IBJNews

City proposes stricter towing rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard on Tuesday announced details of a proposed city ordinance intended to crack down on “predatory” towing practices in the city.

City-County Council President Ryan Vaughn, who helped draft the ordinance, plans to introduce it at the Council’s June 6 meeting.
The proposal comes on the heels of numerous complaints from people who say they've been taken advantage of by opportunistic towing companies.

“I have been working with business groups, tow truck operators and concerned citizens for months on this issue and it seems reasonable the city outline basic minimum standards for any company that tows vehicles in our city without the vehicle owner’s consent,” Vaughn said in a prepared statement.

The proposal includes the following protections:

— Towing fees for passenger vehicles are capped at $150 and storage fees are capped at $30 per day.

— Detailed receipts listing all charges must be provided by the towing operator.

— Payments or kickbacks from towing operators to property owners or lot managers for each vehicle towed are prohibited.
 
— Signs listing lot hours and vehicle-redemption information must be approved by the city.

— Vehicles must be towed directly to a secure storage lot inside Marion County or within 10 miles of the pick-up point.
 
— Motorists must be able to claim their vehicle 24 hours per day, seven days a week.

— Towing operators and their storage lots must accept cash or credit cards.

— A representative of the property owner must sign a tow order for each vehicle prior to towing.

The proposal requires the Indianapolis Department of Code Enforcement to license all operators who perform non-consensual towing in Indianapolis or contract with the city for towing services.

The licensing procedure will require proof of insurance to protect motorists in the event of vehicle damage, criminal background checks of all tow-truck operators and secure storage lots.

Tow trucks operated by service stations, for instance, that only tow vehicles with the owner’s approval would not be affected by the ordinance.



ADVERTISEMENT

  • A step in the right direction...
    I definitely think this is a step in the right direction. My car was towed from a major sandwich shop in Broad Ripple a couple of months ago. The shop posted 1 sign on their somewhat inconspicuous dumpster notifying of the possibility of being towed. So, in that case, this was my fault.

    However, when I came out of the restaurant (right next door), to find my car gone, a member of the neighborhood committee was there to tell me how the sandwich shop does this all the time. Evidently, there used to be signs all over the parking lot, but once the tow truck drivers began offering sandwich shop employees $50 per tow, the signs came down pretty quickly. Now, the neighbors take turns posting their own signs and hanging around the area to let people know.

    In this case, I was lucky that the company only charged me $250 to pick up my car. But I had to drive to 116th & Rangeline (from Broad Ripple, mind you) to pick it up, and had a 30 minute time frame to get there in order to get the car back that night. So I definitely feel the majority of protections the City is proposing are both fair and the right thing to do. I'm not sure how well a few could be enforced, but I do applaud them for their efforts (even if it took several media spots to get them going).
  • Outrageous
    A $150 towing fee is absolutely outrageous. This is essentially a legalized carnapping racket.
  • Still steep but better!
    $150 will still offer incentive to profit. AND how can they enforce no kickbacks. I still feel that the city has looked the other way, for years - probably a money talks kind of deal, too.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT