Keith Collyer should’ve been happier to know that Mitchell’s Towing company found his stolen scooter — until he realized it left him with a hefty bill.
Collyer’s scooter was stolen on July 11, 2022. The thief abandoned it on private property.
When Collyer went to pick up the scooter that was towed off the property by Mitchell’s Towing, he learned that it charged him $589.86 in towing and storage fees.
In a BC Civil Resolution Tribunal hearing, Collyer asked for a refund of the charge plus $70 in gas.
- You might also like:
- BC renter disappears and leaves "a mess" behind, gets sued by landlord
- Groom fails to receive full refund on $25K engagement ring, sues jeweller
- BC tenant makes claims about landlord's drug use in unpaid rent lawsuit
The scooter was stolen from Collyer’s driveway on the night of July 11, 2022. It was uninsured. Someone phoned Mitchell’s Towing because the scooter was parked in their carport.
“The caller said they had phoned the police, who had checked the plates and told them to phone a towing company. Mitchell’s Towing asked if the caller leased the stall, and the caller said they owned the adjacent townhouse and had used the stall since the 1980s,” the tribunal decision reads.
When Collyer picked up his scooter, he found out he was charged $49.25 a day for storage, a $150 impound fee, a $39 fuel surcharge and a $28.02 processing fee. Collyer paid the amount in full.
In his defence, Collyer claimed that the person who called Mitchell’s Towing wasn’t authorized to have the scooter towed because they weren’t on the strata council of their property.
The tribunal disagreed and suggested that, when the caller phoned the towing company, “they created a contract between Mr. Collyer and Mitchell’s Towing.”
Collyer mentioned that ICBC has an agreement with towing companies that requires them to tell the insurance company about vehicles that may be related to a claim, including abandoned vehicles.
“Mitchell’s Towing says that it had no contractual obligation to call ICBC if it discovers a stolen vehicle.”
Sadly for Collyer, the tribunal sided with Mitchell’s Towing.
“In any event, when the caller asked Mitchell’s Towing to tow the scooter, Mitchell’s Towing had no reason to believe the scooter was abandoned or stolen. It was simply parked in someone’s carport. Ultimately, Mitchell’s Towing determined Mr. Collyer’s scooter was stolen six days after receiving it, which I consider reasonably prompt.”
Do you agree with their decision that it was fair for Collyer to be hit with these charges?
Follow Channels and Categories