A woman took her car to a repair shop – but nothing could have prepared her for what happened next

A woman whose car vanished from a mechanic’s garage while in for repairs has been hit by a fresh blow after a tribunal dismissed her $13,000 compensation claim.

Hulya Ofli, from Westmeadows in northwest Melbourne, booked her 2010 Volkswagen Passat sedan in for a service with Uzi’s Auto Repairs in Campbellfield in the city’s north over two years ago.

The car, which had 120,000km on the clock, was unroadworthy, unregistered and required a new catalytic converter, was towed to the garage on May 6, 2022.

More than a month later, Ms Ofli met Uzi’s Auto Repair owner Uzyeir Osmanli but was told he did not have time to fix it, according to a recent judgement published by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The pair clashed at the tribunal over the date they had then arranged for Ms Ofli to pick the car up from outside the mechanic’s garage.

She told the tribunal it was June 30, but Mr Osmanli said it was a week earlier on June 23.

On June 27, Mr Osmanli rang Ms Ofli to tell her the car was missing, and said he had assumed she had come to pick it up.

When she said she had not, he suggested the council may have taken it.

Hulya Ofli booked her 2010 Volkswagen Passat sedan in for a service with Uzi’s Auto Repairs in Campbellfield in the Melbourne’s north over two years ago (stock image, not Ms Ofli’s car)

But when Ms Ofli contacted the council, and was told it had not taken the car.

The repair shop owner eventually paid Ms Ofli’s brother Engin $500 to settle the dispute because he was ‘sick of the family harassing him and it was a way he hoped to end the matter’, the tribunal heard.

But Ms Ofli launched legal proceedings a month later, originally claiming $23,000 for the value of the lost car but revising it down to $13,000 after researching online.

However Mr Osmanli told the tribunal the car was ‘not worth repairing’.

‘He recommended to Ms Ofli she should tow it away and sell it for scrap and estimated its value between $500 to $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 at the tribunal because it was illegally made.

Ms Ofli’s mother also alleged to the tribunal that Uzi’s Auto Repair shop had previously failed to replace brake pads on her car, despite claiming that they had.

The tribunal heard the mother then had an accident and another mechanic claimed the brake pads had not been replaced, which prompted Mr Osmanli to apologise and offer a refund.

The mechanic’s lawyer accepted that the repairman had paid out the refunded but argued that it was not relevant to the current case, the tribunal noted.

Ms Ofli’s mother also alleged to the tribunal that Uzi’s Auto Repair shop had previously failed to replace brake pads – despite claiming that they had (pictured: inside the garage)

The tribunal ultimately agreed with Mr Osmali about the date the car was due to be collected.

‘This means from that date it became the responsibility of Ms Ofli to collect the car,’ the tribunal found.

It added: ‘Unfortunately it appears that it is more likely than not the motor vehicle was stolen after being left on the street and after the agreed time for collection.’

The tribunal acknowledged that it was ‘a very unfortunate set of circumstances for Ms Ofli that her car went missing’, but it ultimately dismissed her claim.

It is not the first time Ms Ofli has been lost a legal action in court. 

Her Westmeadows home was allegedly broken into in April 2021 when she had numerous expensive items 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 gold bracelets.

But her insurer denied her claim on the grounds it was allegedly fraudulent so she took her case to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).

AFCA found no evidence of fraud and rejected any suggestion the break-in was staged. 

But it said there were ‘legitimate concerns’ about her credibility and ordered the insurer only to pay only for some lower-value items.

She sued the Insurance Manufacturers of Australia but her case was ultimately thrown out by the Supreme Court of Victoria because she had accepted the AFCA decision.