Slickdeals is community-supported.  We may get paid by brands for deals, including promoted items.
Forum Thread

My friend lives in NJ. His car was stolen, stripped, and abandoned. The city is making him pay for the towing and impound fees.

26,675 2,340 September 3, 2010 at 06:15 AM in Rant
Does that seem right to anyone else? It's basically costing him over $350 to have his car stolen and, since he didn't have theft insurance, it's a total loss. The only possible redemption is going to be today if a mechanic offers him any money for the scrap.

WTF?

I'm not even going into how rude the city employees were to him or how they turned him away yesterday afternoon because they didn't think he could get a tow truck (at his own expense) to the impound lot before they closed at 4:45. OR how they wouldn't help his wife when she was there at noon, because they were all at lunch.

Please reserve any comments about him being dumb for not carrying a theft clause or whatever you call it on his insurance policy. It was an older Honda Civic and he didn't think it was worth insuring for very much. I'm not sure how all of that works but his deductible might even have been more than what he would've gotten for the car, if that applies.

I think it's infuriating that the city is forcing him to pay towing and impound fees when his car was stolen! Does he have any recourse here? Maybe he can deduct the cost of the fees from his taxes or something? Who should he contact?

My friend is a really nice guy--I would've raged out on those impound lot employees for sure. My buddy said he knows when he's defeated and he's licking his wounds and counting his losses, and that his anger is reserved for the car thieves. I understand that, but really, it looks to me like the city's just adding insult to injury here.

Anyone have any experience with this?

153 Comments

Your comment cannot be blank.

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Jul 2005
Scarydevil Monastery
> bubble2 26,675 Posts
2,340 Reputation
Original Poster
veritablequandary
09-03-2010 at 01:30 PM.
09-03-2010 at 01:30 PM.
Quote from Iaaaiws :
I think they could make an exception for the impound fees and such, but if a private towing company was used they need to be paid by somebody, and other taxpayers just don't seem to be the correct choice. The amount he saved and pocketed by not purchasing the insurance has to be considered in this case as well. When you subtract that amount from what he has to pay now the ultimate outcome probably doesn't seem so bad.
Actually I've been IM'ing him and asked him about that. A theft clause/rider/whatever it's called on his insurance policy would've doubled his monthly payment. In 5 years it would've been more than the assessed value of the car. On a .05% chance (his statistics, not mine) of his car being stolen, it didn't make financial sense to him.

And I probably wouldn't be so mad (on his behalf, no less) if it was just the towing. The impound fees on top of all of that though?

Let's suppose this was somebody who couldn't afford the fees. Let's say it was somebody who, I don't know, needed the car to get to both of his jobs. Now he's got to pay extra for public transportation, lose time from one or both jobs to deal with the city, AND he has to pay some ridiculous fees for the privilege of having his car stolen and being told "we rarely catch these guys?" PLUS find a way to pay for another vehicle or have this one fixed back up--probably buying his own stolen parts back at some point along the way?

How the fark is that, in any sense of the word, right?
Reply
Joined Jan 2004
Here's to the future
> bubble2 25,141 Posts
707 Reputation
Iaaaiws
09-03-2010 at 01:39 PM.
09-03-2010 at 01:39 PM.
Quote from veritableqndry :
Actually I've been IM'ing him and asked him about that. A theft clause/rider/whatever it's called on his insurance policy would've doubled his monthly payment. In 5 years it would've been more than the assessed value of the car. On a .05% chance (his statistics, not mine) of his car being stolen, it didn't make financial sense to him.

And I probably wouldn't be so mad (on his behalf, no less) if it was just the towing. The impound fees on top of all of that though?

Let's suppose this was somebody who couldn't afford the fees. Let's say it was somebody who, I don't know, needed the car to get to both of his jobs. Now he's got to pay extra for public transportation, lose time from one or both jobs to deal with the city, AND he has to pay some ridiculous fees for the privilege of having his car stolen and being told "we rarely catch these guys?" PLUS find a way to pay for another vehicle or have this one fixed back up--probably buying his own stolen parts back at some point along the way?

How the fark is that, in any sense of the word, right?

