Active Franks Markles Towing | home
INDIANA TOWER GETS SUED
INDIANA TOWER GETS SUED FOR " OVERCHARGING and THEFT "
By Steve Charles
IT'S NO SECRET, IT'S PROBABLY HAPPENED TO ALL OF US ( at one time )
Your laying in bed, peacefully asleep, when all of a sudden your pager
blasts out, and just about knocks your "you know what" out of bed. You
have but a few seconds to clear the pager, reach for the phone, and
respond to a police call at almost midnight to go work an accident.
After which you soon learn you've been called to tow in a totally
demolished vehicle worth about $40.00 "at best". Then you learn the
vehicle owner has liability insurance only, and the accident was their
fault.
All said and done, the owner arrives bright and early the very next day
( Sunday morning ) , with their only intentions of the retrieval of
their personal belongings but with no concern with the tow bill. Right?
Well, the following is how an Indiana one tower handled a situation of
being sued in a court of law for allegedly "overcharging" on a tow
bill, and the "theft" of personal items from a vehicle in question.
This incident was compiled in the shortest manner possible, in the order
to which it transpired, and in an effort to share this experience with
fellow towers. Only two words thus far have been found to best describe
the winning of this loss suit,....."documentation and common sense"!
July 24 1999, close to midnight on a Saturday, a 1979 Olds. Cutlass was
totally demolished in an accident. Leaving a value of the vehicle in
question to around $40.00 at best in junk value. The tow bill at that
time was $131.00, which consisted of the "tow" itself back to town,
wincing, dollies, after hours callout, and the containment of chemical
spill ( antifreeze) from the roadway.
Naturally, the vehicle owner shows up, bright and early the very next
morning ( Sunday ) to retrieve personal items out of the car, but were
informed that when they were ready to take care of the charges against
the vehicle, they could have their personal items.
Obviously, this didn't set well with the vehicle owner, as they showed
no desire to pay the bill, much LESS inquiry about the costs involved.
And from there on, it was chaos.
Five days had passed since the vehicle was towed in, that nothing had
materialized on behalf of the vehicle owner. On the 5th day, a letter
was then sent to the vehicle owner, requesting arrangements be made
a.s.a.p. to pay the tow bill and the disposal of the vehicle. No reply
was received. A "second" letter, was sent to the original owner by
certified mail 21 days later, with "still" no reply.
It was not until 37 days later, and with the bill now being $575.00 due
to daily storage charges adding up, that the vehicle owner had finally
showed up to settle the matter. Of course this was only AFTER they had
received a letter from the B.M.V. Instructing them to resolve this matter
concerning an abandoned motor vehicle.
IN SHORT, the vehicle was disposed of ( towed away ) that day, August 30
1999, by an "outside party", which had paid $90.00 on the bill ( in
order to get the car), and weekly payments were to be made on the
balance BY the vehicle owner until paid in full. It was also understood
and agreed that the personal items would be held until the balance was
paid in full.
Low and behold, 10 days AFTER the first payment was due, ( September 3
1999 ) , and had NOT been paid as agreed, that's when we were presented
with court papers by the Sheriffs Department of charges being filed
against us for "overcharging" on a tow bill, and "theft" of personal
items.
The remainder of this incident quickly took off like a rocket, it soon
developed and consisted of the compiling of our documentation, which led
to our "counterclaim" being won!
Our "documentation", which was presented, and ADMITTED in court
consisted of the following:
1. The failure / refusal of the vehicle owner to communicate and
cooperate as requested.
Thanks to our two letters. ( one regular and one certified )
2. The "secret attempts" by the vehicle owner to sell the vehicle to an
outside party, while ignoring the charges against it.
Thanks to a good customer of keeping us posted!
3. A "comparison" of towing and misc. rates locally AND nationally were
submitted AND ALLOWED as "evidence", that our charges in question were
either very reasonable if not "too cheap".
A BIG "thank you" goes out to my fellow "e-mail tower friends"! ( you
know who you are )
4. An "outside party" had paid $90.00 on the bill, and NOT the claimant
as they had insinuated.
Thanks to the "outside parties signature" on the towing invoice!
5. Personal items were still being held, and NOT "stolen" as claimed.
We still had the ( junk ) items, and inventory was kept.
6. Vehicle owner did NOT "contest" the charges in question, even on the
date of her signature to pay as agreed.
Thanks to our "voice activated" tape recorder during our conversation
in my office!
7. The "alleged theft" of a $ 20.00 pocket knife that was reported
stolen by "us" COULD have easily been stolen during the 30 minute time
span from the "time" of the accident, to our "arrival" at the scene.
Thanks to a copy of the accident report!
The "alleged theft" of this $20.00 pocket knife, could have ALSO
occurred when the vehicle owners SON had entered the vehicle, "contrary"
to our property being posted "no loitering", and DONE so without our
prior consent, or knowledge.
Thanks to our surveillance camera!
8. An "attempt" by the claimant to collect $200.00 for a car stereo,
which we were accused of stealing, but were merely "holding" for the
unpaid bill.
But thanks to the "sale / installation sticker" which was still attached
to the stereo and dated 1988 ( 11 years ago), that we were able to prove
that even though we still had the stereo, its value was only "appraised"
by a local electronics store at $20.00 at best!
IN OUR CLOSING statement, and for the benefit of the court as well as
the claimant, a one page "detailed description" of some of the local,
state, and federal requirements AND the costs involved in running a
towing service legally, and professionally was "respectfully" given to
the court and the claimant ( to keep ) to give both parties a better
understanding that "some towers" are NOT a bunch of dirty filthy grease
monkeys and crooks as "some" may think. It is without a doubt in my
mind, that by establishing this one piece of documentation "alone", was
a tremendous help in a court of law, because it established a clearer
understanding of "how and why" storage rates ( for one ) is an important
part of any tow bill.
Documentation, clarification, determination, courtesy, and common sense
won this case!
While WE learned a valuable lesson!
Judgment was ruled in our favor.
Compiled and submitted by:
Steve Charles
Charles 24 hr. Towing
Washington, In. 47501
~charles"http://www.dmrtc.net/~charles
