Ace Parking Management Inc

As stated in the complaint, it was Terminal One parking lot at San Diego Airport.

Review: My vehicle was vandalized while it was parked in the Parking Garage on Market Street (between 6th and 7th). The back window was smashed. The vehicle was not entered, nor was anything removed from the vehicle. This crime occurred sometime between 6:30p and 9:35p on Monday, September 15th (while I was attending the Padres game). I assisted the Parking Garage security supervisor in filling out an Incident Report. Also completed the online SD Police report upon returning home. . . .

Since the Parking Garage provides security guards to patrol the facility, I believe they are at least partially responsible for acts of vandalism that occur in their facility. I have filed a claim with my Auto Insurance company, but will still be required to pay the deductible. I would like Ace Parking to reimburse me for this deductible. While I recognize there are certainly risks of damage to a vehicle by other drivers in a garage (for which Ace Parking advertises they are not liable), I believe that vandalism is an act for which the company assumes liability due to the employment of security personnel. In fact, Ace Parking is probably insured for damages caused by vandalism - and should pursue reimbursement from the security service (which failed to deter or prevent vandalism). . . . I spoke with the facility manager [Mr Tim Strawn] - who apologized, but claimed that corporate policy relieves the company from having to pay for ANY damages to vehicles. In this situation, I believe the company does bear some responsibility - and should at least pay a portion of my $300 deductible.Desired Settlement: I would like Ace Parking Management to reimburse me for my $300 deductible.

Business

Response:

This person claims there was nothing taken, but we have no knowledge of

that. Nor 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 liability. That 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 vehicle. We also state similar language on our parking tickets to again alert people

park at their own risk. And 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.

645 Ash Street

San Diego, CA 92101

tel 619.233.6624 fax 619.233.0741

Consumer

Response:

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.

Review: I paid an ACE pay station to park in a marked stall on 7th and Market street. My car was towed at the request of a private owner (no signage indicated that the lot was privately owned). My request to speak to an ACE supervisor was denied, and I have been given the run-around in my attempts to appeal.Desired Settlement: I would like my towing fees reimbursed.

Business

Response:

To Whom it may Concern,This is in response to Revdex.com Complaint ID # [redacted]The claimant parked in a RESERVED parking space that is paid for byanother customer. The other customer returned to park in theirRESERVED stall but could not due to claimant car being parked in theclearly marked RESERVED Tow Away stall. I have provided a pictureof this stall and it is clearly marked .Thank you[redacted]DirectorSan Diego

Consumer

Response:

Review: On 5/8/13 I was parking in the lot on 3rd & Ash in Downtown San Diego. I put in my bills to pay for a ticket to display in the car. After putting my bills in the machine, the total read 9 dollars. I put coins in to total the 10 dollars needed to purchase thr pass and the total did not change. First problem is there is no way to retreive money once it is put in the machine, so when I did not have enough EXTRA moneyto complete the transaction, I had no way to retrieve the money already put into it. Then I proceeded to call the customer service number where I got no answer. I waited in the lot, making myself late for work because no one answered. I finally called again 15 minutes later and the lady who answered was extremely rude.and did not listen to anything I was trying to tell her. I'm extremely disappointed with the customer service there.Desired Settlement: All I am seeking is a refund for the 10 dollars I put in the machine and did not get a ticket for. I will not be satisfied until then.

Business

Response:

Dear Mr. [redacted],

I've walked over to the two lots we have on 3rd & Ash.

The machines clearly state that no change or refunds are given.

The person who investigates these issues is off today but will look into your issue tomorrow morning.

Please let me know what time of day it was that you had your problem with nobody answering the customer service number?

After the director of surface lots does their investigation, they will make a determination if your request will be satisfied.

If the decision does not go your way, please contact me directly in the claims department and I will refund your money.

Best regards,

Claims Manager

complaint # [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

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 will be satisfied with this resolution WHEN I am contacted with the results of the investigation and allowed to then comment on what they have concluded.

