- Jurisdiction
- California
Long story short, the general manager of my apartment complex authorized my car to be towed from our parking structure. As per the source below, the towing company is obligated to provide me a photocopy of the written authorization prior to payment, which they failed to do. However, I did receive a receipt which includes some of the required details, but fails to include the reason for the tow. Eventually, I was sent the written authorization which contains all the necessary info as required except, the name of the property is incorrect. My question is, are these circumstances sufficient enough for me to win against the towing company if I take them to small claims or will a judge think I am reaching?
Source: Law section
Additional info:
Source: Law section
Additional info:
- Link to photos: towingcase
- When talking about the source, I am referring to section (I)(1)(A) and its subsection, (B).
- 1st pic is an annotated screenshot of the referenced source above. 2nd pic is the receipt. 3rd is the written authorization.
- The parking structure has signs on the first floor that say "Customer parking only". The housing units are connected to restaurants which the customer parking is intended for. Residents are only supposed to park on the 2nd floor and up. I also pay monthly for parking.
- The yellow scribble in the 3rd pic was not me. The towing company did so in reference to (I)(1)(A) subsection (C)(i) in the source. However, I'm not sure if withholding that info was proper since it implies that my car was towed off of residential property despite the fact that I am a resident. To my understanding, if owners of private property can make whatever rules they want **(**within reason, such as making the first floor for customers only), then in this instance the parking structure should classified as private property and not residential; in which case they should provide me with the redacted information. If they classify it as residential, then they can exclude that information but the tow should not have been made in the first place. It doesn't make sense that the law could permit them to cherry pick when it is and isn't private/residential property, especially without contradicting themselves. This isn't that important to me but if the redacted info was also supposed to be given prior to payment then it's additional proof that they were negligent.
- Timeline: Car was towed on 2/15, I got it back on 2/16 along with the receipt, and on 2/18 I was sent an image of the written authorization.
