Ace Parking Management Inc

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
[I paid the fine, requested a hearing in person and have received no response from themThey have cashed my check]
Regards,
*** ***

I have responded to this question before. You all then forwarded the complaint to Dallas and they have since forwarded back to youAce Parking's customer service is handled via their San Diego officeThe exact location of the parking lot is in Dallas, TX on the corner of Commerce & S
Poydras

This person claims there was nothing taken, but we have no knowledge of
thatNor do we know it this individual antagonized anyone while they were in the garage to cause their
vehicle to be targeted
Following their logic that because we had security in place, our liability should be elevated,
then we would
as a matter of habit, eliminate security to avoid any liabilityThat claim simple makes no sense
Please stress that we post notices at every entrance to the garage alerting customers that they are
responsible for their vehicleWe also state similar language on our parking tickets to again alert people
park at their own riskAnd as long we are taking reasonable precautions to prevent issues (Security on
site) then our liability is limited
Thanks
*** ***
President, Operations
ace parking management, Inc
Ash Street
San Diego, CA
tel fax

The Parking lot is clearly marked Reserved stalls are not available to the public.Please see the 3 signs that clearly advise the Public not to park or purchase a parking ticket for these stalls.1) Sign that is posted at the front of all reserved stalls "No Public Parking MON-FRI 6am to 6pm TOW AWAY"2) Tow away sign on machine stating tickets purchased are not valid in any Reserved stalls "Public Parking in Reserved spaces is prohibited"3) Ticket that was purchased clearly states on the bottom that ticket is not valid in Reserved stall  "Invalid in Daytime Reserved spaces"It is Unreasonable that a member of the public would thing these stalls would be available for them to park in with all of the posted warnings.I believe this proof will put this issue to rest. Public parkers must follow the posted directions on our unattended surface lots as we do not have employees onsite to assist. [redacted]DirectorAce Parking Management Inc.

Dear Ms. [redacted],Founding Member of the On behalf of Ace Parking, I am responding to complaint #[redacted] regarding aNational Parking Associationclaim connected to a customer who self-parked on a surface lot and says that hervehicle was parked in a different stall than what she input into the phone based parking reservation site.Please be advised that both the parking app/reservation site and signs posted in the parking lot direct customers to note the parking stall they are in prior to making their payment. Since she admits that she input the incorrect stall # onto the Web site, we had no way of connecting her vehicle to a different paid space. Therefore, issue a parking citation was our only recourse.Unfortunately, we cannot go back to verify whether her claim is valid or not. It is simply impossible to determine if her car was, in fact, in a different stall since there is no way for her or us to prove this fact.With respect to her parking calls/induiries getting dropped, she is correct that there was a call handling issue with the Park Mobile reservation provider. We apologize for this and wish there was something we could do for her at this time.We are willing to waive her fee, however, we need her vehicle information so that we can update our records and remove it from our list of prior 'violators'.Please forward my contact details to the claimant so we can take this next step.Thank you.[redacted] President of Operations

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Hello,
There are several discrepancies here in Ace Parking's report.  On the day of my arrival, I specifically asked the valet parking attendant if there were any other options for guests to park. His response was, "No, valet is the only option for this hotel".  Also, does it seem reasonable to ask a guest to park his/her car two blocks away. In a parking lot owned by ACE Parking????  My wife can contest to me asking the attendant this on the fist day of our arrival. We were appalled at the $39.00 a day charge. On the day we noticed the damage, I notified Embassy Suites Management via a phone call on my way to the amusement park for our appointment. If an email was sent to ACE Parking Management regarding the damage, after 10pm, that isn't my fault. We had to make an appointment, which we scheduled on our Family vacation or we would have lost out on our deposit.  My wife photographed the damaged prior to us leaving for evidentiary purposes. We can provide this to if needed.  I want to address the Parking Manager's claim that I stated the following; "As a good business owner you have to pay me".  I never said those words. I would never use those words as it sounds like an expectation or threat.  If he has a recording of me saying that, then I would like to hear it.  I advised him during our discussion that I did not cause the damage, that I have to drive back to Northern California with my family and a damaged tire. I advised that I didn't feel safe doing so and would like some type of resolution or answer on what his investigation would discover prior to my departure from Southern California.  I needed to replace the tire prior to going back up north and felt that I did not cause the damage, therefore I should not have to pay.  He obviously misinterpreted this statement to "As a good business owner you have to pay".   To address his statement regarding if damage was caused to the rear tire, there would have been damage to the front tire.  This is an incorrect statement. If in fact you make a turn into a driveway, your front end will commonly swing wider than the rear of your vehicle. It's simple physics. If my vehicle, an SUV was to turn into a garage, such as the one at Embassy Suites, where a curb at the entrance is protruding outward, the rear of my vehicle would have struck the curb, because of the valet turning sharply.  I would ask that the Parking Manager take photos of the entrance into the garage to prove my point to you. I would also ask that he provide CCTV footage, if available to disprove my statements regarding vehicles and how they enter the garage at Embassy Suites.
 In regards to his statement of driving my vehicle around two times in the city before reporting this incident. He is only correct in the fact that this was prior to finding the damage on my vehicle, because the tire was fine during both of those days. I always inspect my vehicle when it is valet parked, or parked in a public area.  It is common that "hit and runs" occur quite frequently so I wanted to make sure my vehicle was not damaged. In essence, I always look at my car prior to driving off.  It's a nice car and I take care of my property meticulously.
In closing, I am very disappointed at this entire incident and how I am having to defend myself and integrity. If I would have caused the damage myself, I would not be filing a complaint about this. I would have just went on my way and paid for a new tire.
Regards,
[redacted]