Regards,

Business

Response:

Dear Mr. [redacted],

Below are the findings of the surface lot director: complaint # [redacted]

"We have reviewed the history of the paystation on 5-8-13 and have not detected any machine malfunctions or any $9 transactions. In addition we have inspected and cleaned the coin acceptor mechanism and it is properly working. Unfortunately , on occasion, we have customers that experience problems using our paystations. Our customer service department is generally able to resolve these situations in a timely manner. We apologize this situation was not worked out and are willing to offer a 1 day free parking card for the inconvenience the parker has stated in their complaint."

Feel free to contact me directly.

Claims Manager

Review: My complaint involves a $40 ticket that they had issued on July 23rd that was for failing pay for parking. I actually did in fact pay for parking via the ParkMobile app but for whatever reason, it had registered the spot incorrectly. I do have a receipt. In my attempts to contact them my phone calls have been dropped a unbelievable 22 times. I did get through to a message center representing the company once but the representative was EXTREMELY rude, laughed at me and then hung up on me. I had disputed it online but my case was denied with no details whatsoever. I feel like this whole experience is incredibly unprofessional especially considering that I had paid an additional $40 accidentally the next day for parking that had been increased for the comiccon event. The sign noting the change was tiny and hard to notice. This is not what I would call fair treatment for a consistent customer.Desired Settlement: The settlement I require for them to keep my business and for me to not consider them a full-blown scam would be for them to waive the $40 ticket. For them to receive the 10+ referrals that I send their way a week, I would love an adjustment for the day that followed (24th) as I feel $85 for two days of 10 hour parking is faaaar too steep. Especially when it was so poorly noted.

Business

Response:

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

Consumer

Response:

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,

Review: I parked at Ace lot #462 on April 21, 2014 as I was trying to pay for my parking the attendant stated to me they only accept cash or check. I only had my visa. I told him I work downtown and would pay him first thing tomorrow morning. He wrote me my bill and I left. As I had promised I went there early the next morning and paid my bill. He gave me a receipt. (it did not mention anything about my bill)

I decided to call the corporate office to verify payment (619)233-5853 ext[redacted]. They said to wait 7 days. I did and called again they said it was not cleared and that I would have to speak with the manager [redacted] (619)[redacted]. I called [redacted] and explained the situation and he said he would take care of it and would call me back when it was taken care of. I never got a call from [redacted].

I have called the office numerous times to correct there mistake to date no correction has been made. I called the corporate office today May 21, 2014 and they said the balance has yet to be paid. I went over to the Ace parking and asked them to fix the problem immediately and don’t want the issue to ruin my credit for something that is not accurate. I believe Ace parking is behaving unprofessionally in handling this matter. I told them I would be filing a complaint.Desired Settlement: I want them to clear my name of this bill that was taken care of within 24hours and give me proof that it was and also refund me my money for the inconveniences they have caused me.

Review: I paid $10.00 for the times from 9/11/2013 6:38 to 9/12/2013 2:38 PM. The parking notice was served on my vehicle while I was away from the automobile at 8:14 PM. I placed the parking ticket with the date and time side up on the driver's side dashboard visible from outside of windshield. I have a witness to confirm that I paid for the parking space at ACE Parking Lot # 1211. I have debit card transaction statements that I can refer to. ACE Parking is misrepresenting its self as a government agency is against state and federal laws. I don't certify under penalty of perjury. I have evidence, proof and a witness to dispute your private company parking notice. I paid twice for the parking space in succession. If you wish to pursue the matter after paying for the parking space on 9/11/2013 at 6:38 PM I will seek all civil and legal action. I will also seek punitive damages plus all expenses related to attempting to collect parking fees that I already paid. I AM DISABLED VETERAN. THIS IS YOUR LEGAL NOTICE.Desired Settlement: Stop collection on the $40.00 that I do not owe because I was in compliance with their rules by paying the $10.00 parking fee for the 8 hours time period. Pay me for my postage and travel fees associated with disputing their erroneous parking ticket.

Business

Response:

This incident in fact was already handled and the consumer was refunded all of the money he had requested.

Please let me know how to address the complaint on the website.

THANK YOU!!

HAVE A GREAT DAY!!!

CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR

ACE PARKING MANAGEMENT, INC.'

