Need to File a Lawsuit to Get My Car

Graham Submitted this review about FHT Auto Transport Inc.
Review made Live: 7/27/2014 12:58:00 AM
I purchased a vehicle from a seller on eBay Motors. The seller agreed to pay for shipping, and after a bad experience with another carrier, contracted with FHT to ship the car from New Jersey to California. All shipping charges were paid by the seller ahead of time.

The car was supposed to be delivered on July 24 between 7 and 11 a.m. When 11 a.m. came and went, I called the driver. He said my car wasn't on his truck. So I called FHT. Steve was very nice and apologized, saying that he would call me back with an update. He never did, so I called him. Again, he apologized and said the car would be delivered on July 26 between 8 and 11 a.m.

When 11 a.m. came and went, I called the driver. He said my car wasn't on his truck. So I called FHT. Steve seemed as frustrated as I was and said he would call me back. When he did call back, he said I should contact the "boss," Arman Hashemi ((949) 394-1484). When I called Arman, he said my car's battery had leaked acid onto a car that was loaded below my car on the car carrier. He told me that it would cost "$800 to $1000" to fix and wanted to know how I wanted to pay. I told him that I wasn't going to pay him anything, and that he could give my contact information to the owner of the other car so that we could handle the matter ourselves. I then asked when my car would be delivered. He said they would not deliver my car until I paid for the damage to the other car. When I offered to pick the car up myself (the car is about 60 miles from me), he refused to even give me the location of the yard where it's being stored.

Something is very suspicious about Arman's claim. First, the battery that appeared in the pictures for the auction looked relatively new. Second, the battery appeared to be a sealed, maintenance-free battery, and in the 20 years I've been working on cars, I've never seen one of those leak. Third, it's hard to believe any battery would have leaked enough acid to flow over the battery tray, drip all the way down the inner fender liner, and onto another car unless the battery was cracked. And if it was cracked, it was probably cracked by some driver or lot employee.

In any event, a carrier cannot withhold a vehicle from an owner because of a potential claim between the owners of two cars that were on the same truck. After all, FHT's contract says it is not liable for such claims. Arman has committed the tort of conversion, plain and simple.

I'll probably have to file a lawsuit and a writ of possession just to get my car. Not to mention deal with the owner of the other car after they were told a load of BS by Arman about the damage, and without the benefit of photos of the damage, information about the position of the cars, etc. DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, USE FHT TO TRANSPORT YOUR VEHICLE! THERE ARE A LOT OF OPTIONS IN AUTO TRANSPORT ... CHOOSE SOMEONE ELSE!

Company Response
Gholamreza Hashemi from FHT Auto Transport Inc. Submitted this response.
Response Date: 10/16/2014 3:40:00 PM
I am very sorry this issue arose. I some what agree with the claims as trying to be upfront as possible. As far as any legal action as dispatcher I can not answer ,I have no knowledge. One think is you are responsible for your vehicle is it leaks fluids. In this case I will not say either way it is farther up then me. But people buying cars on EBAY or online auctions beware too. It is your liability as customer if your vehicle leaks fluids. It is in almost ever car carriers terms and conditions that most people ignore. Also what customer is leaving out that he refused to be responsible which HE is if it was his car. I do know there was more investigating done and outcome goes beyond me. I just want people to know more to this then what was said and PLEASE there are terms and conditions on the BOL's for a reason. UNSURE read them. as far a releasing his car, I could not do that til contact was made and insurance info given just encase. He in complaint mention that but does not tell you he refused too. This was a accident not malice on any part, but all parties, him included needed to know what was going on and how to proceed. This is coming from my point as dispatching it, not fully knowing how claims and damage are handled that is a soley different department.