If I Can Pick-Up Impounded Car Now Wasn't the impoundment Improper?

[winki]

This is California.

I lent my pick-up truck to a person who it turned out had a suspended license. He had mentioned to me a year or more ago in conversation having nothing to do with me lending him a vehicle, that since he was from Iran he didn't need a state drivers license, he stated that he had an international one or somesuch thing.

This was the impression I was under when I lent him the truck, that he had a license.
Well, the truck was towed and as per the officer involved placed under a 30-day impoundment.

I called the next day to say that I was unaware of his true license status and that even he would admit that that was the case.

I was referred to a specific person in the officer's agency and after an initial call to her and subsequent follow up calls a little over a week went by. When she finallly had finished "looking into" the matter, talking to the officer involved and whatever else she did, she informed me that the vehicle was free to be picked up and that a notation to that effect would be added to the original paperwork whcih I should mention to the desk attendant when I came to pick up the truck.

The problem I have at this time is that the towing and storage fee's already are equal to over 3x what I paid for the truck and I feel that since the eventual outcome of my following up as directed with the impounding agency basically indicates that the 30-day impoundment was improper that I should be liable only for the towing and period of time directly after it during which subject matter indisput and eventually decided in my favor was not pending.

That is that the time it took that agency to ascertain the appropriate status of my truck should be their financial responsibility w/ regard to the storage fee's.

Also since the outcome indicates that I was not knowingly or willfully or criminally providing a vehicle to an unlicensed person, my having to ostensibly pay over 3x what the vehicle cost to get it back constitutes and excessive fine, which I believe there are laws against.

So is anyone out there able to shed light on this situation from a position of personal experience or knowledge of a level as to be reliable?

Thank you in advance for any and all enlightenment or direction provided.

 

[lwpat]

The impoundment was proper since the person driving it did not have a valid license. There is also nothing wrong with the delay. You should have checked before you lent him the vehicle. You can sue him in small calims for your expenses and loss of use but all you will have is a judgement which is probably only suitable for framing. I have several hanging on my wall now.

 

[CdwJava]

since he was from Iran he didn't need a state drivers license, he stated that he had an international one or somesuch thing.

Okay, he lied. Remember, CA law requires that you make a reasonable effort to determine the license status of the person driving your car ... did you at least ask to see this license?

Well, the truck was towed and as per the officer involved placed under a 30-day impoundment.

Yep ... impounded pursuant to CVC 22651(p) and held pursuant to CVC 14602.6 since he apparently had never been issued a license.

I was referred to a specific person in the officer's agency and after an initial call to her and subsequent follow up calls a little over a week went by. When she finallly had finished "looking into" the matter, talking to the officer involved and whatever else she did, she informed me that the vehicle was free to be picked up and that a notation to that effect

State law requires that an agency have a process by which the owners of vehicles may appeal the impound ... this appears to be what happened. As a result of the appeal, they removed the 30 day hold on the vehicle and allowed you to retrieve it.

I feel that since the eventual outcome of my following up as directed with the impounding agency basically indicates that the 30-day impoundment was improper that I should be liable only for the towing and period of time directly after it during which subject matter indisput and eventually decided in my favor was not pending.

You think wrong. CVC 22651(p) permits an officer to impound a vehicle driven by an unlicensed driver. CVC 14602.6 permits a 30 day hold on any vehicle impounded when the driver was NEVER licensed, or was driving on a suspended license with valid service of the suspension.

That is that the time it took that agency to ascertain the appropriate status of my truck should be their financial responsibility w/ regard to the storage fee's.

You can always put in a claim to the agency for the amount of those fees, but don't expect them to pay. Generally the recourse is that you have to go after the person who lied to you for the money. In other words, sue your friend because HE got your car towed!

Also since the outcome indicates that I was not knowingly or willfully or criminally providing a vehicle to an unlicensed person, my having to ostensibly pay over 3x what the vehicle cost to get it back constitutes and excessive fine, which I believe there are laws against.