645 ASH STREET, SUITE 204

SAN DIEGO, CA. 92101

TEL: 619.230.7254 FAX: 619.230.6446

[redacted]@ACEPARKING.COM

Review: The city of Chula Vista has authorized Ace Parking to issue citations for parking violations on public streets. I was legally parked on third avenue in Chula Vista. I was given a citation for "not within a space/backing in". How do you parralel park without backing in? The atty. general says that a private company cannot issue citations. The city of Chula Vista is in violation of the law.Desired Settlement: I want this citation dismissed.

Business

Response:

[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

Consumer

Response:

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 paid the fine, requested a hearing in person and have received no response from them. They have cashed my check]

Regards,

Review: Yesterday, parking tickets went on sale for a mid-July event in San Diego. When the website became overloaded due to online traffic, representatives from the company used their Twitter account to communicate with its customers about the situation at hand, and when their website would be back up and running.

In the afternoon, after many attempts to b[redacted] the website back, they finally made the following announcement: "Good news: We have identified the issue. Bad news: The site will NOT be back up today. #[redacted] #SDCC #sdccparking."

I personally spent several hours waiting at my computer, attempting to purchase tickets and constantly checking back for updates, so after a very frustrating experience, and the above announcement, I decided to close my computer for the day.

Later on that night, after Ace had confirmed that no ticket sales would occur on that day and after the majority of the population attending the event went to sleep, they made an announcement that they would in fact be attempting to b[redacted] the website back up and refraining from doing a "hard launch" meaning they were going to attempt to revive the online sale process when thousands of people weren't around to overload their system.

Because of this soft launch process that happened under most people's noses, Ace Parking purposely put their customers who had been following their social media representative's information at a severe disadvantage in this purchase process and by the next morning when everyone went to check for tickets, the two most desirable locations had long been sold out.

I understand that everyone wants a close parking space, so it is not a sure thing for me to have obtained a pass for one of the two specific garages I was looking for either way, but I specifically dedicated several hours and put my trust in the representatives from this company that spoke out on social media because of health/personal concerns I have while visiting the Gaslamp area of San Diego. I attempted to contact Ace Parking through the "Customer Service" number listed on their official Twitter account since there is no phone number listed on their website, and have been unable to reach anyone from the company.

Although Ace Parking has been in charge of the parking for this event for years now, I can still see how technical issues unforeseen can easily arise. What I can't understand is how you can have a company representative speak out on your official company Twitter page with false information about the details on how to proceed with ticket sales. It is so sneaky and dishonest to create a soft launch process late at night while most of the customers are asleep, AFTER they had been assured there would be no sales occur[redacted] that day.Desired Settlement: Though the Convention Center and Hilton Bayfront Lots are "full", I am aware of several people who purchased those tickets getting charged for duplicate tickets, so I believe there is at least ONE set of duplicate tickets for the days I purchased (Thursday through Sunday) available. I would even be fine with still paying the higher price that I paid for these less desirable tickets. I cannot see how anything different would remedy the situation. I hope that I can at some point feel like I have a different opinion of this company other than a dishonest company who clearly misrepresents the terms of their sale for a product.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I have already concluded this matter with the business and consider this complaint resolved.

Regards,

Down right horrible service. After failing during the SDCC online sale and blaming its customers for a DDoS attack ACE still can not get their act together. They lied on twitter, Facebook and over the phone to myself and numerous others. After finally speaking to a "qualified" IT person I was told that even with my bank account being charged many times, screen shows showing the items I purchased AND a call to them the night before where I life person confirmed I was had my parking, I was informed that I in fact did not have anything and they were sorry no please go buy the more costly parking.

