Vehicle Was Impounded when I Loaned It to a Friend but the Agency Never Sent Notice

[Lenaiya]

My question involves a traffic citation from the state of: Arizona

My ex called me and was in a bind and needed to borrow my truck so he could move. I tried to inquire as to their driver's license status but it was Sunday and the MVD was closed. I called the police department with him present and asked if they could confirm that his license was valid and they said they cannot do that, that I would have to get that information from MVD.

My ex assured me his license was valid and showed it to me so I went ahead and loaned it to him because I didn't want him to lose all his belongings because the place he was renting a room at, the people on the lease had been evicted and he had to be out in 5 days and he didn't know anybody with a truck except me so I let him borrow it so he could move his stuff out.

My truck was not returned and my ex's phone went straight to voice mail every time I called. After 24 hours, I called the police and they told me my ex had been pulled over and was arrested for driving on a suspended license and other charges (which they refused to disclose) and that the vehicle had been impounded! I asked where do I go to retrieve it at, what was the name of the tow truck company, etc... and they said they couldn't give me that information! I asked WHY not and they said because the vehicle was being held as evidence and I could not get it back until my ex's case was adjudicated!

He was incarcerated for 47 days and when he got released, I didn't hear from him and by then his phone had been shut off. I inquired with the courts as to what his charges were and when the case would be adjudicated and they said 90 days from the date the defendant was sentenced because in the event the defendant files an appeal or post conviction relief, they will need to review the evidence all over again and that is why evidence remains in their possession for 90 days following the adjudication. I freaked out about it because I thought I was gonna have to pay the fees for it being held for all that time and the court clerk told me when a vehicle is impounded as evidence the impounding agency takes care of the fees and that I wouldn't have to pay them and I was relieved to hear that.

Well, that 90 days was up two days ago and I went to the police dept and obtained a release for my vehicle to take to the tow yard, which cost me $150 and then went to the tow truck yard to get my vehicle and they told me I owed them $2,300 in storage fees! I told them that I am not responsible for the fees since the vehicle had been held as evidence and that the impounding agency is the one who covers the fees! and THEY told me that the vehicle was NOT being held as evidence and that it was towed on a 30 day impound and that they were about to take possession of it and sell it!

I called the police department and asked them why I was given false information and they didn't know WHY I was told that. They did tell me that all the contents of the vehicle were impounded as evidence, but not the vehicle itself, which included my personal belongings and that I could pick that property up when the officer released the hold on it, which is done upon receiving notice from the county atty's office 90 days after the adjudication! It had been so long since I called down there the day when my ex never returned with my truck and I don't know who the heck I spoke to or anything, just someone in the property and evidence dept. but nobody is copping to it.

Not only was I given false information, but never did I receive a notification in the mail from the impounding agency that my vehicle had been impounded, who impounded it, where it was at, AND that I was entitled to request a hearing to possibly get it back before the 30 days (since it WAS in fact a 30 day impound and NOT impounded as evidence, shouldn't I have received such notification?) So here even after the 30 days were up, I waited an additional 60 days before trying to get my vehicle back because I was told that I couldn't get it back for 90 days after my ex's case was adjudicated! I am lucky that the tow truck company even had my truck still! They said they were waiting for the transfer of ownership for an abandoned vehicle and I went to the MVD immediately and put a freeze on the transfer while I sort this whole thing out.

Even if it was not being held as evidence, like I was told it was, I STILL was not afforded the opportunity to request a hearing because they never sent me any notice whatsoever telling me about all this and who to contact to make such a request, etc... I could've gotten my vehicle back a long time ago, most likely a couple of days after it was towed since I was not the one driving it at the time it was impounded and had inquired about the driver's license status of my ex and believed his license was valid!

Do I have any type of recourse at ALL? This just doesn't seem fair! somebody screwed up and I shouldn't have to pay for it! any advice would be well appreciated. Thank you

[Mr. Knowitall]

If the police did not comply with the statutory notice requirements of ARS 28-3514, explain that failure to the agency and see what, if anything, they can do for you. They should have a record of any notice that they claim to have sent to you as the title owner.

[Lenaiya]

If the police did not comply with the statutory notice requirements of ARS 28-3514, explain that failure to the agency and see what, if anything, they can do for you. They should have a record of any notice that they claim to have sent to you as the title owner.

Hi,

thanks for your reply and for providing that statute. They aren't claiming to have sent any notice. None was sent and they have no record of one being sent.