[redacted], 
I am in receipt of your Revdex.com complaint. The City of Chula Vista has authorized Ace Parking to issue parking citations within their city. No law is being violated as your complaint says. 
Please dispute your citation per the directions on the back of the citation. 
Your...

appeal will be considered and an answer will be given to you in a timely manner. 
Thank you

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID...

[redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
The original issue had directly corresponded to an additional towing charge that I should have not been responsible for as the documentation states that a tow would only happen after a second offense. Being that the first offense was an error that was out of my control, having to bail out my car was a very expensive experience. Ace has refused to compensate for the monetary costs that the erroneous 2nd offense has caused me. My only desired outcome now is to be reimbursed for the tow charges. I am far from satisfied with their attempts to help me resolve the aftermath of their oversight. 
Regards,
[redacted]

Founding Member of the On behalf of Ace Parking, I am responding to complaint #[redacted] regarding aNational Parking Associationclaim connected to a customer who self-parked on a surface lot and says that hervehicle was parked in a different stall than what she input into the phone based parking reservation site.Please be advised that both the parking app/reservation site and signs posted in the parking lot direct customers to note the parking stall they are in prior to making their payment. Since she admits that she input the incorrect stall # onto the Web site, we had no way of connecting her vehicle to a different paid space. Therefore, issue a parking citation was our only recourse.Unfortunately, we cannot go back to verify whether her claim is valid or not. It is simply impossible to determine if her car was, in fact, in a different stall since there is no way for her or us to prove this fact.With respect to her parking calls/induiries getting dropped, she is correct that there was a call handling issue with the Park Mobile reservation provider. We apologize for this and wish there was something we could do for her at this time.We are willing to waive her fee, however, we need her vehicle information so that we can update our records and remove it from our list of prior 'violators'.Please forward my contact details to the claimant so we can take this next step.

The parking lot is Lot # [redacted] - [redacted] San Diego Downtown.Thanks - and please let me know if you require anything else.[redacted]

I've left a message for the customer to contact me directly, as the person she complained about reports to me.  I have also addressed the issue with the employee and will have her go through training.

This complaint has been resolved...
After I solved this this person brought up alot of other things that I will not be resolving but this issue is resolved!!
E-mail below

Dear
Mrs. [redacted]:
            Ace Parking provides a prompt,
efficient and personalized valet service at the Embassy Suites Hotel Downtown
San Diego. Due to the design of the hotel and garage, there is no self parking
and most of...

the guests opt for valet service. However, guests are not force to
use the valet service since there are other options to park their cars outside
the hotel such as parking meters and a public parking two blocks away.  There is a certain protocol that Ace Parking
does when filing a damage claim. Guest needs to inform Ace Parking management
as soon as they notice the damage and it has to be submitted before leaving the
property so we can properly file a claim (personal info, vehicle’s info,
testimony, etc) and take pictures as evidence.  On 07/02/2014 a guest picked up his vehicle
around 10:30am, he loaded it up, and left to continue his day with his family. The
guest didn’t file a report when he picked up his vehicle; he filed a report until
next day. When he came back to the hotel, the guest decided to explain the
incidents to the front desk around 6pm. Later that day, around 10pm, the front
desk informed me via email that a guest claimed that his car was damage by a
valet but the guest didn’t provide any other information. Late morning of 07/03/2014
the car was pulled around and indeed, the rear right tire was damaged.  Guest claims that the valet hit the curb at
the entrance of the parking lot but if the valet hit that curb the front of the
vehicle should be damaged as well. In that moment the guest told me the
following “I was parked at a local amusement park and when I was getting my
daughter out of my car, I noticed that my tire was damaged, as a good business
owner you have to pay me now”. This was the first testimony that the guest
provided us. Few days later the Revdex.com emailed me that the guest filed a claim
regarding this issue. The guest wrote the following to the Revdex.com “On july 2nd,
in the morning, I retrieved my vehicle from valet. While loading my family into
the vehicle, my wife and I noticed a large piece of my tire protruding outward
from the sidewall. There was also a white paint transfer on the tire, above the
damage. It was obvious the tire had a struck a curb.” As you can see there is a
discrepancy between the two stories that the guest told us. In addition the
guest reported that the incident was made at 9:30am but the vehicle was
requested at 10:24am. The guest drove his car around the city at least two more
times before filing a claim and it is possible that the car was damaged outside
Ace Parking property but he probably didn’t even notice that until 07/03/2014. Based
on the information mentioned above, Ace Parking still maintains its position. There
is no sign of negligence from Ace Parking during this guest’s stay. The damaged
wasn’t cause by Ace Parking employees, equipment, or installations. Ergo, Ace
Parking is denying this guest’s claim because there is no evidence that the car
was damaged by our staff.  
We
are sorry for any inconvenience that this has caused to the guest. Your time
and effort is greatly appreciated and we are looking forward to having him back
so we can make his stay a great experience.
Best
regards,
[redacted]
Parking
Manager
(619)
239-2400 X[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
 