Right? Who's to say? Life ain't fair Dontknow


But if it was somebody like you describe, where losing the car would be such a financial disaster, the insurance would then make more financial sense correct?
Reply
Joined Jul 2005
Scarydevil Monastery
> bubble2 26,675 Posts
2,340 Reputation
Original Poster
veritablequandary
09-03-2010 at 01:47 PM.
09-03-2010 at 01:47 PM.
Quote from Iaaaiws :
Right? Who's to say? Life ain't fair Dontknow


But if it was somebody like you describe, where losing the car would be such a financial disaster, the insurance would then make more financial sense correct?
Not if you couldn't afford twice what you were paying for basic insurance.
Reply
Joined Dec 2003
Be water my friends
> bubble2 4,485 Posts
854 Reputation
Da_White_Lotus
09-03-2010 at 02:00 PM.
09-03-2010 at 02:00 PM.
Quote from veritableqndry :
They told him they will put points on his driver's license if he doesn't pay the fees and take the car.
This doesn't seem legal. In CA you have the option of simply leaving your vehicle at the tow yard after which the towing company will simply auction off your car. How can you put points on a driver record when no driving infraction has occurred?
Reply
Joined Jan 2004
Here's to the future
> bubble2 25,141 Posts
707 Reputation
Iaaaiws
09-03-2010 at 02:03 PM.
09-03-2010 at 02:03 PM.
Quote from veritableqndry :
Not if you couldn't afford twice what you were paying for basic insurance.
Okay, what if it were this scenario? Say his car didn't get stolen. The next day he is driving to work and the engine blows. The car is stranded on the road and is a hazard to other motorists so the police have it towed. Who should pay for the car getting towed/disposed of?
Reply
Joined Jul 2005
Scarydevil Monastery
> bubble2 26,675 Posts
2,340 Reputation
Original Poster
veritablequandary
09-03-2010 at 02:13 PM.
09-03-2010 at 02:13 PM.
Quote from Iaaaiws :
Okay, what if it were this scenario? Say his car didn't get stolen. The next day he is driving to work and the engine blows. The car is stranded on the road and is a hazard to other motorists so the police have it towed. Who should pay for the car getting towed/disposed of?
You're talking about two completely different things. If the engine blows it's likely because of poor maintenance which would absolutely be the driver's responsibility. Even if it was just an unlucky accident the driver's responsible, and I recognize that. But how is someone whose car was stolen when they took all reasonable precautions to prevent that (locked the car, parked it in what they thought was a safe area, etc) at fault for the theft? How can you honestly sit there and tell me they should pay all the associated costs of the recovery of that vehicle?
Reply
Joined Jan 2004
Here's to the future
> bubble2 25,141 Posts
707 Reputation
Iaaaiws
09-03-2010 at 02:22 PM.
09-03-2010 at 02:22 PM.
Quote from veritableqndry :
You're talking about two completely different things. If the engine blows it's likely because of poor maintenance which would absolutely be the driver's responsibility. Even if it was just an unlucky accident the driver's responsible, and I recognize that. But how is someone whose car was stolen when they took all reasonable precautions to prevent that (locked the car, parked it in what they thought was a safe area, etc) at fault for the theft? How can you honestly sit there and tell me they should pay all the associated costs of the recovery of that vehicle?
Where does personal responsibility end? Dontknow

Maybe the government should have paid for his insurance. Maybe the government should replace his car. What if he couldn't have afforded even the minimum required insurance? Should the government cover that?

Sorry, I think that kind of mentality is how Obama got elected.
Reply

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Jul 2005
Scarydevil Monastery
> bubble2 26,675 Posts
2,340 Reputation
Original Poster
veritablequandary
09-03-2010 at 02:28 PM.
09-03-2010 at 02:28 PM.
Quote from Iaaaiws :
Where does personal responsibility end? Dontknow

Maybe the government should have paid for his insurance. Maybe the government should replace his car. What if he couldn't have afforded even the minimum required insurance? Should the government cover that?