What concerns me now is, after reading that statute, it doesn't appear that I am entitled to the same recourse as a leinholder would be (or anyone listed on the MVD's records as having an interest in the vehicle, which are none), or any recourse for that matter.

ARS 28-3514 C. Within three business days after immobilization or impoundment, excluding weekends and holidays, the immobilizing or impounding agency shall send a notice of storage by first class mail to each person, other than the owner, identified on the department's record as having an interest in the vehicle. Service of notice of immobilization or storage is complete on mailing. If the immobilizing or impounding agency fails to notify a person, other than the owner, identified on the department's record as having an interest in the vehicle within three business days after immobilization or impoundment, excluding weekends and holidays, the immobilizing agency or the person in possession of the vehicle shall not charge any administrative fees or more than fifteen days' immobilization or impoundment when the person redeems the impounded vehicle or has the immobilization device removed from the vehicle.

Then it goes on to say:

D. Within three business days after immobilization or impoundment, excluding weekends and holidays, the immobilizing or impounding agency shall mail or personally deliver notice of immobilization or storage to the owner of the vehicle.

E. The notice of immobilization or storage shall include all of the following information:

1. A statement that the vehicle was immobilized or impounded.

2. The name, address and telephone number of the immobilizing or impounding agency providing the notice.

3. The name, address and telephone number of the immobilizing or impounding agency or justice court that will provide the immobilization or poststorage hearing.

4. The location of the place of storage and a description of the vehicle, including, if available, the manufacturer, model, license plate number and mileage of the vehicle.

5. A statement that in order to receive an immobilization or poststorage hearing the owner, the spouse of the owner, the owner's agent or the person identified in the department's record as having an interest in the vehicle, within ten days after the date on the notice, shall request an immobilization or poststorage hearing by contacting the immobilizing or impounding agency in person or in writing or by filing a request with the justice court if the impounding agency does not provide for a hearing and paying a fee equal to the fee established pursuant to section 22-281 for a small claims answer.

6. A statement that if the immobilizing or impounding agency does not provide the opportunity for an immobilization or poststorage hearing, the owner, the spouse of the owner, the owner's agent or any person identified in the department's record as having an interest in the vehicle may request that the immobilization or poststorage hearing be conducted by a justice court in the immobilizing or impounding agency's jurisdiction or the jurisdiction in which the owner, the spouse of the owner, the owner's agent or the person identified in the department's record as having an interest in the vehicle resides.



It seems to me the statute is specific in excluding the owner from receiving the same benefit of not having to pay more than 15 days storage if such notice wasn't sent, as the leinholder is entitled to.

It also leaves an agency wide open not to send such notice because there are no repercussions if they do not.

At this point, it makes it seem like sending that notice is merely an option for the agency and not a requirement, because if it IS a requirement, shouldn't failure to send such notice, despite it's requirement, allow or involve some type of action to be taken against the agency by the owner? and shouldn't such action be included in the statute?

I don't understand the point of legislature even listing the part about the agency having to send the owner notice within three business days if there is nothing the owner can do about it if they do not.

The only thing it lists about failure to do anything in the section that applies to the owner, is the part about the owner's failure to request a poststorage hearing within 10 days of such notice being sent. But if no notice is ever sent, (which obviously informs them that they are entitled to a hearing and how and when to request one) then how is the owner able to exercise their right to have such a hearing?

I thought maybe the part about not having to pay more than 15 days storage was umbrella'd (lack of a better word) over ANY failure to send notification (meaning, it is stated once in the statute that it must be done or only 15 days storage would be charged) and that any subsequent requirement to send such notice that doesn't mention this entitlement is assumed to believe that it also includes this, but since it specifically states "other than the owner" and then the section that does apply to the owner makes no mention of any such recourse.

Am I interpreting the statute correctly? Am I safe in assuming that the failure to send notice to an owner doesn't provide any repercussions on the agency's part, nor any recourse for the owner? if so, then what is the point of even requiring it, if it's not going to be enforced?

Thank you for your help and time in advance, it is greatly appreciated.

I'm sorry to post again, but after reading the statute again, it appears that I may be correct that the part about not sending the notice within three business days (only charging 15 days storage) could apply to both owner and leinholder.

It appears that the notices required to be sent out are both different for the leinholder and owner. The one sent to the leinholder says the impounding agency shall send notice of storage (in the event they want to repossess the vehicle?) Is it a different notice that is supposed to be sent to the owner? (hence, the reason for stating "other than the owner") because that notice is a notice of immobilization AND storage but includes more detailed information, such as the right to request a hearing, etc.

