Class Action Alleges Chicago, United Road Towing Fail to Provide Adequate Notice to Owners of Towed, Impounded Vehicles

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

The City of Chicago and contractor United Road Towing, Inc. face a proposed class action that alleges the parties do not provide sufficient notice and compensation to those whose vehicles were towed, impounded and sold, scrapped or otherwise destroyed. 

Filed August 24 in Illinois federal court, the 26-page lawsuit further alleges that aside from their failure to provide adequate notice to the owners of vehicles that are towed and impounded, Chicago and United Road Towing, who manages towing operations in the city, also improperly retain the proceeds from the sale of vehicles that remain impounded for more than 18 days. 

Rather than apply the proceeds from the sale of a vehicle to the amounts apparently owed by its owner for, say, traffic tickets or impound fees, Chicago instead keeps the money and requires proposed class members to “pay the full amount of the ticket, fees, and late penalties, and any applicable collection costs and attorneys’ fees,” the suit claims. After United Road towing “purchases” an impounded vehicle from the city, the company will either scrap the car, and any personal possessions therein, or resell it for “far more than it paid,” the lawsuit alleges.

According to the complaint, Section 4-208 of the Illinois Vehicle Code lays out the minimum requirements with which Chicago must comply prior to selling, scrapping or otherwise disposing of an impounded car. A 2005 amendment to Section 4-208 created a process that required the city to provide the registered owner of a vehicle with “multiple notices” prior to discarding an impounded car, the suit says. From the lawsuit:

“First, when a vehicle is towed and impounded, the registered owner of the vehicle must be sent notice of the towing and impoundment of the vehicle the earlier of ten business days after the vehicle was impounded, or two days after the identity of the registered owner is determined. 

Second, an additional notice must be sent ‘by first class mail to the registered owner [of the vehicle].’ 

Third, if the vehicle remains unclaimed for 18 days after the first notice of towing and impoundment was sent to the registered owner, and the registered owner was sent the required ‘additional notice,’ the City may dispose of the impounded vehicle.”  

The lawsuit alleges, however, that Chicago falls short of these notice requirements in that drivers are not properly informed of the fact that their vehicle, and any personal possessions inside, will be sold, scrapped or otherwise destroyed. Unfortunately for proposed class members, Chicago, the suit says, has a policy and practice of declining to send a second notice to registered owners, which the complaint alleges serves to allow for the sale of the cars to United Road Towing and for the defendants to profit. 

Further, the case alleges, Chicago does not consider the age, condition or value of impounded vehicles, and sells the cars to United Road Towing for the scrap value, which is often only “a fraction” of what the vehicles are worth. 

The plaintiff, who moved in 2015 to Chicago from Michigan and was an Uber and Lyft driver, claims in the suit that she changed her address with the U.S. Postal Services to have her mail forwarded to her new residence in the city. Prior to December 2016, the woman received by mail several traffic citations from the city that were sent to the address at which her vehicle was registered and then automatically forwarded to her address in Chicago, the lawsuit says. 

In early December 2016, the plaintiff paid Chicago $800 of the roughly $1,500 she supposedly owed for unpaid traffic citations and related charges, per the suit. The same month, the case says, the plaintiff left the country for approximately nine days, and parked her vehicle legally in the city prior to leaving. Locked in the trunk of the plaintiff’s car, a 2008 Ford Fusion, were “certain personal possessions,” including a laptop, iPad, several articles of clothing and shoes, valued at around $2,200, according to the complaint.

When the plaintiff returned to Chicago, the woman, who received no notice that her car had been immobilized, towed or impounded, discovered her vehicle was no longer parked in front of her residence, the lawsuit claims. After multiple inquires, the plaintiff was informed her car, on which she relied for her job as a rideshare driver, was immobilized and impounded by the city as a result of the unpaid traffic tickets, the case relays.

After another inquiry with the city, the plaintiff was told her car had been sold and she could not get it back, the lawsuit says. Per the suit, the plaintiff was also informed the proceeds from the sale of the car were not applied to the amounts she owed in traffic tickets and fees or impound costs, and that nothing could be done with regard to her personal effects in the trunk: 

“Plaintiff asked the City’s representative whether she could retrieve the personal possession [sic] that were in her vehicle when it was impounded. Plaintiff was told that her electronics and other personal possessions were sold with the vehicle and were not retrievable. 

Plaintiff’s vehicle was sold to URT for the scrap value of the vehicle, and not the actual or market value of the vehicle.” 

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff was evicted from her apartment as a result of losing her income related to her work as a rideshare driver. 

The suit aims to cover anyone who had a car impounded and disposed of by Chicago pursuant to the city’s municipal code. 

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.