Check out some similar questions!

chris811811 · Dec 12, 2007, 01:12 AM

Well my car was repoed from me and on 12/5 I sent a money gram for the balanced owed on 12/7 they received the payment but could not get it.on 12/10 I called to get it then they told me the fuel pump went bad .whos responsible for it. They drove it away from my house and who knows what else they did .please help thank you and this happened in Michigan ;)

simoneaugie · Dec 12, 2007, 01:23 AM

I'm not sure about the laws in Michigan. It sure seems like, if the fuel pump went out after they took the car, it should be their problem. If they took the final payment, you should get your car back, in the condition it was in when they took it.

chris811811 · Dec 12, 2007, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by simoneaugie

I'm not sure about the laws in Michigan. It sure seems like, if the fuel pump went out after they took the car, it should be their problem. If they took the final payment, you should get your car back, in the condition it was in when they took it.

Yes you would think that but gmac said no collection agency said no and the repo guys said no.But it wasntthe last payment I still owe on it but I gave themthe money they needed to get it out.
Do I have a case to sue them or not. Mind you now I got to tow it like 30 miles to get it home ;(

JudyKayTee · Dec 12, 2007, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by chris811811

well my car was repoed from me and on 12/5 i sent a money gram for the balanced owed on 12/7 they received the payment but could not get it.on 12/10 i called to get it then they told me the fuel pump went bad .whos responsable for it. they drove it away from my house and who knows what eles they did .please help thank you and this happened in michigan ;)

I think it's a small claims court matter - the cost of the repair - and whether you can prove it was working when towed. Would also depend on whether they drove the car or not. In theory if they never drove it they didn't damage it; if they partially towed and partially drove, they could have.

I would think it's worth the cost of the small claims court filing.

ScottGem · Dec 12, 2007, 07:15 AM

If the damage was as a result of the repo, then they would be responsible. However a fuel pump is a maintenance item. I can't see anything they might do, either by towing or driving the car that would have caused the fuel pump to go. Maybe a professional mechanic would have a better idea on that so I would suggest talking to one before you consider going to court. But, In my opinion, unless there is a possibility that their transporting the car to their lot could have caused the problem, then they aren't liable.

If there was a scratch or dent, damaged tire, damage to the axle (from a tow) or something like that, then yes they would be responsible. A fuel pump? I doubt it.

chris811811 · Dec 12, 2007, 07:32 AM

OK well the repo man drove the car away. Then he dropped off in a lot .Now from there someone else either drove it tor towed it to a auction lot. Then a few da7ys later wyhen they were goingto release it to me the ladyt said thaqt there mwcanic tolds her trhat it was the pump was bad... ok 1st off it was in the hands of l like 3 or 4 people.2nd y was itr towd to there mecanic without contacting me.

ScottGem · Dec 12, 2007, 07:38 AM

None of that matters. Unless the fuel pump was in an area where it might be damaged by a tow, then the damage would not be considered a result of the tow. The pump could have been on its last legs and had you driven it a few more days it would have failed on you.

The only way this could be their fault is if something they did while it was in their possession caused the damage. With a fuel pump I believe that's unlikely.

Justice Matters · Dec 12, 2007, 05:51 PM

We agree with ScottGem on this issue.

While the law of bailment dictates that the holder of someone else's property is responsible for it while in their care the holder's liability can be limited if it can be shown that the holder acted responsibly and with due care.

The fact that the fuel pump failed while in the holder's care could be an unfortunate coincidence or the direct result of the holder's negligence. It is likely the former and if it is the latter you may not be able to prove it.

Fr_Chuck · Dec 12, 2007, 05:58 PM

Also lets say for a minute they were liable ( which they are not) what do you expect them to say, of course let me write you a check, even if they were liable they are going to deny it, and refuse to pay and see if you will try and make them

0