County fraud

It's a loooong story, so here is the short version. Son calls 911 after going in ditch unharmed. Dispatch sends a wrecker which proceeds hook onto my son's truck before talking price.  Bill is 250% over reasonable charges. Son sues tow company AND dispatch in civil court on 2 counts of fraud(extra mileage and illegal 911 fee). Wins on default from the tow company.  Because of weird circumstances does not face dispatch in court. Case closed. Dispatch policy has some major problems; allowing fraud, extortion, and derelection of duty. Pursued all avenues to change policy; 911 comission, board of commisioners, state police, attorney general.  All parties have admitted in writing as to validity of concerns.

Dispatch admits to several things:

• 911 fee is illegal 
• Aware companies charge it
• Does not police policy and discipline violators
• Recommends "hook up" before any discussion between consumer and vendor
• Does not alert consumer as to 911 fee.

Questions:

1. Can/should I go after dispatch via a cease and desist order? Will it endanger me to attorney fees?
2. Should I pursue criminal charges against commission with FBI or maybe state AG?
3. Does law of agency apply?

This one has poor odds even for Don Quixote?

Towing abuses sometimes make the news  ( or TV  reality show material ) 

I would think modern informational broadcasts via facebook/twitter as to factual issues might hit home faster.

Never can tell which politicians uncle has the local towing franchise.

Onionman:

Son calls 911 after going in ditch unharmed.

When he called 911, what was he expecting?  Was he looking for medical assistance, police, etc or did he call 911 for a tow truck?

Onionman:

Dispatch sends a wrecker which proceeds hook onto my son's truck before talking price.

That sounds like your son's problem.  Why didn't he discuss with tow truck driver?

Onionman:

illegal 911 fee

Explain this, please.  I'm not aware of any place that has any fees for calling 911.  Are you trying to say that the tow company charged a fee because they were called by 911?  Still don't understand why 911 would be in the wrecker calling business.

Onionman:

Questions:

1.  Cease and desist what? 

2.  Charges for what?

3.  What is law of agency?

Exactly how much money are you talking about that your son was charged?  Also, how old is your son?

Son is 24. First time in accident and wants to report for insurance purposes.  Dispatcher OFFERED tow.  He did not request it but unwittingly accepted it. Tow company showed up and immediately towed out of ditch, son unaware of potential negotiating disadvantage at this point. Driver then approached with a $275 bill.  Tow companies in county charge a $135- 911 fee for being called BY dispatch.  Had my son made the call, there would have been no 911 charge. Tow companies sign a policy agreement with the dispatch to respond within 20 minutes of a 911 call, but have higher rates per a schedule because of this condition.  Defacto, the 911 fee is a double whammy. 

County dispatch has a non-preference towing policy with local companies.  If call comes in, and motorist has no preference as to tow company, the county sends a tow truck via the conditions of the policy on a rotational basis. The goal is to clear accident sites quickly. Tow companies receive 60% of their business this way.

The cease and desist letter would be sent to the county to stop this policy.  The policy fosters bad behavior on the tow companies behalf.  Extortion, in the seizing of the motorist's property before any contract is discussed.

Because it was a non emergency, the government immunity argument collaspes.  Governmental function had ceased once the dispatcher had known that my son was unharmed.  My argument here is that the dispatcher now is acting as an agent for the tow company, and thereby liable for fraud by not disclosing the 911 fee.  This is the law of agency.  Had the dispatcher disclosed the fee, then they would not have been liable for my son receiving the service.  According to county legal advice, the county is NOT allowed to disclose the fee because "it would make county vunerable to lawsuits by tow companies for harming business".

The FBI says it is fishy, but hesitates to pursue because of the diminutive size of the complaint.

Onionman:

Because it was a non emergency, the government immunity argument collaspes

That's where you are wrong.  Government immunity is in full force.  The dispatcher did nothing wrong by asking if your son wanted a tow truck sent out and then sending it when he answered in the affirmative.  By no stretch of the imagination did they become an agent of the tow company by doing so.  "Are you hurt-do you need an ambulance, do you need a tow?" are questions asked every time of every motorist calling in to report an accident.  The policy of contracting with local tow companies and then rotating which is called is a common practice in most cities.  Your son already sued the tow company, that's the only viable beef he had.  The tow fee was between him and the wrecker, period.

What is the governmental function?  Under your argument, my son could have requested an ice cream truck because he was in want of one.  What if some little old lady has a leaky pipe in her house and calls 911.  Can 911 send a plumber?  And if the dispatch is not an agent, how can the tow compamies threaten to sue for disclosure of the fee?

I am not expert on this, but it sounds like your son has done everything he could here.

The tow company, he won.  I think that's probably all he can do.

Good for him for taking them on.

Many, and I many years ago, my girlfriend left my house, and slammed her car into a tree.  She was fine, car not terrible.