Review: We traveled to Dallas for ACS meeting last week, which held in convention center. There is a parking lots outside the center which is in charger by Ace Parking Management. We bought 12 hour parking for $12. However, we found that they only gave us 10 h. There were more than 40 cars in the parking lots and the meeting last whole day. We don't think they can run business by cheating the customer only because we are new here. Second thing I want to complain is the agent DO NOT provide a sign obvious enough to tell people that this park lots do not allow "inside and out". Actually, they try to hide this information by pasting copy paper on the side of ticket-selling machine. Then when the meeting ended, we found that almost 30 cars had been booted there, and we were requested more than $120 to be released. We think that's not reasonable. Because first of all, we paid the parking fee for 12 hours and one of the visitor even asked the agent before parking, and got a permission. Second, no car had been booted or warned in the last two days. The agent said they came and checked the parking lots everyday. We just confused that why no of those cars get warned. However, one true thing we do know is on the first two days, few people parked there. And the last day, there are more than 40 cars parked. We don't think it's our fault, because almost 75% people did not see any sign about "not allowing inside and out", and some people from other country ("like Japan, Korea, China, Italy") even don't know what does "inside and out" mean. So we called the agency for help. 20 min later, one lady came. She said she was supervisor, however, she was so rude and refused to answer any question from us. She told us that the only thing we can do is pay $120 and left. Since most of us came from other cities, and we needed to go to airplane. After 3 hours, we had to pay and leave with disappointed.Desired Settlement: apology and refund the money

Business

Response:

April 11th, 2014

s[redacted]@sandiego.Revdex.com.org

Revdex.com

Re: Claim Date: 3/19/2014

Dear Ms. [redacted],

This letter is in response to a complaint we received through the Revdex.com regarding an experience a customer had while parking on one of our Dallas surface parking lots. The original complaint is included with this response letter. We appreciate you bringing these issues to our attention and have been working to improve some of the concerns that were raised through this customer’s experience.

In this customer’s situation, the time they paid for parking was not the cause for which they were booted. This customer was booted for going in and out of the lot and trying to use the same ticket for two separate parking visits, which is against our policy and clearly indicated on the signage on the lot (please see attached photo. Please be advised that our signage meets all legal requirements for booting and towing for the city of Dallas. The fact that a large number of vehicles either failed to pay for parking or exceeded their allotted time has no bearing on this individual’s situation. We ticket all vehicles equally. We contract our booting service to a third party professional provider whose only duty is to monitor parking lots to enforce proper payment with valid tickets displayed at all times. Lastly, we treat all vehicles the same because we have no way of knowing who the owner is nor do we have any idea where someone is from based on a car parked on our lots. Therefore, the complaint that we targets foreign visitors is unsubstantiated and offensive to us.

In regards to our supervisor’s handling of this situation, we apologize if our supervisor was considered rude in her interaction with the customers. When questioned, she shared with us that she was verbally assaulted by the parkers and called all sorts of names. This in no way condones her actions, therefore we are going to provide her with Conflict Resolution training.

We apologize for the unfortunate experience this customer encountered but their claims that they are not responsible for the actions taken is without merit. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me.

Best Regards,

[redacted] B. [redacted]

Area Manager - Dallas

Consumer

Response:

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 two separate issues which I complained. One is our cars have been booted, and there is no obvious "official letter" to inform parker that this parking lot does not allow "inside and out". Only one "obvious" sign they provide is a copy paper without any company information or signature (please see attachment). And none of our parkers can determine the authenticity. Besides, no cars had been booted for the first two days after purchasing the ticket and parking inside and out. That's why more cars were parked there. Our question is if they "ticket all vehicles equally" as they said. why no car booting at the beginning?

Review: This event occurred at the following location:[redacted] San Diego[redacted], U.S.A.Date: May 8th 2013Subject: Valet at the [redacted] damaged my vehicle's wheels on the passenger side. Preface:I work on my car on a regular basis. On the 7th of May, I had to change my headlight bulb on both the passenger and driver side. To do so, I needed to remove my rims to access this area. Upon removing them, I inspected that there has been no damage done to any of my rims. This includes all 4 rims. Day of the event:After a 2 hour drive from Huntington Beach, I arrived to the [redacted] around 3:40 PM (PST). I parked my car up front and asked if I could leave it there while I checked into the hotel and conference I was attending. The parking attendent told me that it was okay to do so and I did.The checkin process took about 40-50 minutes. When I went back to retrieve my vehicle, the vehicle had been moved and parked in the structure. When they brought my vehicle back, I noticed the damage done to both the front and rear passenger rims. The damage was fresh and can easily be noted that it was done recently.I filed a claim with Ace Parking and they denied my claim. I requested for evidence and was not given any. I ended up speaking with the claims manager and it ended in a similar fashion. Note that there was no inspection done to my vehicle prior to them taking the vehicle into their facilities. Another item to note is that there is no video surveillance inside the valet garage. From my inspection of the damage, I dont believe it was caused by a curb. I believe it was caused by one of metal signs inside the garage.Desired Settlement: Supply the cost of repair to the damaged rims. Another desired item would be to require this facility to inspect vehicles prior to taking them in.

