Harel Barzilai
504 Emory Court #304
Salisbury MD 21804
410-543-0036
harel@barzilai.org


June 19, 2003

Dear MVA:

In late January 2003 my 1990 Mitsubishi Mirage experienced a fatal fault breakdown in its engine. The car was towed to Grant's Texaco of Salisbury MD where it was confirmed that the car could not be fixed without an expensive four-figure replacement of the entire engine. Immediately following this assessment by Grant's Texaco, I drove my (insured) car back to the parking lot at my apartment complex at 5-10 mph where I laid it to rest. Since that time I have not driven the 1990 Mitsubishi Mirage, and it stayed parked in this parking lot until it was towed for salvaging by Delmar Auto Sales (a letter from whom is enclosed)

I made due without a car until my purchase of a 2001 Mitsubishi Mirage on March 3, 2003 from Sherwood Mitsubishi of Berlin, MD.

The primary complication is due to the fact that in November of 2002 the 1990 Mitsubishi mirage had it's central computer fail, and I paid $1,200 to replace this computer (see copy of Sherwood Mitsubishi bill, enclosed). This was the price including a 12 month warrantee on this new part -- even a used car computer was some $600 as I recall.

Therefore, when the 1990 Mitsubishi Mirage experienced its engine failure in late January, under 3 months later, I made inquiries about looking for a buyer for the 3-months-young on-board computer ("Control Unit"). Waiting to find such a buyer was the only reason that I left the car stay on my lot for as long as I did. I did not once drive this car anymore, as noted above.

I also specifically called MVA about returning the tags and was told on the phone that I could return the tags to get a partial refund, since I am no longer driving the vehicleAlthough I fully explained on the phone that my car is to be junked, and only on my lot a few more weeks hoping (in vain, it turned out) to find a buyer, I was not told on the phone that I must return the tags before terminating insurance. According to your records, which I believe are correct, insurance was dropped on this 1990 vehicle on 3/13/03 while the tags were returned on 3/24/03, which I now find out is the cause for this situation.

I can certainly see that MVA is only trying to do its job to make sure people are insured. That is commendable. However now that you have the background, you can see that the vehicle was dead, dead, dead, and never driven at all, even for a while before the insurance was dropped, and certainly after it was dropped.

I hope the above background is helpful to you, and that it is sufficient to avoid the penalty. I've already paid dearly for that car's two-in-a-row financial headaches. I will be glad to supply you with additional information or documentation.

Thank you in advance. Sincerely,



Harel Barzilai