Tow.Com.Au Pty Ltd v Avery[2016] QCAT 397

APPEARANCES:

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. [1]
   The applicant company (Tow.Com) filed an application in the Tribunal seeking recovery of towing and storage fees from Mr Avery amounting to $15,013.  In the application, Tow.Com claims the respondent, Mr Avery, owned 3 different vehicles which were all towed and stored by the applicant after police impounded the vehicles pursuant to s 77 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) (the Act).
2. [2]
   Mr Avery did not file a response after being served with the Minor Debt application on 10 March 2016.  Tow.Com applied for decision in default of response.  It appears Tow.Com has obtained numerous default decisions in the Tribunal.  Its entitlement to recover as claimed has never been tested at hearing by a contesting respondent.  However, whilst Mr Avery failed to file a formal response document, he did write a letter to the Tribunal received 4 April 2016.  In the letter, he protested Tow.Com’s entitlement to recover costs of towing and storing vehicles.  The Tribunal deemed the letter to be a response to the claim.  The matter was accordingly set down for hearing.  At hearing however, Mr Avery failed to appear.  The matter proceeded in his absence with the applicant still required to prove its claim.
3. [3]
   Five Tow.Com claims against five different respondents were listed for hearing on the day.  Tow.Com led evidence and made submissions generally applicable to support the basis of claim in respect of all five matters.
4. [4]
   In respect of the subject claim, in Mr Avery’s letter, he admitted he was driving all three vehicles the subject of the claim when intercepted by police.  To the best of his recollection, he says he was suspended from driving on all three occasions.  However, he disputed he was the owner of the third vehicle as alleged.  He said that was owned by his girlfriend.
5. [5]
   He said he had been told by police that the two vehicles he owned would be forfeited to the State and as to the third, the police advised his girlfriend she could pay impoundment fees and towing fees after three months impoundment if she wished to retrieve the vehicle.  His girlfriend “declined” the offer by police, he said.  He understood that his vehicles were immediately forfeited to the State.  He also understood if he did not pay the tow charges, the vehicles would be sold to recover those costs but he would not be held accountable for them.

The Act

6. [6]
   By s 74 of the Act, a police officer may impound a motor vehicle for 90 days if the driver of the motor vehicle is charged with having committed a “type 1” vehicle related offence in relation to the motor vehicle.  A type 1 vehicle related offence is defined in s 69A as offences committed in circumstances involving a speed trial, a race between motor vehicles, or a burnout. 
7. [7]
   There is also provision for impounding and keeping a motor vehicle where less significant offences are involved, called “type 2” offences.^[1]  The provisions are colloquially known as anti-hooning laws.
8. [8]
   The Act authorises a police officer to impound a vehicle to be towed.^[2]  The tow truck driver authorised to tow the vehicle must tow the vehicle to a holding yard.^[3]
9. [9]
   The State “is not liable to pay the costs of removing a motor vehicle impounded … and keeping it for the period for which it is impounded”^[4] unless the driver of the motor vehicle is found not guilty of the offence for which the motor vehicle was impounded, or the proceeding against the driver is withdrawn.^[5]
10. [10]
    In circumstances where the driver of an impounded vehicle is found guilty of the offence for which the vehicle was impounded, and is an adult, the driver is liable to pay “the costs of removing or keeping the motor vehicle”.^[6]
11. [11]
    If the owner of the vehicle is given an impoundment notice during the period of impoundment, the owner (who may not be the driver who commits the offence) is liable to pay the costs of keeping the motor vehicle for each day after the period of impoundment ends, whether or not the driver is found guilty of the offence for which the vehicle is impounded.^[7] Similarly, if the notice is given after the period of impoundment ends, the owner is responsible to pay the costs of keeping the vehicle after expiry of two business days following the giving of the notice.
12. [12]
    If the owner of the vehicle fails to recover the vehicle within 30 days after the period of impoundment ends, the Commissioner of Police may sell it.^[8]  The proceeds of sale go to the expenses of sale and payment of the costs of removing and keeping the motor vehicle.^[9]
13. [13]
    In respect of what the costs of removing or keeping an impounded vehicle are, or how they are to be calculated, the Act is unfortunately silent.

