Md. AG: Moving Company Overcharged, Fail to Deliver Customers' Property - NBC4 Washington

Md. AG: Moving Company Overcharged, Fail to Deliver Customers' Property

    processing...

    NEWSLETTERS

    Swift Van Lines Accused of Overcharging Keeping Goods

    The Maryland attorney general said the company was charging customers several times the amount the company estimated it would cost to move the goods and then driving off with the customers’ belongings if they didn’t pay the increased fee. News4's Susan Hogan reports.

    (Published Monday, Nov. 27, 2017)

    A moving company based in Hyattsville, Maryland, is facing charges from the Maryland Office of the Attorney General for overcharging customers.

    Attorney General Brian Frosh announced the charges and a temporary restraining order against Swift Van Lines, LLC, formerly known as Revolution Moving and Storage, LLC, and its owner Juan Carlos Martinez. Frosh said the company was charging customers several times the amount the company estimated it would cost to move the goods and then driving off with the customers’ belongings if they didn’t pay the increased fee.

    “Moving companies operating in Maryland cannot hold a consumers items hostage,” said Frosh. “Once a mover has loaded a consumers’ goods onto the truck, they must deliver the items to their new home for moves within the State of Maryland.”

    The office said Swift would provide low estimates to customers and drastically increased its prices after loading the customers’ items onto trucks. The charges filed are based on the Maryland Consumer Protection Act and the Maryland Household Goods Movers Act.

    The AG’s office said under Maryland law, when a move takes place within the state, a moving company cannot refuse to deliver consumers’ household goods after they’ve been loaded on the truck. Maryland law also places limits on how much movers can charge consumers above their estimates. In most cases, movers cannot charge more than 125 percent of the estimate.

    The state is seeking a permanent order that would prohibit Swift from any further violations of the law and require them to pay restitution to customers. The case is scheduled to go to court in January.