Business

Response:

Dear Mr. [redacted],

I am not aware of any valet company that automatically involves guests in the damage check process. However any quest that asks to be part of the damage check process is allowed to participate. We did do a damage check on your vehicle when we parked it and there are multiple locations with damages marked. This is just an internal tool we use and we are often accused of marking damages after causing them. This is why we don't publicize or provide our damage checks unless subpoenaed in court. That is why I advise customers that if they would like to be a part of the damage process, all they need to do is ask. However most guests are not interested in this as they are more concerned with their planned itinerary. Per your own admission you agree with Ace Parking that no damage was caused to your rims by any curbs at the facility in question. The front drive video reviewed by security also agrees with this assessment. Your suggestion that the rims were somehow damaged by signs, doesn't make sense to us and we cannot understand how this is possible. If you would like to inspect the facility with me to see if we can somehow make sense of this assertion, I will gladly meet you for a full physical inspection of the facility and all the signs. Our site manager who knows this facility best cannot find any signs where the damage could have occurred in his opinion. The reason we denied your claim is that he feels 100% certain we did not cause your rim damage. We do acknowledge though that this is just our version of the facts and we understand you do not agree. I am not aware of a way for me to definitely prove that we did not damage your rims. If you would like to have your rims repaired and send me your bill for possible partial reimbursement as a customer service gesture, please do so.

Best regards,

Claims Manager

Ace Parking Management Inc

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.

Regards,

Review: While parking at Horton Plaza I expected to pay the advertised rate of $8 an hour, with $2 per 15 minutes thereafter, which is posted at the top of the sign in large bold letters without any listed time limitation. I was charged a flat rate of $20, despite only having been in the structure for an hour and 25 minutes. The flat rate is listed very low on the sign and in smaller letters than the other indicated rate. This sign is very deceptive, calculated to allow people to make this mistake so that they can be overcharged.Desired Settlement: Refund of the $8 I was overcharged, change of sign.

Business

Response:

Dear Mr. [redacted],

Thank you for the opportunity to review our sign content at this location.

Sign content doesn't always get created at the same time.

It can grow and become too complicated as new issues arise and are attempted to be ameliorated.

The next time we make a change to our signs at this location we will attempt to put all payment relevant information together in the same section to avoid confusion.

I spoke to [redacted] our manager at this location and he is agreeable with your accounting for your charges.

Please call him directly at [redacted] and he will work it out with you regarding a refund.

We apologize for any inconvenience and ask you to please believe that it is not our intention to confuse our customers.

Best regards,

Claims Manager

Review: While on vacation in San Diego, CA. My family and I stayed at an Embassy Suites, which utilized valet parking only. The vendor, ACE Management Parking Inc. parked my vehicle on July 1st, in the evening. 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 struck a curb. The tire was not like this prior to me dropping it off at valet. I was advised on July 7th, by the ACE Parking Manager that after an investigation, they are not liable for the damage caused to my vehicle.My issue is that I was forced to use valet parking and there was no other alternative. My vehicle was left in the care of ACE Parking, who damaged my tire and would not admit liability. I have searched the internet and noticed several complaints via social networking sites, that ACE is not highly regarded.Desired Settlement: I would like my tire to be repaired at ACE Management Parking's expense. The cost is $269.00 plus tax. I would also like an apology from ACE Management Parking Inc.

