Manchester Marketing, Inc.

Review: My vehicle was towed after an accident by Seibert's (by virtue of their contract with the City of Richmond to pick up accident vehicles). About 1 1/2 weeks later, I contracted with a body shop to make the necessary repairs. They sent a tow truck to pick up the vehicle. I learned today from the body shop that the vehicle windows were left down at the Seibert's lot and that the interior of the vehicle is completely soaked (requiring, in the body shop's estimation, about $2000 in repairs). (Damage in the accident was entirely to the front of the car and did not in any way involve car windows or doors.) I called Seibert's and was told that they do not roll up windows of cars they tow, that if I wanted the windows rolled up I should have come to the lot and done it myself. I contend that Seibert's did not take reasonable care of my car while it was in their possession, and the damage that has happened to the interior of my car due to the rain is their responsibility.Desired Settlement: Seibert's should have the interior of the car cleaned and interior damage repaired, or should pay for this work to be done by a third party.

Business

Response:

To

Whom It May Concern:Seibert’s

Towing acknowledges receipt of the complaint from Ms. [redacted], but wishes to

express that not all of her facts are complete or consistent with our

information. The vehicle in question was

towed on June 10, 2016. It was

subsequently released 18 days later on June 28, 2016. At the time of her accident, Ms. [redacted] had

the option of choosing any towing provider she desired. Seibert’s Towing was only called out because

she had no other provider, and we were requested to assist by the Richmond

Police.After

the vehicle was loaded onto our truck it could have been taken to any

destination Ms. [redacted] chose as long as the tow bill was paid at that

time. Since we were not requested to

deliver the vehicle to a specific destination, the vehicle was brought to our

property. It is our company policy not

to enter vehicles or alter them upon arriving at our property. We do not want our employees to enter a

customer’s vehicle that contains personal property and valuables. We do not wish to be accused of removing

anything from the vehicle or tampering with a customer’s property or personal

information. There is also a safety risk

to our employees entering accident vehicles since there is frequently broken

glass, blood or other biohazards in the car’s interior.I

should also add that the complaint lists damages to the vehicle of

approximately $2,000. According to NADA

guidelines, a [redacted] similar to Ms. [redacted] would have a clean

retail value of $2,425. Since her

vehicle had been damaged in an accident, the cost of the repairs she is seeking

would most likely exceed the value of the entire vehicle. Given the condition of the vehicle as well as

the age, it is reasonable to assume that the vehicle would have been considered

a total loss.Ms.

[redacted] could have come to our property to secure her vehicle in the manner she

desired or requested that we roll up the windows for her. In the 18 days it was here, we have no record

of her coming to our property or even calling about the status of her car. We do not believe any further auction is

required on our part.

Review: I am a student with very low income. My car was towed because I am unable to pay several parking tickets. Because I was both unaware that my car had been towed and unable to afford city fees, my car was left at [redacted] from November 11 to present. I researched tow pricing on the business' website and was given incomplete and, therefore, inaccurate information. The price list indicates the following: If your vehicle was towed at the direction of law enforcement (e.g. parking ticket, traffic citation, or driver's arrest) the prices are set by the locality.

[redacted] This led me to believe that the cost of towing was the $300 fee set by the city, as indicated verbatim by the website. As a person living in poverty, I can afford neither the storage fee nor the inevitable employment insecurity caused by lack of transportation. This policy is oblique and misleading, and I intend to follow up with city council in a public forum to question [redacted] unethical practices and the City of Richmond's questionable contract relationship with this company.Desired Settlement: I am not able to pay the $35/day storage fee that was applied after my vehicle was towed. It is exorbitant and will result in auction of my vehicle.

Business

Response:

To whom it may concern:

The vehicle belonging to [redacted] was towed at the direction

of the City of Richmond as a result of outstanding parking tickets. All fees due to the city for parking tickets

must be paid prior to release of the vehicle by [redacted]. According to the process set up by the city,

once the outstanding parking tickets have been paid, the customer must bring documentation

of payment to [redacted] facility where the owner is then responsible for

paying all towing, storage and administrative fees incurred when the vehicle

was impounded.

After a vehicle is in our possession for 72 hours, a [redacted]

report is processed on towed vehicles to determine ownership information. Certified letters are then sent to the

registered owner and any lienholder, detailing the location of the vehicle,

estimated costs for pick up, and potential auction of the vehicle if it is not

picked up by a specific date. In this

case, [redacted] vehicle was not properly registered with [redacted], and the

certified letter was returned to us.

Rather than contacting [redacted] or the City of

Richmond, [redacted] relied on information gathered from viewing websites that

did not address charges for towing related to outstanding parking tickets. Her conclusions as to the final cost for

release of her vehicle were estimates based off information that did not

directly speak to her situation. We have

recommended to the City of Richmond that they add this information to their

website and they are currently drafting language to clarify the outstanding

parking ticket process.

We extended an offer to [redacted] to pick up her vehicle from

[redacted] for a reduced fee prior to Friday, December 6, 2013. [redacted] is not authorized to reduce or

negotiate the amount owed to the City of Richmond for outstanding parking

tickets. As of this writing, we have

had no additional communication with [redacted].

Sincerely:

General Manager

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution was satisfactory to me. The discount was provided on Friday, December 6, when I retrieved my vehicle.

Regards,