Racial claims emerge in tow-truck row
1 July 2009, 10:14
A court battle between six insurance and brokerage companies and a group of black tow-truck operators took a racial turn on Tuesday when operators embarked on a protest outside the court displaying posters bearing racial slogans such as "Black residents pay cartel for white dominance".
The drama unfolded at the Pretoria High Court where the insurance companies and brokerage companies locked horns with a Soshanguve towing service regarding the latter's towing away from accident scenes of vehicles insured by the six applicant companies.
Auto and General, Budget Insurance Brokers, Dial Direct Insurance, First for Women Insurance, Unity Insurance and Telesure Group Services, which administer short-term policies, asked for an urgent interdict against UDN Towing Service.
The applicants wanted the court to interdict UDN from towing, removing, storing or in any way dealing with vehicles insured or administered by the applicants.
The applicants told Judge Moses Mavundla that the respondent's tow trucks simply arrive on accident scenes and "manipulate" the situation in order to gain permission to tow the accident vehicles away.
UDN, the court was told, then charged exorbitant prices to release these vehicles or simply refused to release them if their demands were not met. Mervin Rip SC, appearing on behalf of the insurers, said they had to approach the court on numerous occasions, and at great cost, in the past for an order compelling UDN to release vehicles. He added that it was the public who in the end suffered most.
Rip said the methods UDN operators followed in convincing people to allow them to tow their vehicles from accident scenes were in all cases almost identical. They took advantage of the situation and they convinced people who were already traumatised to allow them to remove the vehicle, or they pretended they had the necessary authorisation from the insurer to do so, said Rip.
He referred to the racial slogans sported by the operators at court.
He said that ironically members of the public who claimed they were ripped off by the tow-truck operators and who previously headed to court were all black vehicle owners.
The insurers said the reason why they wanted to make sure that only approved operators towed their insured vehicles was because the tow-truck industry was poorly regulated and unscrupulous operators were able to muscle their way on to the scene. It is claimed that they then hold insurers to ransom by levying outlandish fees for services that they render.
UDN denied any wrongdoing. Ulyses Ndinisa, a member of the towing operation, said they ran a reputable business and had agreements with several major insurance companies to tow and store vehicles.
"I offer a service to a member of the public involved in an accident, and if he agrees that I tow his vehicle, I tow it after being authorised to do so."
Ndinisa said if a person was involved in an accident, for instance outside a squatter camp in the middle of the night, they could not wait for tow-truck operators to arrive from the predominantly white suburbs. He said UDN towed vehicles every day and it did not purposefully target the clients of the applicant.
The judge said that in his opinion they should try and resolve their differences. The court, he said, did not always have the remedy to resolve such problems. Judge Mavundla added that in his opinion the stake holders - the insurance companies and the tow truck operators - should meet and try to regulate the business and iron out all the problems.
He pointed out that this industry was not regulated by government and that the stakeholders should negotiate the way forward as everyone had an important role to play.
The parties settled the matter and UDN undertook not to tow away a vehicle insured by the applicants without their prior consent. If they came into possession of such a vehicle, they would take it to a storage place determined by a body regulating the applicants. They would also release vehicles at an agreed rate.
The drama unfolded at the Pretoria High Court where the insurance companies and brokerage companies locked horns with a Soshanguve towing service regarding the latter's towing away from accident scenes of vehicles insured by the six applicant companies.
Auto and General, Budget Insurance Brokers, Dial Direct Insurance, First for Women Insurance, Unity Insurance and Telesure Group Services, which administer short-term policies, asked for an urgent interdict against UDN Towing Service.
The applicants wanted the court to interdict UDN from towing, removing, storing or in any way dealing with vehicles insured or administered by the applicants.
The applicants told Judge Moses Mavundla that the respondent's tow trucks simply arrive on accident scenes and "manipulate" the situation in order to gain permission to tow the accident vehicles away.
UDN, the court was told, then charged exorbitant prices to release these vehicles or simply refused to release them if their demands were not met. Mervin Rip SC, appearing on behalf of the insurers, said they had to approach the court on numerous occasions, and at great cost, in the past for an order compelling UDN to release vehicles. He added that it was the public who in the end suffered most.
Rip said the methods UDN operators followed in convincing people to allow them to tow their vehicles from accident scenes were in all cases almost identical. They took advantage of the situation and they convinced people who were already traumatised to allow them to remove the vehicle, or they pretended they had the necessary authorisation from the insurer to do so, said Rip.
He referred to the racial slogans sported by the operators at court.
He said that ironically members of the public who claimed they were ripped off by the tow-truck operators and who previously headed to court were all black vehicle owners.
The insurers said the reason why they wanted to make sure that only approved operators towed their insured vehicles was because the tow-truck industry was poorly regulated and unscrupulous operators were able to muscle their way on to the scene. It is claimed that they then hold insurers to ransom by levying outlandish fees for services that they render.
UDN denied any wrongdoing. Ulyses Ndinisa, a member of the towing operation, said they ran a reputable business and had agreements with several major insurance companies to tow and store vehicles.
"I offer a service to a member of the public involved in an accident, and if he agrees that I tow his vehicle, I tow it after being authorised to do so."
Ndinisa said if a person was involved in an accident, for instance outside a squatter camp in the middle of the night, they could not wait for tow-truck operators to arrive from the predominantly white suburbs. He said UDN towed vehicles every day and it did not purposefully target the clients of the applicant.
The judge said that in his opinion they should try and resolve their differences. The court, he said, did not always have the remedy to resolve such problems. Judge Mavundla added that in his opinion the stake holders - the insurance companies and the tow truck operators - should meet and try to regulate the business and iron out all the problems.
He pointed out that this industry was not regulated by government and that the stakeholders should negotiate the way forward as everyone had an important role to play.
The parties settled the matter and UDN undertook not to tow away a vehicle insured by the applicants without their prior consent. If they came into possession of such a vehicle, they would take it to a storage place determined by a body regulating the applicants. They would also release vehicles at an agreed rate.
- This article was originally published on page 1 of The Pretoria News on July 01, 2009
Johannesburg