Liquidated Demand

14. [14]
    The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims to recover a debt or liquidated demand of money.  In this matter the basis of claim is statutory, rather than agreement between parties.  As stated however, the Act is silent as to scale.
15. [15]
    In Spain v Union Steamship, a claim for “reasonable expenses” rather than a sum certain was accepted as being recoverable as a liquidated demand.  “The objection is untenable …. Whenever the amount to which the plaintiff is entitled can be ascertained by calculation or fixed by any scale of charges or other positive data, it is … liquidated.”^[10]  Isaacs and Rich JJ concluded there that the “… appeal should be allowed, simply on the ground that the expenses of the formal enquiry were recoverable, and that upon the evidence the learned Judge should have proceeded to award to the plaintiff what he found was a reasonable sum for those expenses.”
16. [16]
    In Alexander v Ajax Insurance Co Ltd,^[11] Scholl J examined the history of liquidated demands and noted such extended to claims in debt upon simple contracts, under statute, and whenever a demand is for a sum certain or is capable of being readily reduced to a certainty.^[12]
17. [17]
    Indeed, claims in quantum meruit seeking fair recompense for work done are capable of constituting liquidated demands as long as the claim can be ascertained by calculation referencing decided fact or data.^[13]  A liquidated demand also extends to “… those cases formerly covered by the quantum meruit or quantum valebat counts, notwithstanding that the only agreement implied between the parties in such cases was for payment at a "reasonable" rate.”^[14]             
18. [18]
    Here, the claim by Tow.Com is capable of assessment by multiplication of a daily scale of charge for keeping impounded vehicles and an initial single journey towing charge.  The appropriate scale must be a matter for the Tribunal’s determination; however, the claim is nevertheless for a liquidated demand of money and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

Costs of Removing and Keeping

19. [19]
    At hearing, the representatives for Tow.Com informed the Tribunal that they apply different scales of charges, depending on the identity of the party responsible for payment. 
20. [20]
    If the driver of the motor vehicle is responsible for their charges, they claim against the driver (or owner as relevant):

• Towing fee    $314.57
• Keeping fee (daily charge)  $ 25.78
• Administration fee   $ 50.54

21. [21]
    If the State (the police) are responsible for their charges, they claim against the State:

• Towing fee    $103.14
• Keeping fee (daily charge)  $  5.16
• Administration fee   $  21.66

22. [22]
    There is no suggestion that the services rendered are different where the debtor is the driver rather than the State.  The only explanation offered at hearing was that a more favourable rate is given to police.  Indeed, the Tribunal was advised the towing rate for police is less that that paid by Tow.Com to the independent towing contractors engaged throughout the State to perform the actual towing services.  The tow truck operators used are paid $150 for a “police tow.”  It appears Tow.Com is not a hands on towing operator, but instead administers towing operations performed by independent towing contractors.
23. [23]
    There was no explanation as to how either scale of charges was derived other than Tow.Com and the police agreed to the rates.  There is no statutory basis for such consensus constituting the costs concerned.  There is certainly no element of consensus as to rate of charge between drivers or owners of an impounded vehicle and Tow.Com.
24. [24]
    There are a number of issues to be considered.  Is it appropriate that there are different scales of charges which depend entirely on the identity of the party against whom the charges are claimed?  Are the charges claimed reasonable?  If not, what is an appropriate charge?

