IBJNews

  • Home

City proposes stricter towing rules

IBJ Staff
May 18, 2011
Keywords
City Government, City-County Council, Commuting, Downtown parking, Local Government, Small Business, Transportation, Distribution & Logistics
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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...
    AndreaMay 18, 2011 2:25 PM
    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).
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Outrageous
    RickMay 18, 2011 1:17 PM
    A $150 towing fee is absolutely outrageous. This is essentially a legalized carnapping racket.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Still steep but better!
    Dave in IndyMay 18, 2011 1:03 PM
    $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.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

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.

ADVANCED SEARCH
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. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT