Victimized Twice!?

[DawnCt1]

Then I guess nothing will ever be towed and the cities will have to hire employees to tow everything and pay for space to house said vehicles and employees to watch over them day and night, etc. Yep, much better option. And no, they should not have to "eat the costs". This is similar to when you abandon your car on the highway in a snowstorm. The state contacts a company to remove your vehicle as it is a danger and you then have to get it back from that company.

It really isn't similar because if one abandons their vehicle in a snow storm they know the risk exists for it to be towed. That is one of the consequences of driving on a day like today. If one goes shopping however, there is a reasonable expectation that your vehicle will be where you parked it. The police are notified that the car has been stolen if it isn't there. The car is found and the owner can attempt to recover the car. In this day of cell phones, there is no reason an owner can't be notified within hours of its recovery. If the tow company occasionally has to "eat the cost", well that is the risk and benefit of getting an exclusive city contract. I don't think that the municipalities have a problem attracting towing companies.

 

[magicmato]

It really isn't similar because if one abandons their vehicle in a snow storm they know the risk exists for it to be towed. That is one of the consequences of driving on a day like today. If one goes shopping however, there is a reasonable expectation that your vehicle will be where you parked it. The police are notified that the car has been stolen if it isn't there. The car is found and the owner can attempt to recover the car. In this day of cell phones, there is no reason an owner can't be notified within hours of its recovery. If the tow company occasionally has to "eat the cost", well that is the risk and benefit of getting an exclusive city contract. I don't think that the municipalities have a problem attracting towing companies.

Occasionally? Right. Dozens of cars are abandoned after being stolen every day. Those cars should just be left? As I said before, if the city leaves the car and more damage is done to it, then they will be sued. Exactly how is that in the city's best interest? Not to mention that if a car is left in front of a hydrant or in a business's driveway, there is a safety problem.

Also, why would any company tow a car ever if there is no chance of getting paid? IIRC, they do not get paid by the city to do it. They make their money by the fees they charge the car owners. So now they have to tow and there will be no payment? Not ever going to happen, unless you think the fine residents of Hartford would not mind footing the bill for all the cars that are stolen from the suburbs and then disassembled and left in their midst.

I feel for the woman, but honestly, I am amazed that people want to villanize tow drivers simply because they towed the car at the city's request. And again, were there little damage to the car when found and the police left it for the owner to come get and something happened, the owner would sue because the police left it there. You and I both know that is true.

 

[cardaway]

Then I guess nothing will ever be towed and the cities will have to hire employees to tow everything and pay for space to house said vehicles and employees to watch over them day and night, etc. Yep, much better option. And no, they should not have to "eat the costs". This is similar to when you abandon your car on the highway in a snowstorm. The state contacts a company to remove your vehicle as it is a danger and you then have to get it back from that company.

But this didn't happen in a snowstorm and the owner had no involvement in the car being abondoned.

If they don't want to eat the costs then they should take some time to understand the situation and decide how to proceed. They accept the risk of not being paid if they get involved in a scenario like the OP. I know there is no way I would pay them in the same situation.

 

[magicmato]

But this didn't happen in a snowstorm and the owner had no involvement in the car being abondoned.

If they don't want to eat the costs then they should take some time to understand the situation and decide how to proceed. They accept the risk of not being paid if they get involved in a scenario like the OP. I know there is no way I would pay them in the same situation.

Sorry, no. If there is a car abandoned in front of my house, I would NOT accept the answer that it was stolen and the owner would be along at some point to get it. It would be removed then and there as it would be a road hazard, not to mention an eyesore and a hazard to my children, should they go near it.

Why should urban people have to see cars up on blocks? The tow drivers should take the time to understand the situation when the city calls and tells them to come and tow an abandoned car? Sure. lol... that makes sense.

Tow drivers (for the most part) are hard working people. Sure, there are immoral people, just as there are nasty teachers, nasty lawyers, nasty doctors... but that does not mean all of them are bad. My uncle is a hard working man who is raising three kids by himself. Sorry, but if he tows a car, he should get paid for the gas and wear and tear on his vehicle, not to mention his time and energy if he is called out at 2 am to get a vehicle. It is not his fault that the car was stolen any more than it is the victim's fault. The fact is that the car was abandoned and it was (potentially) a public hazard.

If people do not like the way the laws work, then perhaps change the laws so that the state or town are forced to pay for a tow of abandoned stolen cars. But don't blame the tow drivers and don't scream that they should not get paid to do their jobs.