Different Scales of Charges

25. [25]
    The Tribunal was informed about the different scales of charges set out above at hearing.   Tow.Com was given the opportunity to file additional evidence to substantiate the claimed rates of charge, amongst other things, and did file additional material.  That additional material however failed to explain the basis of rates of charge or adequately compare similar cost regimes.  Indeed, the further evidence simply confused things further.  Invoices in respect of Mr Avery’s three vehicle impoundments were handed up on the second day of hearing which result in the total claimed in respect of the three vehicles amounting to $13,593.54, and listed such things as towing fees at $305 and $309.35, freight charges of $150 and $116 and “other fees” of $101.43 for two vehicles and on the third, $645.39.
26. [26]
    A statutory declaration (presumably sworn 19 August 2016, though the month of attestation is omitted) attaching a document entitled “Fees Schedule” was then subsequently filed on behalf of Tow.Com.  The document purports to set out one set of charges that Tow.Com apply to all impoundment tows based on the owner/driver rate without mention of a police rate.  A footnote states the rates apply to “Driver, Owner and Queensland Police Service (on all unpaid liability).”  That is very much contrary to the clear evidence given under oath at hearing by the representatives for Tow.Com that there are different rates charged to police than to drivers and owners.  I prefer the evidence given under oath at hearing that there are two separate charges applied by Tow.Com dependent on payee identity.  I reject any claim to the contrary suggested by the attachment to the undated statutory declaration.
27. [27]
    It seems contrary to the clear plain meaning of the legislation that it was intended that different scales of charges should apply for towing and storing an impounded vehicle depending on the identity of the party ultimately held responsible for payment.
28. [28]
    “I think it is a fundamental rule of construction that any document should be construed as far as possible so as to give the same meaning to the same words wherever those words occur in that document, and that that applies especially to an Act of Parliament, and with especial force to words contained in the same section of an Act.  There ought to be very strong reasons present before the Court holds that words in one part of a section have a different meaning from the same words appearing in another part of the same section.”^[15]
29. [29]
    Section 111(1) and (2) of the Act make reference to the liability to pay costs of removing a motor vehicle impounded (or immobilised) and keeping it.  Save for the addition of the words “under this chapter” in s 111(1), the same phrasing is utilised.  Section 111(1) deals with circumstances where the State is not liable to pay, and s 111(2) where it is. 
30. [30]
    Section 116(2A) states “if the owner of the motor vehicle is liable to pay the costs of removing the motor vehicle to, and keeping it at, a place… on payment of the costs…” the owner is entitled to recover the vehicle.   Section 116(3) then proceeds to deal with the alternative liability situation: “If, under s 111(2), the State is liable to pay the costs of removing the motor vehicle to, and keeping it at, the holding yard or place…” the owner is entitled to recover the motor vehicle “… whether or not the State has paid the costs.”
31. [31]
    The general intention of the impoundment provisions seem clear to me. A driver may be charged with a prescribed offence, pursuant to which his or her vehicle is impounded pending the outcome of the charges.  If the driver is found guilty of the offence, his or her car is impounded and the driver is responsible for the costs of towing and keeping the vehicle.  However, if the driver is found not guilty of the offence, or the offence is withdrawn, the State becomes responsible for those charges.  In my opinion, the legislation envisaged only one scale of costs and fees applying, and certainly not different charges depending on who was responsible for them.
32. [32]
    The scheme of the provisions, to my mind, was intended to create a balance controlling potential excesses in the use of the very powerful impoundment powers granted police.  The balancing exercise offsets what would otherwise be a marked infringement on rights of enjoyment of private property with some degree of consequence to police if impoundment powers were inappropriately utilised.  That balance is lost where the police responsibility for costs of impoundment is reduced to something in the order of one fifth that applying to a driver or owner through different scales of charges.
33. [33]
    I conclude what was intended was payment by either the driver, owner or State of one scale of reasonable costs of towing and storage depending not on the identity of the party responsible for payment, but on the physical circumstances of tow and storage at various holding yards.