Sorry, I think that kind of mentality is how Obama got elected.
Really? You're serious? You honestly think people should have to pay on top of having their car stolen? You don't see how someone could be mad about that? At having to pay the same city that failed to protect their personal property for the recovery of that now-worthless property? AND suffer the loss of time from work, AND have to go out and, at their own expense, buy a new car?

I don't even know what to say to that. I really don't. I guess I need to just stop arguing.
Reply
Joined Jul 2005
L10: Grand Master
> bubble2 10,159 Posts
z2g
09-03-2010 at 02:35 PM.
09-03-2010 at 02:35 PM.
VQ,
I feel bad for your friend. But, when you get down to business and really think about it, who else should be responsible for impounding and towing charges on the car? If the city found your friend's car, they have to move it into the impound lot and store it. They can't just leave it out on the street.

As some others have mentioned, why should the taxpayers in NJ fork out the dough to pay for those charges for him when, sorry to be blunt, it was his decision not to by full coverage insurance for the car. Also, you are responsible to get your car out of impound the moment you find out where your car is located.
Reply
Joined Jan 2004
Here's to the future
> bubble2 25,141 Posts
707 Reputation
Iaaaiws
09-03-2010 at 02:41 PM.
09-03-2010 at 02:41 PM.
Quote from veritableqndry :
Really? You're serious? You honestly think people should have to pay on top of having their car stolen? You don't see how someone could be mad about that? At having to pay the same city that failed to protect their personal property for the recovery of that now-worthless property? AND suffer the loss of time from work, AND have to go out and, at their own expense, buy a new car?

I don't even know what to say to that. I really don't. I guess I need to just stop arguing.
Mad about it? I'd be pissed. But it is one of the hidden costs of owning a car. Now it is the city's fault the car got stolen? Maybe they should have tripled taxes and hired 100,000 more police officers to patrol every street at all times. Maybe we should just all turn over all of our money and possessions to the government and let the government control all aspects of our lives. They can take all of the wealth and redistribute it equally and fairly among everybody and we will all live happily ever after knowing the government will always be there to take care of us.

What about someone who bought the insurance to cover this type of loss? What if they later found out that the government would have paid for these expenses if they hadn't bought the insurance? Should they be able to get reimbursed from the government for the money they spent on the insurance? They didn't need it in the first place right?
Reply
Joined Sep 2009
L10: Grand Master
> bubble2 7,139 Posts
642 Reputation
zzyzzx
09-03-2010 at 02:44 PM.
09-03-2010 at 02:44 PM.
The fact that Honda's regularly get stolen and stripped should have been a consideration when they decided to buy a Honda and not get theft insurance.

Reply
Joined Jun 2005
L6: Laser Lotus
> bubble2 21,668 Posts
1,409 Reputation
shhaggy
09-03-2010 at 03:57 PM.
09-03-2010 at 03:57 PM.
Quote from .teri. :
This is a tough one..One the one hand I see your point but on the other I don't know why it should be the city's responsibility to have it towed..unless they are the ones that stripped it. It's crappy that this happened to your friend but it's still his car (or whats left of it) so ultimately his responsibility to remove it. Why didn't your friend's wife wait until after the lunch hour, or come back after the lunch hour for help?
Shouldn't they have identified the car as stolen before they tow it? I think the city SHOULD be responsible for this.
Reply
Joined Jul 2005
Scarydevil Monastery
> bubble2 26,675 Posts
2,340 Reputation
Original Poster
veritablequandary
09-03-2010 at 04:34 PM.
09-03-2010 at 04:34 PM.
Quote from z2g :
VQ,
I feel bad for your friend. But, when you get down to business and really think about it, who else should be responsible for impounding and towing charges on the car? If the city found your friend's car, they have to move it into the impound lot and store it. They can't just leave it out on the street.

As some others have mentioned, why should the taxpayers in NJ fork out the dough to pay for those charges for him when, sorry to be blunt, it was his decision not to by full coverage insurance for the car. Also, you are responsible to get your car out of impound the moment you find out where your car is located.
His wife went there on her lunch break the day they told him where it was. They wouldn't help her because they were at lunch. By the time my friend could get out of work and get down there, they wouldn't release the car because they closed at 4:45 and didn't think he could get a tow truck there in time.