 

[cardaway]

We'll have to agree to disagree magicmato. Had to happen eventually.

 

[magicmato]

We'll have to agree to disagree magicmato. Had to happen eventually.

I guess so.

 

[bicker]

The maybe the tow truck operators should think twice before they tow. If they tow first, and ask quesitons later, then I don't feel for them having to eat the costs.

The fact is that the towing company in this case still faces that risk. Their policy of not accepting title as payment, and requiring payment before providing access to the vehicle for personal effects, helps keep that risk within reasonable limits.

 

[bicker]

I feel for the woman, but honestly, I am amazed that people want to villanize tow drivers simply because they towed the car at the city's request.

Indeed. Attacking the two company is a wrong as attacking the city or the police. As I said before, the is one "bad guy" in this scenario -- the thief. While it is very frustrating that we cannot always find the thief or hold the thief financially liable for all the costs associated with their crime, that doesn't obviate the fact that it is the thief who is at fault, and everyone else is either victim or just doing their job.

 

[Charade]

Of course, if someone has a car stolen, the police find it and notify the owner of where it is and in the time it takes for the owner to get there, the car is damaged further or stolen again or whatever, then we would see people filing complaints about how their property was not guarded by the police.

It is a lose-lose situation for the city and they do the best they can.

What if it were damaged further before the city contracted tow operator got there?

*If* it were a hazard, then I would expect the city to remove it ASAP. Otherwise, I stick by my previous opinion. Make a reasonable effort to contact the owner and if contacted, give them a reasonable amount of time to remove it. After that, tow it away and *then* the owner is responsible for recovery fees or the tow operator has salvage rights.

 

[magicmato]

What if it were damaged further before the city contracted tow operator got there?

*If* it were a hazard, then I would expect the city to remove it ASAP. Otherwise, I stick by my previous opinion. Make a reasonable effort to contact the owner and if contacted, give them a reasonable amount of time to remove it. After that, tow it away and *then* the owner is responsible for recovery fees or the tow operator has salvage rights.

Sorry, but no. If there is a car on blocks in front of my house and I call the authorities, I expect that car to be removed immediately. Why should I have your car sitting in front of my house until they are able to contact you and you get someone to come and get it?

As far as your thing about it being damaged before the tow gets there, generally the police stay and run the plates and vin while the tow gets there. At least around here, I have seen the police sitting there until the tow comes and removes the car. Tows generally come quick for the police. I know my uncle drops what he is working on to get the tow for them.

 

[Charade]

Sorry, but no. If there is a car on blocks in front of my house and I call the authorities, I expect that car to be removed immediately. Why should I have your car sitting in front of my house until they are able to contact you and you get someone to come and get it?
As far as your thing about it being damaged before the tow gets there, generally the police stay and run the plates and vin while the tow gets there. At least around here, I have seen the police sitting there until the tow comes and removes the car. Tows generally come quick for the police. I know my uncle drops what he is working on to get the tow for them.

Because it would be a nice thing to do? Like I said, if it's a HAZARD (not that you just don't like looking at it), remove it. Otherwise, would waiting an additional 24 hours or so really make your life all that miserable?

Around here, I've seen cars with red tags on them that indicate it's an abandoned vehicle.There is never a cop waiting there for it to be picked up. Sometimes it sits there for a few days. They don't sit there for more than that. I don't know what happens to them after that.

 

[Charade]

ooops. wrong thread!

 

[magicmato]

Because it would be a nice thing to do? Like I said, if it's a HAZARD (not that you just don't like looking at it), remove it. Otherwise, would waiting an additional 24 hours or so really make your life all that miserable?

Around here, I've seen cars with red tags on them that indicate it's an abandoned vehicle.There is never a cop waiting there for it to be picked up. Sometimes it sits there for a few days. They don't sit there for more than that. I don't know what happens to them after that.

Um... because having a car up on blocks in front of my house is NOT safe. I get that mostly it only involves poor people, but why should poor people have to live in an area made any more unsafe and blighted? Besides, why is leaving the car there any better than towing it someplace where it is secure? Frankly, I would rather pay the $95 towing fee than have it left in Frog Hollow until I can get someone out there. If it is found at 2 am, the police will NOT be calling me then. They will wait to call me the next day. Why have my car there for longer than necessary?

 

[User Name]

I think the point (in the instance of the OP) is NOT the towing fee, it's WHO has to PAY the towing fee.