Ace Parking claims that they are not liable for any vehicle damage that occurs in their garage - - since they state they have taken reasonable precautions (specifically, in this case, they have posted security personnel in their garage).  The visible presence of security guards in the garage IMPLY that vehicles will be safe from acts of vandalism.  The public is thus MISLED into paying more to park in a garage than to park on the street.  
 
I do acknowledge the "responsibility" language printed on the tickets, but tend to believe the public is being warned of the increased risk of fender-benders in parking garages.  If a fender-bender had occurred, I agree that the garage would not have any financial liability . . . since they don't park the cars, nor do they have personnel directing traffic inside the garage.  However, they do have security personnel patrolling the garage - - in effect advertising to the public that our vehicles will be safe from vandalism.
 
My auto insurance covered the cost of repairing the vandalism damage, but I had to pay the deductible.  I believe the garage (or their contracted security service) should pay at least part of my deductible.  Their was some level of negligence in allowing an act of vandalism to occur in their garage - and it's reasonable to expect the garage or the security service to be held liable for that negligence.
   
Regards,
[redacted]

The vehicle was in and out of valet a few times during the guests stay. During the stay, we had very few vehicles due to it being the holiday's, and we saw very little drive...

in traffic. I believe we had around 10 cars, and as I recall, there were no vehicles parked next to or back to back with each other. The vehicle in question was last parked in a space that was easily visible by the valet stand and there was never a vehicle behind it, nor was it in a space that any other public vehicle would drive by it.  According to the rental agreement prior damage was reported on the rear bumper, as well as the damage check conducted by our valet. The damage that the guest is claiming happened in our care was very difficult to see just looking at the car (the bottom of the right rear tail light was broken out on the under side of the light).  There was no glass from a tail light in any of the lots on our property, as I checked just in case the vehicle had been moved.  The day the damage occurred, the guest left with his family and upon his return from the Zoo, reported that the damage had been done by us. They stated upon arrival that they didn't notice the damage until they tried opening the trunk.  I did a thorough investigation and found that there was no negligence on our part or damage caused by our valets, as there would have been glass from the rear tail light in our lot, and, or another damaged vehicle.Mr. [redacted] did call me and I told him my findings and forwarded him to the claims department with questions. He said that he was going to report it and he couldn't believe we wouldn't just take care of something that would only cost around $300.  He also said that he would be contacting the hotel. I advised the manager [redacted]  about the call so he could inform the hotel and as the claim would reflect on his location, should he choose to accept responsibility.  I also, again, filled him in on the particulars of the incident.  I, in no way, think that the damage was caused by our valets.

Revdex.com:I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.I have not received direct correspondence from the company regarding this complaint nor the written appeal I submitted to them, which included pictures and explanation as to why I feel I have been taken advantage of and unfairly towed/charged.  I am asking that ACE refund my towing cost in full and amend their inadequate signage as to prevent taking advantage of future patrons,  Though I recognize the spot being marked "RESERVED", unlike other signage posted in the lot, there is no indication as to whom it is RESERVED for.  There is, however, a pay station in the lot which leads to the assumption that if you pay for that stall it is yours to use.  Please see a copy of my written appeal attached for reference on signage. Regards,[redacted]

This complaint was forwarded to the Lot Surface Director for review and decision.  I received notification that this person will be receiving a refund for their parking fees.

This complaint was forwarded to the Airport Director on 6/14/2016 and did not respond.  I have forwarded the complaint on 7/11/2016, hope to hear a decision this week.

I will review the complaint message and discuss resolution with proper authorities.  I will respond with final decision.

Dear [redacted],We offer a rate of $8 for 0-2 hours, a daily rate of $10 starting at 9:00 am, and if available an Early Bird Rate of $8. The pay station is programmed to reflect the rates owed for any given time period, and all signs direct guests to pay in advance, prior to walking off the lot.Unfortunately, due to your non-payment, we booted your vehicle as per our policy.  Ace apologizes that you couldn't get a hold of anyone as our office was closed for the holiday. However, payment is still required as the signs clearly indicate.   Ace would like to offer you as a good will gesture, complimentary parking for your next 3 visits to our lot.  I understand you do not normally drive, so this offer is good for one year (January 2015-January 2016).  Please reply with the make, model and license plate for your vehicle to accept this offer.  Again, our sincere apologies for this misunderstanding.  We will look into updating the rate sign to be clear on the difference in rates of pay should a guest not go to the pay station to see the actual rates.Thank you,Ace Parking