just questioning their so called legality argument which is a bit flawed.
Well, you wouldn't expect an authoritative statement on bike tyre tread depth in a passing conversation with a lawyer any more than expect an authoritative statement on the debatable legality of a bicycle's particular features from a bike mechanic. I'm not surprised 'its a bit flawed' when the legality of
entire classes of electrically-powered vehicles is - as far as I understand it - not merely flawed but in a vacuum.
I expect their legality argument was merely the most reasonable and diplomatic excuse the shops could think of, at short notice, to avoid work which they - for whatever reason - didn't want to do.
We don't know the background behind the story; perhaps there has been a local spate of near-misses by irresponsible over-powered e-bikers; perhaps something more serious happened to someone in the local bike mechanic community; the fact that
three different shops in (presumably) a fairly local area refused to deal with the issue pushes me towards thinking that there's more to this than meets the eye. Although this e-biker may well be - probably is! - a perfectly delightful person who always rides in a considerate and responsible manner. there must be
something fairly significant which prompted three different businesses to give the same reason for refusal to take on paying work ...