Business

Response:

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,

Parking

Manager

(619)

239-2400 X[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

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,

Review: On July 3rd, I was issued a parking citation by an Ace parking officer. I am questioning the legality of a private company being able to issue citations on a city owned street. I have cited a legal opinion published on December 22, 2011, by Attorney General for the State of California, [redacted], concerning Vehicle Code section 40202(a) in which it states:"In a 2002 opinion, we concluded that there is no express grant of authority for a city to contract with a private entity to issue the citys parking tickets.20 We stated that the issuance of parking tickets is commonly performed as a municipal function, and cannot reasonably be considered as the type of service that by implication may be contracted out to a private party.21 There have been no relevant changes in the law since that time that would cause us to reconsider that opinion, and we reaffirm it here."According to this legal opinion, issued by the Attorney General, theCity of Chula Vista cannot authorize private companies like AceParking to issue citations. Thus, if the City of Chula Vista hasauthorized Ace Parking to issue citations, then the City of ChulaVista is in violation of the California Vehicle Code.My appeal was denied by Ace Parking on July 9, 2014 and I am seeking further assistance in appealing this citation.Thank you,[redacted]Desired Settlement: My request is to not have to pay for citation in the amount of $24.50 and have it resolved before I recieve further late fee penalties incurred after July 30, 2014.

Business

Response:

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,

Parking

Manager

(619) 239-2400 X[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

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'm not sure what incident Mr. [redacted] is referencing in his response to my complaint. I never parked at the Embassy Hotel in Downtown San Diego. My specific complaint is directed toward Ace Parking on 3rd Ave, Suite F in Chula Vista, CA 91910. See my complaint below:

On July 3rd, I was issued a parking citation by an Ace officer. I am questioning the legality of a private company being able to issue citations on a city owned street. I have cited a legal opinion published on December 22, 2011, by Attorney General for the State of California, [redacted], concerning Vehicle Code section 40202(a) in which it states:

"In a 2002 opinion, we concluded that there is no express grant of authority for a city to contract with a private entity to issue the city's parking tickets.20 We stated that the issuance of parking tickets is "commonly performed as a municipal function," and "cannot reasonably be considered as the type of service that by implication may be contracted out to a private company."21 There have been no relevant changes in the law since that time that would cause us to reconsider that opinion, and we reaffirm it here." According to this legal opinion, issued by the Attorney General, the City of Chula Vista cannot authorize private companies like Ace Parking to issue citations. Thus, if the City of Chula Vista has authorized Ace Parking to issue citations, then the City of Chula Vista is in violation of the California Vehicle Code.

My appeal was denied by Ace Parking in July 9, 2014 and I am seeking further assistance in appealing this citation.

Regards,

Review: As I entered the lot of 110 west a street "110 plaza" there were signs posted in several places that the disabled parks for free. As I was leaving after about an hour I pulled up an d showed them my placard showing that I was disabled and he still charged us. he charged me $6.00and stated that if there was a complaint to call 619-238-1551 to the supervisor of the lot. I called when I got home and he told me that I needed to email [redacted]@aceparking.com, this is not a valid email. so I was getting the run around for everything so this was the next best thing.Desired Settlement: I would like my money back and for them to either honor advertising or remove it.

Business

Response:

[redacted],

Thank you for forwarding the most recent complaint regarding complimentary parking for visitors with disabilities. Unfortunately, the individual making this claim is not correct in their interpretation of the posted signs. As you will see from the two attachments below, this garage makes very clear that the opposite is true. The signs below state:

'DISABLED PERSONS SUBJECT TO PARKING RATES'

These signs, as shown on the attached photos, are prominently displayed on the entry gate arm so that it is directly facing the inbound vehicle when it stops to take a ticket. The second file shows a sign on the exit booth. Again, this is prominently posted facing outbound traffic as they approach the exit lane.

I am not sure what more we could have done to alert this customer that this is a garage that does not discount or provide free parking to visitors with ADA placards.

(In viewing the language in place, I believe we need to modify it since it could be considered offensive to some to be considered 'Disabled'. Therefore, we will be replacing these signs with those that are more 'politically correct' in how the message is phrased. I am leading toward something along the lines of: ' Vehicles with Disable Placards are Subject to Posted Rates'.)

