding contributors had few legal options.

Associate professor at the University of Auckland Alex Sims says the issue was “a storm in a tea cup”.
Supplied
Associate professor at the University of Auckland Alex Sims says the issue was “a storm in a tea cup”.

”People who give to this sort of project think that they are investors, but they’re not at all. They are giving money on the promise of receiving something later,” she said.

Contributing to a product like this was not the same as buying shares in a start-up, she said.

Sims said there were important differences between rewards-based crowdfunding, like Indiegogo, and equity-based crowdfunding like Snowball Effect and Pledge Me.

“A big difference, apart from the fact that through Snowball and Pledge Me that you become a part-owner of the business, is that the authority regulates platforms such as Snowball and Pledge Me, but it does not for things like Indiegogo and Kickstarter.”

Disgruntled contributors should complain to the Commerce Commission, she said.

“If enough people complain, they might do something,” she said.

A commission spokeswoman said it had received three complaints regarding Porta Presso in December 2019.

“We have not investigated this company so cannot comment on it specifically, but in a general sense where a business using a crowdfunding platform is promising to deliver goods or services to consumers they may be covered by the Fair Trading Act,” she said.

Under the act traders are not allowed to accept payment if, at that time, they do not intend to supply the goods or services or if they do not have reasonable grounds to believe that they will be able to deliver the goods or services within a specified or reasonable time frame, she said.

“If the conduct were blatant it might also amount to fraud and could be in breach of the Crimes Act,” she said.