Why should the victim have to pay? It should be paid for by the criminal, and if that's not viable, then the city should pick up the tab. Why should a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen have to pay because someone victimized her (him?).

 

[magicmato]

I think the point (in the instance of the OP) is NOT the towing fee, it's WHO has to PAY the towing fee.

Why should the victim have to pay? It should be paid for by the criminal, and if that's not viable, then the city should pick up the tab. Why should a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen have to pay because someone victimized her (him?).

Because the citizens of Hartford are already paying (in their view) too much taxes and do not feel like having to pay to tow the hundreds of cars that are dumped there every month? The city has to look out for their citizens just as much as you feel they should look out for citizens of other towns.

ETA: Most of the cars that are dumped in the inner city are stolen from the suburbs. How exactly are the owners 'owed' anything by the city? It would not be their tax dollars going to pay for the tow.

 

[bicker]

Why should the victim have to pay?

The car owner has to pay. The car owner, if a victim, can sue the criminal for civil damages. It's just like what happens if someone spills coffee all over your $2000 Bermini suit: You have to pay to have it cleaned, but you can get the careless coffee slinger to compensate you for your damages.

It should be paid for by the criminal, and if that's not viable, then the city should pick up the tab.

Not by default: You can surely vote for elected officials who set taxes and budget resources in that way, but the people of Hartford haven't. They want low taxes, so the city won't be picking up the tab for anything like this.

 

[monsterkitty]

Car owners are responsible for their vehicles at all times. It is an obligation that isn't affected by having the car stolen. If a car is stolen, and something happens due to the car owner's negligence, for example, the car owner is still substantially responsible, even though the car owner didn't give permission to the thief to steal the car.

This is a good reason for people to lock their doors, take their keys, install alarm systems and Lo Jack tracking systems.

If your car is stolen and is used in a crime, does that mean you are responsible because your car was the get-away car?


In my county, at least one teacher's car is stolen from the school parking lot during every parent-teacher conference or back-to-school night. The cars are usually found stripped and on blocks within a few days. The cars are towed.

However, in my county the victims of car theft are not responsible for the towing fees or the storage fees on private towing lots. The laws forbid the victims to be victimized twice. Towing companies will be paid for their services through the victim assistance funds. I am shocked that this is not the norm in other areas.

 

[magicmato]

If your car is stolen and is used in a crime, does that mean you are responsible because your car was the get-away car?


In my county, at least one teacher's car is stolen from the school parking lot during every parent-teacher conference or back-to-school night. The cars are usually found stripped and on blocks within a few days. The cars are towed.

However, in my county the victims of car theft are not responsible for the towing fees or the storage fees on private towing lots. The laws forbid the victims to be victimized twice. Towing companies will be paid for their services through the victim assistance funds. I am shocked that this is not the norm in other areas.

That is how it *should* work. There should be federal or state funding and the victim should be able to apply for their money through them. I am in no way advocating that the victim should have to pay for it, but I am simply saying that the cities should not have to incur that cost, nor should the tow drivers have to eat that cost. Both are unfair. Yes, let's get the government to pay for it. Raise state or federal taxes by a few bucks a person and pay for it. But somehow I think there would be an outcry on that one.

 

[bicker]

If your car is stolen and is used in a crime, does that mean you are responsible because your car was the get-away car?

"Responsible" -- how do you mean?

There is a difference between criminal liability and civil liability. The legal principles we're talking about (how much it will cost the owner to get her car back or get her personal property back from the towing company) all fall into the realm of civil law. One of the main distinctions between criminal liability and civil liability, in this case, is intent. Criminal liability is often established via intent, or through proven neglect. If you had no intent, and have done everything a reasonable person would normally do, then you aren't criminally liable. Civil liability doesn't work that way: You can be liable even without intent or neglect.

However, in my county the victims of car theft are not responsible for the towing fees or the storage fees on private towing lots.

I think that's the case here... but of course, I live in TAXachusettes, so we're paying through the nose in taxes for that additional level of service from our government.

 

[bicker]

Raise state or federal taxes by a few bucks a person and pay for it. But somehow I think there would be an outcry on that one.

Maybe the country is changing, but I doubt it. I think even if you look just within the Democratic party, the battle cry is more and more "keep taxes low". It's an issue that the Republicans used to basically kill the Democratic Party's power in the 1990s, and I doubt either party is willing to take up the "big government" banner again anytime soon. I think, rather, that these issues will be handled as one-offs, and depending on the way the wind is blowing, either the city will come up with some money from some slush fund to appease this one citizen, or not.