Reasonable Costs

34. [34]
    What are the reasonable costs of towing and storage?  There is no agreed rate between driver or owner and Tow.Com.  The rates agreed between Tow.Com and police have no statutory basis, though a document was filed on the second day of hearing, on Queensland Police letterhead dated 24 June 2014, stating that City Towing and Impoundment Pty Ltd was authorised to charge certain rates for towing and storage.  It is not clear who City Towing and Impoundment Pty Ltd is, though presumably Tow.Com in a former guise.  The letter is of no assistance in any case. 
35. [35]
    The cost of towing charged to police ($103.14) is evidently less than the actual costs of towing charged by the working tow truck driver invoicing Tow.Com for the work ($150).  That was stated at hearing.  Just what work was done to earn that charge was not explained however.
36. [36]
    An invoice from a company, Nationwide Towing and Transport, dated 2 December 2015, was also handed up.  The invoice is unrelated to any of Mr Avery’s vehicles.  The invoice bills Tow.Com $99 (including GST) for one night’s storage at Molendinar for a vehicle.  The invoice is apparently intended to indicate the reasonableness of Tow.Com charges claimed against drivers and owners.  The charge was for one night’s storage.  Given under s 32 of the Tow Truck Regulation 2009 (Qld) combined with Schedule 3 to the Regulation, a standard tow currently allows a maximum charge for a standard tow of $325.75 but that fee must also include three days free storage, without knowing the circumstances of the Nationwide charge, the information is of little assistance.
37. [37]
    Tow.Com was unable to provide any additional evidence to support the reasonableness of its charges.  Evidence of long term parking charges at airports and long term parking charges in the CBD and suburban areas come readily to mind as being of possible assistance, but that has not been forthcoming.  Motoring organisations such as RACQ provide storage facilities too.  Evidence of the rates charged by that major body might well have been supplied too, but was not. 
38. [38]
    Despite the dearth of evidence as to reasonableness of charge however, the Tribunal must do the best it can on the material available and reach a decision. 
39. [39]
    Given the evidence at hearing was that the individual tow truck operators involved in the actual pick up of impounded vehicles are paid $150 for the job, and the police rate charged is $103.14, I conclude the police rate for towing is less than reasonable.
40. [40]
    By s 32(1) of the Tow Truck Regulation 2009 (Qld), the charge for a standard tow must not exceed $325.75, but includes in that charge up to 72 hours storage in a holding yard and up to one hour working at the pickup point.  In circumstances where the towing work involves towing an impounded vehicle, I conclude the work involved is a standard tow, which, however, in my opinion, involves less work at pickup than at the scene of an accident.  There is police supervision on site, the vehicles would generally be mobile and it is not necessarily an accident scene, which would complicate matters, sometimes no doubt distressingly so.  A towing charge of 80% of the maximum permitted standard tow seems reasonable in the circumstances, which is $260.60.  Three days storage should be included in that charge however, based on a standard tow.
41. [41]
    There is no evidence before me to indicate the police rates of charge, at least in so far as they concern storage, are unreasonably low. 
42. [42]
    But, given the unreasonableness of the police towing charge, one might also suspect an unreasonably low storage charge has been agreed upon.  Conversely, the driver and owner storage rate of charge seems disproportionate to the storage work and facilities involved, probably involving as it does open area storage at the vacant backlots of various tow truck holding yards in different locales throughout the State.  Over a 90-day impoundment, the costs charged by Tow.Com amount to $2,320.20.  That seems to me to be more akin to CBD daily parking charges available.  One doubts “keeping” at a tow holding yard would involve under cover storage.  Indeed, one might suspect that the agreed driver and owner rate contains a loading permitting Tow.Com to recover losses that might be incurred where the much lower police rate of charge applies.  Generally, I am of the view the storage rate claimed against drivers and owners is excessive and unreasonable.  In the circumstances, I conclude neither police nor driver/owner rates claimed by Tow.Com are reasonable and a reasonable charge for storing impounded vehicles might be fixed at approximately double the police rate, namely $10 per day.
43. [43]
    A general administrative charge seems appropriate given the potential ongoing involvement of police or driver or owner or all or some of them following impoundment.  Furthermore, sale of an impounded vehicle may be necessary.   That sale would generally occur only where a driver or owner was responsible for costs of storage and keeping the vehicle.  Accordingly, I conclude if there is no sale involved, the lower administration charge of $21.66 agreed to be paid by police is a reasonable cost to be paid by drivers and owners.  However, where sale of the vehicle is involved, the higher administration fee of $50.54 seems reasonable.
44. [44]
    In summary therefore, the reasonable costs of towing able to be claimed against a driver is 80% of the maximum permitted, $260.60.  The towing charge should include three days storage costs.  The reasonable costs of daily storage thereafter should be $10 per day.  An administration fee is reasonably to be claimed: $21.66 where no sale of vehicle is involved; $50.54 where sale occurs.