Could it be that the failure to send either notice within three business days results in the agency or towing company not charging admin fees and no more than 15 days storage fees? (hence, my reason for thinking that this repercussion was umbrella'd under the two?)

I certainly hope that is the case. Please correct me if I am wrong in assuming this.

Thank you!

[Mr. Knowitall]

I agree that the statute does not spell out a consequence for violation, and before I made my last post I tried to find out if there was a consequence and came up dry. Given the amount of money involved and the potential problem of governmental immunity, I doubt that many car owners have attempted to litigate a claim. I was hoping that the agency would acknowledge an error, but you appear to be stating that they are taking, in effect, a "No, we didn't give you notice, but what are you gonna do about it" approach.

I would contact my state rep. I can't promise they'll be able to do anything, but if the legislature wants the statute to have any significance they should impose a consequence.

[Lenaiya]

I agree that the statute does not spell out a consequence for violation, and before I made my last post I tried to find out if there was a consequence and came up dry. Given the amount of money involved and the potential problem of governmental immunity, I doubt that many car owners have attempted to litigate a claim. I was hoping that the agency would acknowledge an error, but you appear to be stating that they are taking, in effect, a "No, we didn't give you notice, but what are you gonna do about it" approach.

I would contact my state rep. I can't promise they'll be able to do anything, but if the legislature wants the statute to have any significance they should impose a consequence.

Thank you! I am going to contact my state rep. Here's the thing about the impounding agency, I know first hand that they are corrupt. I have a friend who's husband is an officer on
the force at the agency in question and my friend had him look into it for me and confirmed that the notification was not sent and that there is no record of such notice being sent. He also cautioned me about bringing it to the agency's attention, stating that if i did, he wouldn't be surprised if they were to whip something up real quick and enter it on the record in order to cover their behinds, so that concerned me and I was a little apprehensive about inquiring about it. At this point, I can attest that I did not receive any notification, no notification was sent, and there is no record of it being sent. The reason I stated "they aren't claiming to have sent it" is because I didn't need to ask them if they did since I found out from an officer of that agency that it was not.

Also, I had taken out a title loan before this all happened. I have since paid it off but at the time the vehicle was impounded and up until 2 weeks ago, there was a lien on the vehicle by the title loan company. I thought maybe THEY were informed (even if they were, I was still deprived of MY notification, which would've provided the info about requesting a hearing) but when I called and spoke to their repo dept (which is who would've had knowledge of such notice) they told me they never received any such notice from the impounding agency either. They told me the only notice they received was two months after the vehicle was impounded and that notice was from the MVD notifying them that the towing company had applied for an abandoned vehicle title (which is the notice I contested with the MVD and had a hold put on the title transfer pending the outcome of this situation)

So not only did I never receive any such notice, neither did the person that WAS in fact listed on the departments record as having an interest in the vehicle and entitled to the recourse stated in the statutes. It's bad enough that the agency failed to send the notice once, but twice?

I called the State of Arizona's Ombudsman/Citizen's Aide and THEY said that the MVD has their own ombudsman and that they would call them on my behalf an advocate for me and explain the situation and ask them to advise me on how to proceed at this point. I am waiting for either ombudsman to call me back some time this afternoon.

In the meantime, I contacted the courts and explained to them that I was afraid to bring to the agency's attention failure to send notification to both myself and the leinholder at the time of impound because I questioned the agency's integrity and might cover up such a mistake and they told me to go down to the department in person with cell phone cam and advise them I am taping the visit for my protection (cop car dash cams do it when they pull us over for a visit, so why cant it be the other way around huh? Lol) and ask them to look it up while in my presence. The court said if they should be able to produce the proof right then and there just by looking it up on the computer but if they happen to disappear for an extended period of time and then come back with some kind of documentation then at least I have the incident on tape and the Judge can question them as to why they couldn't answer that question in my presence because they shouldn't have to leave their computer to find out the answer.

Do you think I should do that before pursuing other avenues? Since you advised me to inform the agency of their mistake and see what, if anything, they could do for me, and then the court telling me to confront them as well, in person & on video, I'm thinking I should heed your guys' advice

Thank you for your help and in put. I do, however, plan on contacting my state rep as you suggested, to at least inform them of how the statute reads and hopefully they will add to it to provide recourse for the owner of a vehicle who is faced with this type of situation.

I will keep you updated on the outcome.

Thanks again!