As I am sure you are aware, the Americans with Disabilities Act, as it pertains to parking, details the quantity of ADA spaces required in each parking facility; the location of the space; the layout including dimensions of stalls, hash marked loading areas and the path of travel from the space to the exits. However, nowhere does the ADA language address pricing or charging/not charging for parking. This is left to the individual parking locations.

The City of San Diego has its own policy for street parking where the meters are free of charge to anyone with a valid ADA placard. However, that entitlement does not extend to the private sector and privately owned/operated parking facilities. Each facility makes the determination whether or not to charge individuals with ADA placards. In this regard, Ace Parking's policy at all its locations is to treat the ADA vehicles exactly as we do all other vehicles. We do not differentiate or treat them any differently, which means they are subject to the same parking charges as every other vehicle using our lots. (The lone exceptions being hospitals/medical facilities.)

I hope this information is evidence enough for you to discount the claim made against us. As I have demonstrated, Ace Parking has done as much as we could realistically be expected to do at this location to alert visitors that they will be charged the posted rates regardless of whether or not they are displaying an ADA placard.

I look forward to your confirmation. Thank you.

Review: On 5/20/14, Ace Parking held a disastrously defective online advance sale of parking in their lots for San Diego Comic Con 2014. The epic problematic transgressions inflicted upon thousands of customers were reported on by SD's local CBS-8 TV and are easily searchable online. I can provide further details if necessary. The bare bones of the problems in my specific case are that I purchased parking for all five dates in question (7/23/14, 7/24/14, 7/25/14, 7/26/14, 7/27/14) at the Convention Center parking lot. I selected those items on the company's site, placed the in my cart, executed the checkout process, and paid $99.75 using my MasterCard. The charges went through and I was charged for the transaction. Additionally I was charged again in the amount of $79.80, six more times for a total of $478.80 on top of the initial $99.75. Notably, $99.75 represents the amount for 5 days of parking specifically at the Convention Center location, as since the system limits 1 parking space per day per account, and the other locations in the sale have different rates, so this amount cannot reached unless the sale is for those individual different dates at the Convention Center location. The only location with that same rate is the Hilton Bayfront location. The system failed to send email confirmation of my purchase. And my purchase fails to appear in my purchase history on the Ace Parking website. So also I have not been able to print my parking passes, even though my account now has an associated master bar code and my credit card information has been stored on the site. Prior to the sale, Ace Parking's directions and sale preview pages specified that barcodes would not be generated an credit card info would not be stored unless you had successfully purchased parking in the past. During and in the aftermath of the sale, having done this same thing and many, many other permutations of improper things to hundreds (likely thousands) of customers, Ace Parking shut down their phone lines and did not answer emailed inquiries. They made several conflicting posts on Twitter and Facebook saying they would honor such purchases, and then that they would not. They have become impossible to believe and difficult to communicate with. I did manage to reach an employee by phone whose task was to simply receive all such calls, but who could say nothing conclusive about what remedy would be offered.Desired Settlement: I want my purchase honored. I want to receive my parking passes for the location I purchased (Convention Center) for all five dates (7/23/14, 7/24/14, 7/25/14, 7/26/14, 7/27/14) online in my account, and to be able to print them normally as anticipated, so that I can use them and park on those dates, in the purchased location. I want the excess charges ($478.80) to either be cancelled and the funds released, or refunded if they were already collected. I would like to receive whatever emails and notifications that an undamaged online account on their website would receive going forward and for my online account to function properly so that I can use the account for whatever future parking is solely controlled by Ace Parking in the future, forcing me to patronize them again. Optionally, I think that Ace Parking should be making overt, clear and widespread public apologies to the many, many customers they abused through this sale, rather than the tepid, minimal statements they have made thus far on social media. They have managed parking for SDCC for years. They cannot continue to be surprised by the volume of activity of the sale. This is not the first time this type of thing has happened with Ace Parking online, and it is no secret that SDCC is a mammoth undertaking, involving hundreds of thousands of customers. If they are going to take it on, they need to be responsible in the collection of funds, and the creation and performance of contracts that online sales represent.