Vehicle 1

45. [45]
    The claim against Mr Avery involves three separate impoundments.  The first is in respect of a 2000 blue Ford Falcon motor vehicle registration number 294FIM.  The original claim is for towing and storage fees of $8,379.  Subsequently and confusingly, an invoice for $9,024.39 was tendered.  That invoice claims administration fees of $49, towing fee of $305, storage fees of $8,925, and other fees of $645.39, with a credit of $900 for sale of the car.   
46. [46]
    In the undated statutory declaration previously mentioned, reference is made to the vehicle being impounded for a type 2 offence.  In both the initial application and the undated statutory declaration, it is claimed Mr Avery’s “forfeiture under the (Act) expired” on 28 October 2015.  The period of claim for storage is 385 days.  What Tow.Com claims for storage costs against him as driver for the period of impounding, and what claim is made against him for storage as an owner is unexplained.
47. [47]
    By s 112 of the Act, the driver pays for costs of storage during the term of impoundment.  By s 114(2) of the Act, if the owner was the driver of the vehicle when it was impounded, and before the period of impounding ends, the owner was given an impounding notice, the owner is liable to pay the costs of keeping the motor vehicle for each day after the period of impounding ends.
48. [48]
    Given the periods of impounding increase as further offences are committed, and the later second vehicle offence apparently resulted in a 90-day impoundment, the impounding for the first vehicle cannot have been for the entire period claimed of 385 days. 
49. [49]
    I conclude the period of impounding in respect of the first vehicle must have been 7 days.  That is the scheme of the Act.
50. [50]
    Here, all three impoundment offences are type 2 offences evidently.  If a person commits an initial type 2 offence, there is no impounding, merely appearance before a Magistrates Court.  By s 74C of the Act, if a second type 2 offence is committed, a first period of impoundment is imposed of 7 days.  If the driver commits a third type 2 offence the period of impoundment becomes 90 days.  After that, by ss 74E and 74F, if the driver is found guilty of a fourth or subsequent type 2 offence, the vehicle is forfeited to the State.  Costs of impoundment accrue until conviction and the vehicle is sold. 
51. [51]
    The offence with respect to the second vehicle on 24 June 2015 resulted in 90 days impoundment.  That is what Tow.Com claim for storage costs in any case.  Mr Avery’s offence on 17 December 2015 appears to have been his fourth type 2 offence where the vehicle was forfeited to the State upon conviction (the claim here is for 62 days only prior to sale). 
52. [52]
    Given the offence with respect to the blue Ford Falcon appears to have resulted in an impoundment period of only 7 days, it is difficult to understand how the storage charges have been allowed to climb to over $8,000 regardless that Mr Avery was unable to be contacted as claimed.
53. [53]
    The vehicle was apparently sold at auction on 17 November 2015 for $900.  From that sum, a selling fee of $202.85 was withheld, leaving an amount recovered by Tow.Com of $697.15, which they used to offset their charges.

Penal Provision

54. [54]
    Mr Avery admits he was the owner and driver of vehicle one and he admits an offence occurred and the vehicle was impounded.  But as stated, Tow.Com leads no evidence, or no adequate evidence, as to the period of actual impounding.  Nor, significantly, is there any evidence at all that Mr Avery was personally given an impounding notice which states the period of impounding and how the owner of the vehicle might recover the vehicle^[16] as required by s 114 of the Act.  That notice would appear to be an essential advisory in the circumstances. 
55. [55]
    Tow.Com say it is hard for them to source evidence.   They generally rely on hearsay evidence from unidentified police sources instead.  They submit that should be sufficient.
56. [56]
    Impoundment of a motor vehicle, followed by liability for the costs of towing and keeping the impounded vehicle consequent on the driver being found guilty of committing the prescribed offence, are clearly penal in nature.  In this matter, the claim against Mr Avery is to recover over $15,000 following three impoundments.  There is no evidence about the penalties imposed by the Magistrates Courts in respect of the offences concerned.  The costs of impounding might potentially vastly exceed that of the monetary penalties imposed in the Magistrates Courts.
57. [57]
    By s 72 of the Act, impounding is in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed on a person for a prescribed type 1 or 2 offence.  Eventual forfeiture of a motor vehicle is one aspect of the penalty regime created.  Costs associated with impounding payable by a driver and an owner are surely another part of the same penalty regime.  I conclude the provisions concerned here are clearly penal provisions.
58. [58]
    The traditional general rule is that penal provisions should receive a strict construction.  In modern times, in determining the meaning of a penal provision the ordinary rules of construction apply, but if the language of the statute remains ambiguous or doubtful, the ambiguity or doubt may be resolved in favour of the subject.^[17] 
59. [59]
    Further however, courts have remained careful not to assume jurisdiction under a penal statute unless it is clearly permitted by its provisions.^[18]
60. [60]
    I conclude the civil liability provisions with respect to towing and storage charges under the Act, being penal, are to be strictly construed and further the Tribunal should not recognise civil liability arising for towing and storage charges unless all threshold liability issues, such as conviction, period of impounding and personal service of an impounding notice, are clearly proven. 
61. [61]
    With respect to vehicle one, this means the applicant, Tow.Com must prove an impounding notice was given personally to Mr Avery as required by s 114 of the Act before Tow.Com is entitled to claim storage fees from him as owner of the vehicle following expiry of a period of impoundment.  Without that, any claim against him must be limited to the period of impoundment only.  There is no evidence that an impounding notice was served on Mr Avery.  Therefore, Tow.Com cannot recover any costs of storage after expiry of the period of impoundment from him.
62. [62]
    As discussed, the impoundment period for vehicle one appears to be limited to 7 days only.  It is up to Tow.Com to prove otherwise and they have failed to do that. 
63. [63]
    Accordingly, Tow.Com may recover a reasonable towing charge which is $260.60; the towing charge includes three days storage and therefore the balance costs of storage for the 7 days of impoundment is four days at the rate of $10 per day, which amounts to $40; given the vehicle was sold, Tow.Com is entitled to an administration fee of $50.54.  Those costs add up to $351.14.  Tow.Com has recovered $697.15 in selling the vehicle.  Tow.Com must account to Mr Avery for the difference of $347.26.

