Huge row over towing bill

File picture: Alon Skuy

File picture: Alon Skuy

Published Jan 22, 2019

Share

DURBAN - A Pretoria firm had to turn to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, in a desperate bid to have a vehicle returned from a towing service provider.

The company said the service provider was “holding it to ransom” as it would not settle the “inflated” bill.

The vehicle has been in the possession of Bosch & Sons Panel Beaters, which also trades as a towing company, for nearly four months.

Constantia Metering Services, which owns the Nissan vehicle, said the towing company was, in the first place, not allowed to tow the vehicle away, as the owner’s insurance company did not have an agreement with it.

However, at the scene of the accident, the towing company, assured the driver of the vehicle that it was allowed to tow vehicles on behalf of the insurance company and that it would settle the bill with the insurer.

But Constantia Metering Services received a bill for R24150 - sent to the company - which had to be settled before the car was released.

André Buckle of Constantia Metering said in papers before court that one of his employees was driving the vehicle in October last year when he collided with another vehicle.

The vehicle was so badly damaged that it could not be driven.

Buckle said he only realised after the incident was reported to the insurance company that the towing company was not an authorised service provider of Old Mutual and entitled to perform towing services.

He then received the bill for R24150, which he disputed as being inflated, unfair and unjustified.

As he refused to pay the entire bill, the towing company refused to release the still-damaged car.

However, Buckle did, after paying R4000 for the towing, pay the amount for the rest of the bill - R20000 - into the trust account of his lawyer.

This was to serve as security while the billing issues were being resolved.

But the towing company refused to release the car until the full amount was paid.

Buckle said he had no choice but to turn to the court.

“The respondent has made itself guilty of unscrupulous business practices and borderline blackmail tactics in an attempt to secure payment,” he stated.

Meanwhile, it was agreed between the parties that the vehicle could be handed back.

 - THE MERCURY 

Related Topics: