Repair instruction, total loss and storage costs
Owner brings car in for repair and leaves it standing for two and a half years
In February 2020 the owner brought his Subaru Forester to a garage business because of a fault in the anti-theft system. After hours of investigation the car turned out to be beyond repair — the anti-theft system was connected to the starting system, so that the car simply would no longer start. The car was technically a total loss.
What happened next, or rather did not happen, is telling. The owner left the car at the garage and did not return for it for two and a half years. During that period he did, however, take parts off the car himself. The garage business did the same — a front door and a power steering pump — and stated that the parties had agreed that the car could remain there for €30 per month and that the garage business was permitted to take parts by way of set-off against the unpaid labour.
Only in August 2022 did the owner make himself heard with a damages claim: the garage business had allegedly stripped the car without consent. He claimed €3,599 in damages. The garage business, in turn, claimed payment of labour and storage costs.
Court of appeal: insufficiently substantiated that the car ran and that the garage stripped it without consent
The owner argued that the car was not a total loss but merely had a sporadic fault that could be temporarily remedied by disconnecting the battery. The court made short work of that. WhatsApp messages from the owner himself stated that the car had to go on a trailer because it would no longer run. A witness's statement that the owner had driven "without any problems" to the garage was at odds with this and was not further explained. The court took it that the car had been towed and was technically a total loss.
The court likewise did not follow the contention that the garage business worked as a hobby and free of charge. The garage business operates a professional undertaking. Under Section 7:405(1) DCC the principal owes payment where the contractor has entered into the agreement in the course of its profession or business. The owner had not substantiated that free-of-charge work had been agreed.
The central question was whether the garage business was liable in damages for removing parts. The court found the garage business's account — taking parts by way of set-off against labour — credible. The car was a total loss, the labour had remained unpaid, and the owner himself was also taking parts. The fact that he did not concern himself with the car for two and a half years indicated that he had written the car off. That the garage business had, in addition, removed other parts was not substantiated. The CED report that the owner brandished was dated September 2023 — more than three years after the car came in. In the intervening period anything could have happened to the car, and the owner had not stated what he had taken himself and in what state the car was when he collected it.
The court took a more nuanced approach to the storage costs. The €30 per month arrangement was not in itself in dispute, but the court reduced the amount to €15 per month — €600 in total over the whole period. The reasoning: the car was a total loss, the garage business had evidently not performed a full duty of care as a depositary, had never previously invoiced storage costs and had not urged the owner to collect the car. In those circumstances the full rate was not reasonable.
Whoever leaves their car behind cannot complain after the fact
This judgment illustrates a pattern that occurs more often in garage cases: an owner who leaves a car behind, does not concern himself with it for years and then claims damages when the car is no longer in its original state. The court deals firmly with that. The lapse of time itself is used as evidence that the owner had written the car off. WhatsApp messages and the owner's own conduct — taking parts himself — are turned against him.
The lesson for principals: whoever leaves a car at a garage without clear written arrangements about what may and may not be done with it runs the risk that tacit consent will be assumed. And whoever complains only after years has a problem of proof: the state of the car at the moment of collection can then no longer be established.
For garage businesses the lesson is symmetrical: record arrangements about storage, set-off of labour and the use of parts in writing. The garage business came off well here, but would have had a harder time had the owner litigated earlier and with better documentation. The reduction of the storage costs also shows that a garage business that sends no invoices for years and exerts no pressure to have the car collected cannot claim the full storage right.commercial litigation practice.
Frequently asked questions
May a garage business use parts of an abandoned car by way of set-off against labour?
That depends on the arrangements. In this case the court held that the garage business had credibly stated that the parties had agreed to this. The fact that the car was a total loss, that the labour remained unpaid and that the owner himself was also taking parts made that account plausible. Without an arrangement, a garage may not simply remove parts.
Can a car owner still claim damages after years of inaction?
Legally, a claim in respect of breach of contract does not become time-barred within two and a half years. But in practice prolonged inaction works against the owner: the court used the lapse of time as evidence that the owner had written the car off. Moreover, a problem of proof arises — the state of the car at collection can no longer be established if there is no documentation.
Can storage costs be reduced?
Yes. The court reduced the storage costs here from €30 to €15 per month. Relevant factors were that the car was a total loss, that the garage business had not performed a full duty of care, had never previously invoiced costs and had not pressed for collection of the car. A garage that wishes to claim the full rate is well advised to invoice periodically and to summon the owner in writing.
ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:485, Court of Appeal Amsterdam, 24 February 2026.
Cited case law
Courts of Appeal: ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2026:485