City of Seattle's official tow partner impounded a homeless woman's stolen car and wanted $21,634 to give it back


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/10/18/21634-dollar-1991-camry.html


#2

Total Dicks.


#3

Truth in advertising


#5

Did the towing company ever comply with the judge’s order to pay Ms. Ogle $2000 per day they kept her car?


#6

No, apparently not.

Also note that the court ordered Dick’s Towing Lincoln Towing to pay $2000 per day to the court. From the article:

“For every calendar day Lincoln Towing does not return the vehicle, Lincoln Towing will forfeit a sum of two-thousand dollars to the court,” Hirakawa’s new order says. Message delivered, as Lincoln released the car that afternoon (though not the title).

Update: new information.

Update 2: Lincoln Towing, not Dick’s Towing. Apologies to Dick’s Towing.


#7

Given that this was a story from notorious right-wing rag The Seattle Times, I thought I’d head over to their online comments section to find what gourmet hot takes their graying angry uncle readership has for us on this story. I did it for you.

I lived, with my sanity intact (I think)! Here’s what I learned pretty much on page 1:

  • This story is obviously phony fake news. I mean, she reported it stolen, and she’s homeless?!
  • She’s homeless! And she has a car?! Shenanigans!
  • Just pay your parking ticket, lady! It’s all your fault! (what? stolen? lalalalalala)
  • If she can go to court, she can get a job, and yet she doesn’t! (Because, if she had a job, she clearly wouldn’t be homeless, what with rents being a measly $2,000/month for a broom closet)
  • LOL someone stole a $1,000 car?! As if! People only steal real cars like my tricked out Chevy Suburban!
  • Is she paying taxes on that parking spot she parks in?! How dare she park in my city!
  • She deserved to lose that car, she was unable to afford the random illegal fee handed out for no reason and hence is too poor to deserve to live here!
  • Here’s a bunch of bizarre tortured nonsense logic about squatting! That’s the sort of thing the libs would say! What idiots! Owned, libs!

Thank you, and remember, never ever ever ever ever ever ever read news comments.


#8

WRONG COMPANY! The article and court case is for a Dick’s Highline Towing, owned by a corporation. They run 3 companies in Seattle, Dick’s Highline Towing/ Ken’s and Lincoln Towing. we are NOT AFFILIATED in any manner. We do not condone or agree with their business practices even remotely. We are a family owned and operated business in a different area. The photo is from a funeral procession for one of our drivers and friends, again we are not affiliated with this company in the article WHATSOEVER


#9

My youngest daughter’s car was stolen about a month ago. She was informed that it was at an impound lot in a nearby city a couple days ago.

I don’t know all of the details, but it seems our police department gives not the slightest of a shit about catching whoever stole it; my daughter isn’t wealthy, and the car wasn’t expensive, so she doesn’t qualify for justice.

The car had been abandoned by the thieves near the lot where it was towed. They are charging $195 for the tow, and $25 per day that it’s in the lot.

The thieves had ripped out the ignition from the steering column, and the entire interior was trashed. It would have to be towed somewhere else, at an additional cost, and stored until it could be repaired, at even more cost.

Her insurance was liability only, since it was an old car, so all expenses would be out of pocket.

Her plan is to sign the car over to the towing company in exchange for dropping the fees.


#10

Well, that just sucks. IMHO, many towing companies, especially the ones who do it for the impound lots, are ripoffs.


#11

Thank you so much for updating that!


#12

What dickheads.


#13

Cory updated. Thanks, and sorry for the error!


#14

I find it odd in a country with so many laws protecting property (sometimes more than people) that older cars seem to be an exception.


#15

My apologies. I’ve fixed it.


#16

I might just be bitter and jaded, but I really feel it’s because older cars are owned by poorer people. And, you know, fuck the poor. What will they do? Call Batman?

Until you reach collectible aged vehicles; then it matters again.


#17

Older cars are generally not owned by wealthy people (with the exception of “classic” cars that would likely be protected). Property protection laws are only meant to protect the property of wealthy people who can either easily afford to replace the property, or have insurance on it. The laws are not meant to protect the people who can’t afford to replace their stolen property.


#18

Yeah, I’ve heard of cases where vehicles were torn up while in storage. At the same time, auto theft suspects are sometimes treated like they are armed and extremely dangerous - usually ending with both the driver and older car being shot.


#19

Yup, looks like the judge found them in contempt.

https://kcdc-efiling.kingcounty.gov/ecourt/?q=node/393/532229/FV-ROA-Portal

The case continues as they say on the news…

Message delivered, as Lincoln released the car that afternoon (though not the title). The two sides will continue to battle about damages in court, the title and that outrageous $21,634 bill.


#20

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.