In order to prevent an offense and draw up a protocol on an administrative offense, the authorized person has the right to apply such a measure to ensure production as the detention of a vehicle. This happens if it is impossible to draw it up on the spot of detecting an administrative offense, ensuring timely and correct consideration of the case and execution of the resolution. In case of violations of the rules of operation, use of the vehicle, and its management, the detention of the vehicle is applied. This is due to placement in the nearest specially designated protected place (in a specialized parking lot), and storage there until the cause of detention is eliminated.
The costs of moving and storing a detained vehicle, with the exception of vehicles, are reimbursed by the person who committed the offense. The cost of storing a detained vehicle is charged for each full hour of its stay in a specialized parking lot from the moment the detained vehicle is placed in a specialized parking lot until it is returned to the owner. Payment for the cost of moving and storing a detained vehicle is carried out within the time limits and at the rates established by the authorized executive authority. The prices of the parking lot owner, which should be involved in payment, should also be taken into account. Thus, attention should also be paid to the fact that Outback Insurance Company was notified by the parking lot owner and by the police. However, it should be noted that the company “took no action to take possession of the vehicle”.
Consequently, they were fully aware of the situation and had to take appropriate measures. The fee for the car storage services should be charged to the owner of the vehicle, who has not fulfilled their obligation to receive the car from the special parking lot, while the storage services have been provided in full. From the analysis of the above legal norms, it follows that legally significant circumstances for the correct resolution of this dispute are determining the number of reimbursable expenses incurred by a person in connection with the storage of a car. However, it should be noted that Outback Insurance Company has the right to demand a revision of the cost of payment in accordance with the median market value. This is necessary in order to assess the correctness of the cost of compensation that Ron Dexter requires.
In addition, it should be taken into account the fact that the car was seized on February 14, and the company received notification only on May 8. This fact is essential in order to understand what rights Outback Insurance Company could lose due to untimely notification. It is important to understand that if the owner applies to a special parking lot for the car’s return on the first day of storage, they will not have to pay for the car’s storage since payment is made for a full day of hold. Thus, the company has the right to request a revision of the cost of storage, which is required by Ron Dexter. The correct solution here is to demand payment from the date of receipt of the notification by the police. The conclusion from this case may be the fact that the Outback Insurance Company must pay the cost of storing the vehicle. However, the requested $15,510 is not a valid and fair amount, since several factors listed above must be taken into account.