The state’s century-old towing laws would be overhauled under a proposed bill that aims to better protect consumers and requires towing companies wait longer before selling a vehicle.

The 62-page bill, which will be the subject of a public hearing before the Transportation Committee at 11 a.m. Monday, was crafted after an investigation by The Connecticut Mirror and ProPublica revealed how the state’s towing laws have come to favor tow companies at the expense of mostly low-income residents. 

The investigation showed Connecticut’s current 15-day window to sell a vehicle — if the Department of Motor Vehicles deems the car is valued at less than $1,500 — is one of the shortest in the country. Only two states — Iowa and North Carolina — have shorter time spans.

The proposed legislation would still allow towers to seek permission after 15 days, but they will not be allowed to actually sell a vehicle worth less than $1,500 until 30 days have passed.

“The primary functions of this bill are to ensure that customers have a thorough understanding, as well as a fair timeline, [and] that property owners have some skin in the game now, because they are responsible for contacting towers rather than allowing towers to just park on their properties and wait for violations,” said Rep. Aimee Berger-Girvalo, D-Ridgefield, co-chair of the Transportation Committee.

Berger-Girvalo said the rewriting of state law is about consumer protection. She believes there will be bipartisan support for the measure.

The other chairperson of the committee, Sen. Christine Cohen, D-Guilford, said she expects some pushback from the towing industry but believes the law will ultimately make for fairer towing policies.

“What we have come to recognize is that there are many, many good actors out there providing a valuable service to consumers and police and keeping our roadways safe,” Cohen said. “But we also recognize that there are some bad actors out there, and we want to make sure that our law is tight enough to prevent any of these consumer abuses.”

Republican leadership on the Transportation Committee did not return requests for comment on the bill. But Friday, House GOP leaders asked for a sweeping review of loopholes in state law that allow abuse of the towing system to occur.

Their statement followed further reporting on the towing system from CT Mirror and ProPublica that outlined how a DMV employee was able to, for years, sell towed cars that had been undervalued for thousands in profit. 

Republicans said DMV Commissioner Tony Guerrera, as well as the state’s attorney’s office that decided not to bring charges against the employee following a DMV investigation, should explain what happened to lawmakers. 

“Calling the findings in this latest news report on towed vehicle sales ‘troubling’ would be a massive understatement,” the statement from House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford and Government Oversight Committee ranking member Rep. Devin Carney, R-Old Saybrook said. “State government is meant to serve residents, not exploit them. The fact that someone can brazenly use their taxpayer-funded position for personal gain is nothing short of outrageous.”

After CT Mirror and ProPublica’s investigation published in January, lawmakers were quick to say they’d make changes to the towing law this legislative session. House Bill 7162 is a reflection of those changes and encompasses elements of other bills filed earlier in the legislative process.

The new bill addresses nearly all of the issues raised in CT Mirror and ProPublica’s reporting, including forbidding towing companies from only taking cash payments or only releasing a vehicle if the person has a registration. The proposed bill also aims to curb aggressive property management and towing companies who do “trespass tows.”

Other elements of the bill include:

• Towing companies must make themselves “reasonably available” on weekends to allow people to get their cars back. They would not be allowed to charge storage fees for a day they are not open. The news outlets’ investigation revealed many trespass towers kept cars over the weekend, racking up hundreds of dollars in storage fees that many people couldn’t pay.
• Towing companies must accept other forms to prove vehicle ownership besides a registration, including a title or a bill of sale. The investigation showed that people who purchased cars privately don’t have to register the vehicle immediately and can have trouble getting appointments at the DMV to obtain a registration.
• A vehicle cannot be towed immediately from a private lot such as an apartment building. The tower must put a warning on the windshield that gives the owner 24 hours to move the vehicle. There are exceptions, such as if a vehicle is illegally parked in a handicapped spot or in front of a fire hydrant.
• In an effort to curb mass towing by aggressive property managers, the bill would require the property manager to pay all of the towing costs if the DMV determines the tow to be illegal.
• Companies must get permission from the property owner and take at least four photos of the vehicle before they tow it. If the owner arrives before the vehicle is hooked to the tow truck, the tower must release it at no cost. If the owner arrives before the vehicle is removed from the parking lot, they can pay the towing fees and have the car unhooked there.
• Towing companies cannot require people to pay cash to get their vehicles back. They must take credit cards and can charge a service fee.    
•  Towing companies are not allowed to remove a vehicle from a private lot or garage for having an expired parking permit unless it has been expired for more than 15 days.