Also incorrect. The fees are not a fine, they are a cost of service that you have to pay the two company. And, in fact, you could have committed a crime since you permitted an unlicensed person to drive your vehicle. This offense is rarely charged in these matters, but it could have been.

As a side note, I am my agency's hearing appeal officer.

- Carl

 

[winki]

misspelled word

 

[winki]

What's that word?

GULP...........You are?......how ironic, okay I accept that my half baked aforementioned concepts were just that. How would you respond to Smith v. Santa Rosa Police Dept. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 546. ? w/ regard to it's eventual outcome for Smith?

On a side note......my trying not to lose my %#& completely on this thing. The tow company wants $365 to keep the truck and bother me no mas. The registration on the truck was not complete which is to say that I am referred to as an interested party on paperwork. Having paid fees and submitted paperwork to dmv, the truck required a smog to complete registration, which, incidentally expired yesterday, but i digress.....

since i am not yet listed as the legal owner of the truck could i just submit a release of liability and wash my hands of all this losing only my initial investment in/and the truck?

as always, thank you for your superlative and timely not to mention (insert some word i can't think of that means benevolent, non-condescending, mentor-like and reliable), reply to my query.

regards,
kelly

 

[CdwJava]

Smith dealt with the question of reasonableness. Your issue of a timely response is not a subject of that case.

You had your due process and the agency ultimately agreed with your assertion and released the vehicle. That it was not done in a timely manner is what might give you a valid claim for those intervening days' fees.

Submit a claim and see what they say.

- carl

 

[winki]

Additional Questions Re. Impoundment

Thank you for your previous input, I can see where the reply to a complaint would be for me to sue the driver.

I do have a few other questions for you as I try and decide how to handle this matter.

The ticket issued at the time this vehicle was towed is temporarily in my possesion and in the section for violations it lists onluy 12500(a) cvc unliscensed driver and 16028a cvc no insurance.

The date on the ticket is 8/17/07 time 1850

The Notice of stored vehicle I received is dated 8/17/07 time 1905

On the notice in the space for storage authority/ reason there are 4 codes cited,
12500(a) cvc 22651(p)cvc 14605.6 cvc and 14607.6 cvc

Why are there additional citations on the stored vehicle form?

Also as I mentioned the registration on the truck was incomplete due to it needing a smog so the original Notice of Stored Vehicle form has a lable placed over what was originally written there( the name and address of the previous owner) and on that lable is my name and address, also there is a red stamp at the top which says 30 day impound.

Can you please explain to me the process by which the additional citations were added and the determination to stamp it as an impound as opposed to a stored vehicle was made?

Thank you very much I look forward to your reply, also the questions I asked at the end of my previous post are still in question, regarding submitting a release of liablility to the dmv etc......

thank you again for any and all guidance in this matter.
Kelly

 

[CdwJava]

On the notice in the space for storage authority/ reason there are 4 codes cited,
12500(a) cvc 22651(p)cvc 14605.6 cvc and 14607.6 cvc

Why are there additional citations on the stored vehicle form?

12500(a) (unlicensed) is the cause for the violation initiating the tow ... 22651(p) is the authority for towing a vehicle driven by an unlicensed driver .. . 14602.6 (NOT 14605.6) is the process for a 30 day hold on a vehicle driven by a driver who has never had a license or has a suspended license ... and 14607.6 is the authority to impound the vehicle for 30 days.

Also as I mentioned the registration on the truck was incomplete due to it needing a smog so the original Notice of Stored Vehicle form has a lable placed over what was originally written there( the name and address of the previous owner) and on that lable is my name and address, also there is a red stamp at the top which says 30 day impound.

If the registration was incomplete, it should no have been on the roadway unless a temporary registration had been issued (a square, pink piece of paper with a number on it to represent the month some 60 to 90 days hence).

Can you please explain to me the process by which the additional citations were added and the determination to stamp it as an impound as opposed to a stored vehicle was made?

The additional "citations" are authority sections and not violations. When a vehicle is held and not subject to release it is an "impound" and not "stored". It's a semantic issue and no entirely relevant.


- Carl