[Lenaiya]

Well, I went to the police department and they didn't have anything on file for sending that letter out. When I asked them about not charging me more than 15 days storage and they pointed out that it says "other than the owner" so I pointed out that they didn't send the letter to the leinholder either, and they said, "but you're not the leinholder"

I then went to the Justice Court who has jurisdiction over the police dept and the tow truck company and THEY are trying to schedule a poststorage hearing! I explained that there was no need for such hearing now, because those hearings only determine if the vehicle is eligible for release BEFORE the 30 days. The 30 days has long passed so getting the vehicle out is not an issue, but having to pay 90 + days storage IS. They said they didn't even know what to have me file, what form of action it would be. They said, "well, we can't MAKE the tow truck company not charge you" but I think they can because my vehicle was once towed many years ago and the tow truck company pretended like they didn't have it, they said they couldn't find any such vehicle and I later called back pretending to be someone from an auction yard inquiring about the vehicle and they said yes, they had the car and were gonna auction it. I then went down to this same court and filed a small claims and the judge set an emergency hearing and called them on the phone and told them they needed to be in court on Monday (this was on a Friday) the judge told me i would need to have them served still, which i did, and they showed up to the hearing and the judge ordered them to release my vehicle. That judge isn't there anymore and the court shredded the file but i have copies of it.

So, would you happen to know what it is that I would file with the courts? the case number on the case where the judge ordered them to return my car starts with a CC, does that mean Civil Case? if it does, then would that mean small claims? and I should file a small claims against the police department?

Could I have the person who was the leinholder when i got the title loan, who didn't receive any such notice either get it out for me since they were the ones entitled to the recourse when they didn't get the letter from the impounding agency? Even though they are no longer the leinholder as of two weeks ago? (Can I make them a leinholder again for the purpose of getting the car out for me?) because it will show they were a leinholder at the time the vehicle was impounded. I have spoke to them on the phone several times, and they seem pretty cool, I don't think they would mind doing it for me as long as it's legal. I don't see why it wouldn't be.

I can't believe there is no recourse for me. Nevermind the notice they didn't send, what about them screwing up and telling me the vehicle was being held as evidence and that I couldn't get it back for 90 days from the date of adjudication of my ex's case? they don't seem to want to do anything about that. Should I consult with an attorney? (I thought I was doing that here) what I meant was, should I hire one?

[gettup]

............................

[Lenaiya]

Wow. Not only is the agency corrupt, it appears that the courts are corrupt too. I filed in the Justice Court that has jurisdiction asking for them to provide recourse for the agency failing to notify me of my right to a post storage hearing because the statute says that if the impounding agency fails to provide a hearing (which essentially, they did, when they failed to send me the letter notifying me of such hearing) that the justice court that has jurisdiction shall hear the case. I filed and the next day the agency filed a motion asking the judge to dismiss because they did not have jurisdiction, that the agency does, and that I failed to request a hearing within the required time and so I have no right to file anything.

I filed my timely answer stating that the justice court does have jurisdiction since the agency failed to provide me with a hearing when it failed to notify me of my right to have one, I quoted the statute and asked the judge to deny their motion to dismiss and proceed with the hearing. The judge granted the agencies motion and arbitrarily dismissed the case stating what the agency said in their motion, that the court does not have jurisdiction. When I asked the court WHY they ignored what the statute says, that it states they DO have jurisdiction when an agency fails to provide a post storage hearing they told me they weren't going to answer that and do not have to answer that.

I went home and called my state rep, who put me in touch with constituent services and they are going to enforce the statute if after looking into it, find that the agency did in fact, fail to notify me of the hearing. I also asked them to add to the statute that the owner of the vehicle is also entitled to this recourse if the agency fails to send the letter, and not just the lien holder. I explained that it is not fair to exclude the owner of a vehicle who has been deprived their right to such hearing because the agency failed to notify them and that this becomes legal grand theft auto and that anyone at anytime can have their vehicle just taken right out from under them for no reason, and no recourse. They are going to bring it to legislatures attention and hopefully the statute will be modified to include this.

I will keep you posted on what the state rep does for me. Thank you again for your advice. It is greatly appreciated.



P.S. apparently, I already signed up here before with the above username and must have forgot and signed up again with this user name and then accidentally logged in under the above username and posted this post. I have never posted using the above username nor logged in for that matter, until now, and realized i posted under that account. Can you please ask a moderator to delete that other account. It is not my intention to have two accounts, it was an honest mistake. Thank you.