If the new 15-day rule had been in place in December of 2021, Melissa Anderson, one of the people interviewed for the initial story, wouldn’t have lost her recently purchased 1998 Dodge Neon.

Anderson’s car was towed from her Hamden apartment complex parking lot because her temporary parking permit had expired just two days before her appointment to register the car at the DMV.

“This is awesome. It’s great news,” Anderson said when informed of the proposed legislation. “I wouldn’t have lost my car, and now maybe others won’t either.”

But Timothy Vibert, president of the Towing & Recovery Professionals of Connecticut, said the broad-ranging bill is a reaction to a problem that only involves a small number of towers who specifically do “trespass towing” — where property managers sign contracts with towing companies to police their parking lots.

Many of those tows didn’t start with parking tickets, accidents or police involvement. Instead, people were towed for breaking parking rules at their apartment complexes. 

“It’s going to turn the industry upside down because this bill just isn’t going to work,” Vibert said, who called parts of the bill “ridiculous.”

“Instead of saying, ‘why don’t we get us to the table, get the DMV to the table and let’s just figure out what it is that needs to get done here,’” they proposed legislation “that I’ve read twice and still can’t figure out what the hell they are talking about,” Vibert added.

Bill of Rights

The proposed bill also mandates that the attorney general’s office develop a “Consumer Bill of Rights” by next October.

The bill would include “a summary of rights for an owner whose car is about to be towed,” the rates that towers can charge for storage fees and mileage, a description of the records car owners are entitled to get from the tower, an explanation that their car could be sold if they don’t claim it and information on how to file a complaint with the DMV.

In addition to posting on both the attorney general’s and the DMV’s websites, all tow companies must prominently display the document at their offices and on their websites in both English and Spanish.

Attorney General William Tong said in a statement the new bill of rights will be an important tool to help consumers.

“When your vehicle gets towed, we need to make sure drivers and car owners are protected with clear consumer protections and enforcement to make sure no one is getting ripped off,” Tong said. 

The bill tasks the DMV commissioner with establishing a better system to handle complaints against tow companies. DMV must develop a complaint form, make it readily available and respond to grievances within 14 days of receiving the complaint.

If a complaint is found valid, the DMV must notify both parties. If a resolution cannot be reached, the agency must hold an administrative hearing. The bill also would increase the maximum fine DMV could levy against a towing company from $1,000 to $5,000.

Who gets the sales’ profits?

Under Connecticut law, towing companies are required to hold on to the proceeds from sales for one year so owners can claim the money. After that, tow companies are supposed to subtract their storage fees and turn over, or “escheat,” any remaining funds to the state.

But in an interview with reporters, DMV Commissioner Tony Guerrera acknowledged he wasn’t aware the money was supposed to be returned to the state and that DMV has never set up a process for this to happen.

The proposed bill tasks the DMV with developing a better system to ensure that towers are returning money to owners if there is any left after their vehicle is sold.

The bill would require towing companies to submit documentation to the DMV of the sale price, any towing and storage fees they incurred and information on the vehicle and its owner within 15 days of selling someone’s vehicle.

After reviewing the sale document, DMV would require the tower to send by certified mail the proceeds of that sale to the owner or known lienholder of the car. 

The tower must provide proof to the DMV that the proceeds have been mailed. If the owner doesn’t claim the money after a year, the funds are to be turned over to the state’s unclaimed property fund, which is overseen by the Office of the State Treasurer.

The state treasurer’s office has said it has no record of ever receiving any money from the sale of a towed car for the unclaimed property fund.

The committee has just over two weeks to pass the bill before its deadline. Berger-Girvalo said the proposed legislation took a long time to draft because it’s thorough.

“It is such a comprehensive issue, and we want to make sure that we’re not doing it as a knee-jerk reaction to concerns,” Berger-Girvalo said. “We want to make sure that we are laying the foundation so the statute will have a life to it, a shelf life, so that it’s actually solving the problem and not just a response to a public reaction.”