PUC hearing centers on dispute over SWFT Towing's handling of a Buick Enclave; staff alleges failure to release after payment

An evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission examined staff's claim that SWFT Towing LLC violated PUC towing rules when it failed to release a 2017 Buick Enclave after payment and supplied inconsistent records about the tow.

Investigator Erin Hazlett, a criminal investigator with the PUC, testified that the commission's case rests on documentary records and interviews. She said staff received a complaint from Shaneen Courts of Midnight Recovery, who sent a driver to SWFT on July 14, 2025, and "paid with a check, received an invoice, but did not pick up that vehicle at the time." Hazlett added that the invoice shows a $1,883.36 charge with a check payment applied on 07/14/2025 and a line on the invoice indicating release on 07/14/2025 at 10:36 a.m., yet the driver told Midnight Recovery the car was not released then.

Hazlett also introduced a Colorado Springs Police Department CAD report and a SWFT impound summary indicating the tow was reported as a private-property impound on 06/18/2025. "The item was refused, at the addressee's address on 08/11/2025," she testified about certified-service attempts, and she described the paperwork that staff compiled: the Midnight Recovery invoice, the CAD dispatch notes, a VIN/vehicle-record search identifying the registered owner as Denisha Lucero and Ant Credit Union as lienholder, and an impound summary indicating 34 days impound and storage charges.

Staff accused SWFT of four separate rule violations tied to this incident: failing to provide the PUC's required authorization form, failing to take and provide required photographs of the vehicle and reason for the tow, failing to notify law enforcement as required for private-property impounds, and failing to release the vehicle upon payment. Hazlett testified that staff requested photographs and an authorization form but "no pictures were provided" and that the authorization document supplied was not the PUC's required form.

Complicating the timeline, staff introduced a second SWFT invoice submitted to the PUC that lists a different tow date (05/22/2025) and a different auto-generated TowBucks stock number. Hazlett explained that TowBucks stock numbers are assigned sequentially and that the larger stock number on the 05/22 invoice suggests it was created after the Midnight Recovery invoice; staff flagged the existence of competing invoices as part of their allegation that the carrier created inconsistent records. Defense counsel disputed the weight of those inferences at hearing.

Staff played a recorded call with driver Keith Kaiser in which Kaiser acknowledged towing the Buick and said there was "confusion as to when" the tow occurred; Kaiser recalled meeting a property manager whose name sounded like "Eloy," consistent with the property contact identified by staff. Hazlett testified she later spoke with Eloy Elipa, who confirmed signing a document but told staff it was not the PUC's authorization form and said he believed authorization occurred later, after a change in facility management.

Hazlett recommended the PUC find the violations proved by a preponderance of the evidence, order SWFT to be held liable on the CPAN counts related to the Buick tow, direct the company to release the vehicle to Ant Credit Union by way of Midnight Recovery, and consider a cease-and-desist if SWFT refuses to comply.

Respondent manager Ryan Schroeder and owner Eduardo Lopez disputed aspects of staff's record and said some relevant employees are no longer with the company; Schroeder said SWFT provided photos and documents via a link and that some confusion stemmed from different invoices and dispatch notes. Schroeder admitted his team did not produce photos directly into staff's case file before the investigation concluded and acknowledged staff's contention that the required photographs were not in the PUC record. Schroeder also introduced an Amazon contract excerpt and other materials in defense of SWFT's broader operations, which staff objected to on foundation grounds.

The administrative law judge closed the evidentiary record at the end of the hearing and said she will issue a written decision. The judge's order will determine whether staff's recommended penalties, refunds or ordering release of the vehicle should be imposed.

Source: testimony and exhibits admitted at the Colorado Public Utilities Commission consolidated hearing on the CPANs involving SWFT Towing LLC.