Vehicle 2

64. [64]
    The second claim concerns Mr Avery driving a grey 1999 Commodore Wagon, apparently with false registration plates.  It is alleged he was intercepted by police on 24 Jun 2015, and again charged with a type 2 offence and the vehicle impounded.  The towing and storage fees claimed by Tow.Com in its application is $4,308.  Again, a confusing invoice for $1,980.43 was tendered.  In that invoice, the claim was broken down to administration fees of $49, towing fee of $305, storage fees of only $1,625, a freight fee of $150 and other fees of $101.43, with a credit of $250 for sale of the car. 
65. [65]
    The impoundment period apparently expired on 25 September 2015, which makes the impoundment period 90 days, which appears to accord with the provisions of the Act for a third offence. 
66. [66]
    Tow.Com is entitled to the towing fee of $260.60 and storage costs of $10 per day for 90 days (less 3 included in the tow charge) which amounts to $870.  There was a sale of the motor vehicle concerned and therefore an administration charge of $50.54 is payable.  The total of these charges is $1,181.14. 
67. [67]
    Again, there is no evidence that Mr Avery was personally given an impounding notice as required by s 114 and therefore there can be no claim for costs of storing the vehicle after the period of impounding ended. 
68. [68]
    The motor vehicle was sold at auction on 30 November 2015 for $250 with costs of sale of $101.43, which means Tow.Com recovered $148.57 of the money it is entitled to. Taking that payment into account, the balance owed is $1,032.57.

Vehicle 3

69. [69]
    With respect to the third vehicle, a 1997 grey Ford Falcon registration number 350 FTM, the applicant claims Mr Avery was driving the vehicle on 17 December 2015 when intercepted by police, the vehicle impounded and towed and stored by the applicant and Mr Avery charged with another type 2 offence.  The sum of $2,326 is claimed.
70. [70]
    Here, an invoice for $1,263.72 was tendered.  In that invoice, the claim was broken down to administration fees of $49.70, towing fee of $309.35, storage fees of $862.24, freight fee of $116 and other fees of $101.43, with a credit of $175 for sale of the car. 
71. [71]
    In respect of this vehicle, as with the preceding two, Mr Avery admits driving the vehicle and being charged with an offence and in result being suspended from driving, but denies ownership of this third vehicle.
72. [72]
    In practical terms, the ownership issue is of no great consequence given, again, the applicant fails to prove an impounding notice was personally given to Mr Avery as owner.
73. [73]
    This appears to be the fourth type 2 offence involving Mr Avery and, as such, the impoundment period was until the end of proceedings for all charges when the vehicle would be forfeit to the State and sold.  According to the applicant, the period of impounding ended on 17 February 2016, which amounts to 62 days.
74. [74]
    Tow.Com is entitled to a towing fee of $260.60.  There are storage costs of $10 per day for 59 days (3 days included in the towing charge) which amounts to $590.  The vehicle was sold at auction and accordingly an administration fee of $50.54 may be recovered.   The total of these charges is $901.14.
75. [75]
    The vehicle was sold for $175.  There were costs of sale of $101.43.  The balance of $73.57 has been retained by Tow.Com.  Mr Avery therefore owes an amount of $827.57 in respect of the third vehicle.

Conclusion

76. [76]
    In respect of vehicles two and three, Tow.Com is owed $1,860.14.  From that, the amount of $347.26 must be subtracted which leaves Mr Avery owing Tow.Com $1,512.88.
77. [77]
    Given the amount recovered, Tow.Com is entitled to recover a filing fee of $112.50, bailiff service fee of $45.45, and the Citec internet filing fee of $15.09.
78. [78]
    The appropriate order is that Mr Avery pay Tow.Com the sum of $1,512.88 for claim plus costs of $173.04.