Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consumer Protection Theft Of Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs bill creating misdemeanor for certain rental holdovers to aid equipment owners
Summary
House Bill 201, as amended, would add a theft‑of‑services option addressing short‑term rental holdovers where equipment is returned after an extended period; the committee adopted a substitute and reported the bill favorably 17‑0 (with one pass explained).
Representative Matt Lockett introduced House Bill 201, a measure sponsored with input from rental business owners and county attorneys, to address situations where rented equipment is kept beyond the rental term and then returned without payment for the extended period.
Ian Goff, a rental business owner, described typical incidents: a customer rents equipment for a day, the item is not returned on schedule, and the store later receives the item back with no payment for the extended use. "We run their credit card or whatever their payment is. End of the next day, no piece of equipment comes back," Goff said. He told the committee that civil remedies and chargebacks often fail to make the owner whole because credit card companies tend to side with cardholders and equipment may be resold or moved through multiple hands.
Joe Ross, president of the Kentucky County Attorneys Association (appearing virtually), said prosecutors could sometimes pursue general theft charges but that convictions are harder when the item is returned. The committee substitute was drafted to create an additional misdemeanor option for cases where an item is kept intentionally beyond a specified period (the substitute limited restitution remedies to cases where the item was not returned, while allowing criminal charges for prolonged holdovers). Ross described the substitute as a compromise offering both criminal deterrence and civil remedies for lost opportunity costs.
Several members questioned whether existing contract remedies or current theft statutes were sufficient. Representative Mosher and others suggested contractual holds and credit‑card preauthorization might address many cases; rental owners countered that contested transactions and cancelled cards often prevent recovery in civil court. Representative Williams, citing law enforcement experience, supported the bill as a practical tool so officers can act quickly instead of treating every incident as purely civil.
The committee adopted the committee substitute, then voted to report House Bill 201 favorably; the transcript shows the reported favorable tally as 17 yes votes, no no votes and at least one explained pass recorded. The committee also adopted a title motion. The committee record indicates further work with county attorneys and the rental industry on restitution language and scope.