As to the rest of it: my friend is a taxpayer in NJ. And what would you--or Iaaaiws--say if it turned out that the insurance company wouldn't cover impound/towing fees anyhow? I'm not sure how it works but I could see them denying that. Same answer: sorry, too bad for you, why should the rest of the taxpayers have to foot the bill? Really?
Quote from Iaaaiws :
What about someone who bought the insurance to cover this type of loss? What if they later found out that the government would have paid for these expenses if they hadn't bought the insurance? Should they be able to get reimbursed from the government for the money they spent on the insurance? They didn't need it in the first place right?
I cut out the political stuff b/c while I usually agree with you, I think you're absolutely wrong here and engaging hyperbole to bolster your argument isn't doing anything except adding emotional fuel to the fire.

EVEN IF the insurance company covered the towing & impound fees, he'd still be out of pocket for them as I doubt the company would Western Union him the cash to pay. What if he couldn't? The fees are just adding up and he's getting farther from being able to pay them and it's still his fault?

Can you really tell me you'd meekly accept the fees and not gripe about it at all if you were in my friend's situation?

BTW the point of this thread was to ask if anyone else had ever been in this situation and whether anybody had any suggestions. I did get one in a PM from a nice person who didn't want to enter the argument, and I thank that person for his/her suggestion. I've passed it along to my friend.
Reply
Joined Jul 2005
L10: Grand Master
> bubble2 10,159 Posts
z2g
09-03-2010 at 04:52 PM.
09-03-2010 at 04:52 PM.
Quote from veritableqndry :
His wife went there on her lunch break the day they told him where it was. They wouldn't help her because they were at lunch. By the time my friend could get out of work and get down there, they wouldn't release the car because they closed at 4:45 and didn't think he could get a tow truck there in time.

As to the rest of it: my friend is a taxpayer in NJ. And what would you--or Iaaaiws--say if it turned out that the insurance company wouldn't cover impound/towing fees anyhow? I'm not sure how it works but I could see them denying that. Same answer: sorry, too bad for you, why should the rest of the taxpayers have to foot the bill? Really?

I cut out the political stuff b/c while I usually agree with you, I think you're absolutely wrong here and engaging hyperbole to bolster your argument isn't doing anything except adding emotional fuel to the fire.

EVEN IF the insurance company covered the towing & impound fees, he'd still be out of pocket for them as I doubt the company would Western Union him the cash to pay. What if he couldn't? The fees are just adding up and he's getting farther from being able to pay them and it's still his fault?

Can you really tell me you'd meekly accept the fees and not gripe about it at all if you were in my friend's situation?

BTW the point of this thread was to ask if anyone else had ever been in this situation and whether anybody had any suggestions. I did get one in a PM from a nice person who didn't want to enter the argument, and I thank that person for his/her suggestion. I've passed it along to my friend.
Don't get me wrong, VQ. I still feel for the guy. I'm just saying that there's really no other recourse or option. You know what I mean? It's kind of the downsides of car ownership.

The analogy would be home ownership where a homeowner didn't bother getting home insurance and there was a big storm that wiped out his house. Of course, it's totally sad for that to happen to the guy. But, in the end, who's responsible?
Reply
Last edited by z2g September 3, 2010 at 04:55 PM.

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

Joined Jul 2005
Scarydevil Monastery
> bubble2 26,675 Posts
2,340 Reputation
Original Poster
veritablequandary
09-03-2010 at 05:23 PM.
09-03-2010 at 05:23 PM.
Quote from z2g :
Don't get me wrong, VQ. I still feel for the guy. I'm just saying that there's really no other recourse or option. You know what I mean? It's kind of the downsides of car ownership.

The analogy would be home ownership where a homeowner didn't bother getting home insurance and there was a big storm that wiped out his house. Of course, it's totally sad for that to happen to the guy. But, in the end, who's responsible?
Nope, sorry, disagree. In the homeowner's case there was no one who should have been responsible for stopping the storm. In this case the very same people who should've prevented the car theft in the first place are the ones demanding money for not doing their job!
Reply
Page 3 of 11
Start the Conversation
 
Link Copied

The link has been copied to the clipboard.