A woman whose car disappeared from a mechanic’s workshop while he was repairing it has been dealt a fresh blow after a court dismissed her $13,000 compensation claim.
Hulya Ofli, from Westmeadows in Melbourne’s northwest, booked her 2010 Volkswagen Passat sedan for a service at Uzi’s Auto Repairs in Campbellfield, in the city’s north, more than two years ago.
The car, which had 120,000 km on the clock, was unroadworthy, unregistered and in need of a new catalytic converter, was towed to the garage on May 6, 2022.
More than a month later, Ms Ofli met with Uzi Auto Repair owner Uzyeir Osmanli but was told he did not have time to fix it, according to a recent ruling released by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The two faced off in court over the date they had agreed for Ms Ofli to pick up the car outside the mechanic’s shop.
She told the court it was June 30, but Osmanli said it was a week earlier, June 23.
On June 27, Osmanli called Ofli to tell her that the car was missing and that he had assumed she had come to pick it up.
When she said no, he suggested the council could have accepted it.
The owner of Uzi’s Auto Repair (pictured), Uzyeir Osmanli, told him he did not have time to carry out the repair. The car disappeared four days later.
Hulya Ofli booked her 2010 Volkswagen Passat sedan for a service at Uzi’s Auto Repairs in Campbellfield, in Melbourne’s north, more than two years ago (stock image, not Ms Ofli’s car)
But when Mrs Ofli contacted the council, they told her that the car had not been taken.
The repair shop owner eventually paid Ms Ofli’s brother Engin $500 to settle the dispute because he was “fed up with the family harassing him and it was a way he hoped to end the matter”, the court heard.
But Ms Ofli launched legal proceedings a month later, originally claiming $23,000 for the value of the lost car, but revising it to $13,000 after researching online.
However, Osmanli told the court that “the car was not worth repairing.”
“He recommended that Mrs. Ofli tow it and sell it for scrap and estimated its value between $500 and $600,” the hearing was told.
Ms Ofli secretly recorded a telephone conversation with Mr Osmanli on June 29 which she claimed contradicted his statements.
But the recording could not be accepted as evidence in court because it was made illegally.
Mrs Ofli’s mother also alleged in court that Uzi’s car repair shop had not previously replaced the brake pads on her car, despite claiming they had.
The court heard the mother was involved in an accident and another mechanic claimed the brake pads had not been replaced, prompting Mr Osmanli to apologize and offer a refund.
The mechanic’s lawyer accepted that the repairer had paid the refund, but argued that this was not relevant to the current case, the court noted.
Ms Ofli’s mother also alleged in court that Uzi’s car repair shop had not previously replaced the brake pads, despite claiming they had (pictured: inside the garage).
The court finally agreed with Mr. Osmali on the date the car was to be collected.
“This means that from that date it became Ms. Ofli’s responsibility to collect the car,” the court concluded.
He added: “Unfortunately, it appears that the vehicle was most likely stolen after it was left on the street and after the agreed pickup time.”
The court acknowledged that it was “a very unfortunate set of circumstances for Ms Ofli that her car went missing” but ultimately dismissed her claim.
It is not the first time that Mrs Ofli has lost a legal action in court.
Her Westmeadows home was allegedly broken into in April 2021 when numerous expensive items were stolen, including a white gold and diamond ring valued at $23,000, a $6,000 drone, a $4,200 gold and diamond bracelet and 22 other bracelets. of gold.
But his insurer denied his claim, saying it was allegedly fraudulent, so he took his case to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).
AFCA found no evidence of fraud and rejected any suggestion that the theft was staged.
But he said there were “legitimate concerns” about his credibility and ordered the insurer to pay only for some lower-value items.
She sued the Australian insurance manufacturers, but her case was eventually dismissed by the Victorian Supreme Court because she had accepted the AFCA decision.