Magistrate continues towing-company case after city lays out dozens of alleged overcharges and cash-only practices

The City of Daytona Beach special magistrate continued its hearing into complaints against Volusia County Towing on Nov. 11, 2025 after receiving testimony from multiple residents and former employees alleging that the tow company routinely charged fees that exceed the rates allowed by city ordinance and that customers were told they could only pay in cash.

City witnesses described a pattern of incidents in which vehicle owners, including vacationers and renters, were told the cost to recover towed vehicles would be hundreds of dollars and were refused credit- or debit-card payments or an itemized receipt before paying. Mary Anne Whittemore, a vehicle owner who testified in person, described being told the tow yard would accept “just cash” and said she had to go to a bank to secure $475 to recover her car. “They said no. No debit card. No charge card. Just cash,” Whittemore said.

Police and code witnesses summarized at least a dozen incidents the city has logged with receipts that, the city says, show charges above the levels allowed under Daytona Beach ordinances and the corresponding Florida statutes. The city’s case included detailed line-item comparisons prepared by investigators that show the city-calculated permissible charge for a short custody tow would generally be in the low hundreds, while invoices presented to the magistrate exceeded that amount by several hundred dollars in multiple examples.

Former employees who testified for the city said drivers and yard staff could not unilaterally alter the pricing; they described a system in which the company’s administrative account or management set the itemized entries that drivers later relied on. One former employee said drivers “push a button” to classify a tow as light, medium or heavy duty and the computerized invoice with rates is generated by the company’s system and not by the driver. Another witness called Charles Nedley testified that employees lacked the ability to change prices and that the rate menu was controlled by administrative accounts.

Respondent Derek Thompson, identified in hearing records as the owner of Thompson Holdings Enterprises LLC (doing business as Volusia County Towing and associated entities), disputed parts of the city's presentation and argued that some invoices were paid by rental companies or that refunds were issued in certain cases. Thompson also questioned the completeness of the city’s exhibit book, saying some underlying records had not been provided to him at hearing. He repeatedly asked for more time to gather witnesses and records.

Magistrate summary and next steps The magistrate said there was sufficient testimony and documentary material to warrant a deeper factual review but declined to issue a final ruling at the Nov. 11 hearing. Instead the magistrate ordered the city to produce a memorandum of proposed findings and supporting evidence (invoices, receipts, police reports and any contracts) by Nov. 20, 2025, and gave the respondent three weeks from delivery to file a written response (deadline set for Dec. 11, 2025). The city told the magistrate it would seek the maximum fines authorized under Florida Statute 162.09 if violations are proven; the amount the city referenced in its opening materials totals up to $60,000 across multiple alleged code violations.

Why the case matters The hearing assembled multiple threads: consumer complaints of large, often unanticipated towing charges; allegations that the tow operator required cash-only or otherwise limited payment options; and claims that tow operations sometimes lack required contracts and notices on private property, which triggers additional city oversight requirements. Victims said the cash-only practice and refusal to provide a prior, itemized list of fees left them effectively “at the mercy” of the tow yard when trying to retrieve their cars.

What to expect next Both parties will exchange written exhibits and legal memoranda before the magistrate considers a formal order. The magistrate said evidence should include full invoices and releases so he can compute precise overcharge amounts and determine whether customers were unlawfully denied the statutorily required information prior to payment. The hearing record will be reopened if the magistrate requires additional live testimony; otherwise he will issue a decision after reviewing the written submissions.

Quotes “They said no. No debit card. No charge card. Just cash,” said Mary Anne Whittemore, who testified she had to leave a family event to retrieve a towed car.

“The employees testified they cannot change the price list; administration sets the invoice,” said a city attorney summarizing former employees’ testimony.

“The conditions described amount to irreparable harm if true; I need a memorandum and a response so I can issue a careful order,” the magistrate said when continuing the matter.

Ending The magistrate continued the contested matter and set a schedule for written submissions: the city’s memorandum due Nov. 20, 2025, and the respondent’s written response due Dec. 11, 2025. The magistrate warned both sides to exchange evidence and to copy the court clerk so the record is complete.