But tow truck arrives.

Superman is dishing up $100 in cash to get girlfriends car out of ditch.

I wouldn't be surprised if it more like $300 by now.

There's a certain automobile organization your son might want to think about.  It's less than $100 per year.  They will tow you all year long if you are a member.  Depends how much of a member you want to be, but it's up to 100 miles I think even for the basic.

Glad your son is ok!

Good luck!

Sarcasm gets you nowhere.  The dispatcher is a government employee.  They answer 911 calls.  They don't work for any tow company and are not an agent for any tow company.  If the tow companies are upset that an undisclosed fee they were charging for answering 911 calls has now been disclosed, that still doesn't make a 911 dispatcher their agent by any means whatsoever.  Not now, not ever.

Here is the gist of it:  You(dispatch) can't give me the phone number and thereby costing me $135 more? Instead, as a governmental agency, you are going to tag every call $135 extra for a policy that already covers the costs incurred by tow companies(which they have agreed to) responding to an emergency.  Gemini, you see nothing inherently wrong with that?

Gemini,

Sorry, it was not intended to be sarcastic, but to show examples of the extreme.  The law quite clearly states, that the government is subject to tort lawsuits when:

• employee acts UNreasonably
• it is grossly negligent
• not engaged in a governmental function.

The dispatcher is aware that the motorist is being charged an extra $135 for her making the call.

Onionman:

 You(dispatch) can't give me the phone number

Son couldn't call 411 for information?

Onionman:

a governmental agency, you are going to tag every call $135 extra for a policy that already covers the costs incurred by tow companies(which they have agreed to) responding to an emergency

Son already addressed that in court and won, right? 

If  you sufffer medical emergency, do you assume the ambulance will be free?  Or that 911 will run down their rates and notify you there will be a charge?  Only the very young and  inexperienced would assume so.  No , you're stuck dealing with it after...and you should see THOSE rates!

At any rate, 911 has no obligation to inform.  But the towing company has!  And son made his point.

You're free to complain to the powers that be and maybe the extra charge will be dropped altogether...maybe the company will be forced to inform before towing.  But, as an adult, son should have asked before accepting any service.

Onionman:

employee acts UNreasonably

it is grossly negligent

not engaged in a governmental function

It was not unreasonable nor negligent and you already told US what the government function is in these cases.

Hindsight is 20/20.  Shell-shocked was his explanation. He did win. Money is no longer the issue. A just policy is. I believe I can't get the policy changed because of a crony-esque type of relationship between the parties.  The undersheriff of the county confided to me "that he wished that the county would be sued because it is not right".  

As to the schedule of fees, you are correct, we need to be better informed and more astute to our situtations.  Here is my argument:

• If it is not an emergency(I can even cede to an emergency fee), what is the governmental function?
• Is it extortion for the tow operator to seize your vehicle prior to any discussion?
• If the county says the fee is illegal, knows about it and doesn't suspend the tow companies for charging it, are they guilty of some wrongdoing?

Can anybody answer these questions?

Onionman:

Tow companies sign a policy agreement with the dispatch to respond within 20 minutes of a 911 call, but have higher rates per a schedule because of this condition.

If they called it the "20 minute Rapid Response charge" would you feel any better?  The way I see it is that the only thing that connects 911 is the fact that the dispatcher makes a call on behalf of the motorist.  What would he have been charged for the tow if he had contacted the tow company?

Onionman:

The cease and desist letter would be sent to the county to stop this policy.  The policy fosters bad behavior on the tow companies behalf.  Extortion, in the seizing of the motorist's property before any contract is discussed.

Where is the bad behavior?  How does towing the vehicle equate to seizing motorist's property?  All your son needed to do was say no thanks or find out how much before they towed.

Unless you have unlimited funds to file a lawsuit to compel the county to change the policy, about all you could do is try to get some negative media attention on the policy.

Onionman:

Money is no longer the issue. A just policy is.

This is a political issue, not a legal one. You want a just policy, lobby the county commissioners to change the policy, and organize voters to kick them out of office if they refuse.

Onionman:

If it is not an emergency(I can even cede to an emergency fee), what is the governmental function?

The government has an interest in getting the streets cleared of immoblized vehicles to ensure the smooth flow of traffic. That'll be good enough to keep the county within whatever sovereign immunity it has.

Onionman:

Is it extortion for the tow operator to seize your vehicle prior to any discussion?

It might be, but that beef is with the tow company, not the county, and your son won his suit against the tow company.

Onionman:

If the county says the fee is illegal, knows about it and doesn't suspend the tow companies for charging it, are they guilty of some wrongdoing?

No. It is the tow companies that are engaged in the wrong doing.

I believe suing the county will be a waste of time and money. You want to succeed in changing the policy? Then do what I suggested above and pursue the political route. That may not be cheap either, but it at least is more likely to succeed than a lawsuit will.