Bureau of Automotive Repair unveils draft rules for storage, towing fees; stakeholders warn of unintended effects

The Bureau of Automotive Repair on Dec. 12 held a regulatory workshop to review a draft regulation package implementing Assembly Bill 12 63 and clarifying how automotive repair dealers (ARDs) report, post and charge storage and towing fees. Patrick DeRae, chief of the Bureau of Automotive Repair, opened the session and said the draft aims to “codify BAR’s guidance to the automotive repair industry regarding storage fees” and bring Business and Professions, Civil and Vehicle Code provisions into a single rule set.

The draft would require ARDs that charge storage fees resulting from an accident or theft recovery to report their maximum daily storage rate to BAR as part of registration or renewal, post that maximum rate at their place of business, make itemized invoices available when storage is charged, accept multiple payment methods, and provide consumers and third-party payers access to stored vehicles. The package would also create a public “search tool” that reports average and median daily storage rates for a locale based on reported maximums, with a tiered radius (5 miles, expand to 10 miles if fewer than 20 reporters, then county-wide if necessary) to compute the averages. Matthew Gibson, program manager in BAR’s executive office, said the search tool “shall not be used to establish or otherwise influence actual storage rates,” but would provide information to consumers, insurers and shops.

Why it matters: storage and towing fees are a common source of disputes among vehicle owners, repair businesses and insurers. The draft tries to balance transparency, consumer protections and BAR’s enforcement role, but commenters warned the proposal could produce unintended market effects or enforcement gaps. The workshop was BAR’s third outreach event; BAR and participants signaled the draft will be revised before any formal rulemaking and a public comment period before the Office of Administrative Law.

Key provisions and stakeholder concerns

Reporting and the search tool: BAR’s draft would require ARDs who charge storage following collisions or theft recovery to report the maximum daily storage rate they may charge; BAR would use those reported maxima to compute median and average rates by locale. Several shop representatives and industry groups urged BAR to keep the search data internal, arguing a public tool could be used by insurers to cap payments or prompt shops to adjust posted maxima upward, producing a feedback loop. Jack Mulledinoff of the California Auto Body Association said, “The devil’s in the details,” and warned a public listing could encourage shops to raise rates to the apparent market maximum. By contrast, Erica Williams of CSA Insurance Group said public posting increases consumer transparency and that ARDs are already required to post rates in shop locations, so making a searchable tool public would help consumers compare options.

Comparable vs. reasonable: The regulations would require that storage fees “be comparable to other ARDs in the same locale” (citing Vehicle Code section 22524.5). The draft also includes a provision that higher-than-comparable fees remain permissible if “otherwise determined to be reasonable.” Commenters pressed BAR to clarify how it will judge reasonableness and comparability; BAR staff said case-by-case review—triggered by complaints—would drive enforcement, and that the search tool is intended as informational, not a price cap.

Timing after teardown and “three business days”: The draft requires that an ARD notify customers, on the teardown estimate, of the number of days a customer has to authorize repairs or remove the vehicle before storage accrues; BAR’s draft specifies a minimum of three business days on that notice. Several collision and repair shop owners said a firm three-day minimum could force shops to hold vehicles in production stalls or racks, creating significant operational and financial burdens. Others—particularly insurers—urged alignment with Department of Insurance inspection timelines (3–6 days) to avoid conflicts.

When different storage rules apply (repair vs. non-repair) and towing fees: The draft distinguishes storage tied to active repairs (or a completed teardown) from storage where an ARD “knows they cannot or will not repair the vehicle.” For the latter, BAR proposes that towing and storage fees be charged “in accordance with Vehicle Code section 22524.5,” a provision commenters read as linking allowable rates to public-agency (CHP or municipal) tow/storage rates in some circumstances. Multiple shop representatives argued that the rule as written would unfairly treat shops that are not tow operators—shops that accept a vehicle for repair but later determine it is not repairable—by capping fees at public-tow rates and creating uneven outcomes between customers whose vehicles received teardowns and those whose vehicles did not. BAR staff said the distinction follows existing civil-code and vehicle-code differences between mechanic’s liens and storage liens and is intended to address instances in which tow companies set up ARD registrations to collect higher rates, a pattern BAR said it has observed and may pursue as enforcement or fraud.

Towing invoices, separate authorization and relocation fees: The draft would require separate authorization for towing charges when an ARD contracts or arranges towing, and it adopts the Vehicle Code’s detailed tow-invoice content (dispatch time, carrier ID, locations, gate fees, etc.) for those transactions. The proposed rule also says ARDs cannot charge for relocating a vehicle between storage locations unless the customer authorizes the charge in advance; commenters noted operational complications when a vehicle must be moved off-site and later returned for repair.

Enforcement and notifications: BAR staff said enforcement would remain focused on ARD registrants (fines, citations, disciplinary tools) and that BAR does not have regulatory authority over insurers—questions about insurer payment practices fall to the Department of Insurance. Several speakers urged BAR to require notification to third‑party payers (insurers) when storage begins; insurers said they should be notified to enable quicker claims coordination and minimize unnecessary accrual of fees.

Remaining questions raised at the workshop

- Should BAR publish the search tool publicly or keep it internal to avoid market effects and possible insurer leverage? - How will BAR operationalize “reasonable” and “comparable” when costs differ by owner (e.g., owned land vs. leased facility) or by storage type (indoor vs. outdoor vs. frame rack)? - Is a minimum three-business-day notice the correct default, or should BAR allow written notices that specify a shorter or longer customer-specific period? - How should BAR distinguish ARDs that operate tow businesses (motor carrier permit holders) from repair shops that only accept towed vehicles, to avoid applying public-tow caps improperly?

Next steps

BAR staff said the draft will be revised to reflect workshop comments and that a formal public comment period will follow when BAR forwards the regulations to the Office of Administrative Law. Stakeholders requested clearer cross-references to the Civil Code, Vehicle Code sections cited in the workshop (including Vehicle Code section 22524.5 and tow‑invoice provisions), and alignment with Department of Insurance timelines where appropriate. No formal vote or regulatory adoption occurred at the workshop.

Ending: BAR called the session adjourned and indicated this was its third workshop on the package; staff said they expect more changes and an upcoming formal comment period before the rulemaking record is filed with the Office of Administrative Law.