Consumer

Response:

So, here's my wrap-up for the Revdex.com site:

Review: To Whom It May Concern:On Sunday, February 23, 2014, my friends and I participated in a 5K run near Seaport Village. We arrived early for packet pickup. Upon arrival, we looked for parking and noticed that the parking gates in the Seaport Village lots were up and the machines that dispense tickets for parking all read "FREE PASSAGE" with a smiley face. There were no attendants on duty, it was early but clearly free to park. We parked, collected our packets and completed our run. When we left, there were 2 attendants. We smiled, waved and started to drive through, as the parking arms were still up and the FREE PASSAGE sign was still on the machines. The attendants stopped us and told us they had to charge us $8.00. We argued, questioning what exactly free passage means? They said that the system is in the process of being replaced, so the arms don't work and that message is just displayed for now. We continued to argue but they were insistent we pay, which we did with a credit card. We requested a receipt and the name and number of a manager. They complied. I then called Augie Hooker, the manager, at###-###-####. He said if we were parked more than 15 minutes we had to pay and he could do nothing to assist. I asked again what exactly free passage means and he confirmed that their systems weren't working correctly and in the process of being replaced. I told him that is not our issue nor is it our fault, but their responsibility. The message could and should have read NO FREE ENTRY. He refused to assist in any way. I do have photos of the FREE PASSAGE signage and a copy of the credit card receipt.Desired Settlement: Please issue an $8.00 refund for the ACE Parking error and remove any signage that reads FREE PASSAGE. This is deceptive business practice.

Business

Response:

The issue below has been resolved directly with the guest. She was provided an $8 refund for her parking fee. I have attached a copy of her refund receipt. What do I need to do to ensure this is also a closed issue with the Revdex.com.

Thank you,

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. The business has performed this action and I consider this complaint resolved.

Regards,

To whom it may concern, I will never use Ace parking again. I paid $5 to park at 707 Broadway tonight immediately and then had to drive out due to a family matter and needed to leave along with not being able to attend the ballet performance. I asked the employee #064302 a young early 20s African American boy for a refund he just sold us not 5 minutes prior and he tells us 'no refunds no exception have a nice day the exit is that way". I hope all 1-star reviews I'm going to leave on a bunch of review website is worth the $5. You need to teach your employee how to have compassion and know how to provide customer service.

Review: On May 20, 2014 at 9am, ACE parking opened their online system to allow Comin Con attendees to purchase parking passes for the event. The system crashed within minutes and told everyone via social media that it would be back up at 2:45pm that same day. Again their system crash, and told eveyone that it would not be up until 8am the following day but allowed those who were lucky to get into the system while they were testing to purchase the parking passes. At appoximately 7:32pm that evening, I was able to get into their online system and select the parking passes that I wanted. I entered my credit card info ONCE and it gave me an error. There was no confirmation that the payment went through nor did they provide me a barcode of the parking passes that I selected. I assumed that they payment did not go through since I was given an error and nothing was provided to show that I purchased my parking passes. The online system went down after that. At approximately, 10:21pm I was able to logon to their system again and successfully purchased my parking pass, as I received the barcodes for each days that I purchased. I just dont understand why they didnt shut down their site completely untill all issues were resolved. Instead they collected thousands of dollars from people who didnt even know it because they never provided a confirmation of payment.

After looking at my credit card statement, I saw that ACE parking management inc had charged my account 3 times. All 3 payments were pending charges. I was only given the one barcode for the purchase that I made at 10:21pm on 05/20/2014. So, I should have only been charged once.

ACE parking then posted on their FACEBBOK page on 05/21/2014 at 3:46pm " In our system, we can tell who was charged for a reservation but the reservation did not go through. Once we determine how to accomodate, we will notify you." "All refunds for duplicates will be submitted to the financial instutions by EOD tomorrow."

I emailed ACE parking on 05/22/2014 with my contact information because I didnt know how they would notify me without my info. I have not received a response yet.

Today is now 05/23/2014 and 2 out of the 3 charges they made on my account have gone through as official charges.

ACE has taken away my money since 05/20/2014 and has yet to give it back. We are now approaching a 3 day weekend and bills need to be paid. ACE has taken my money for something that they did not provide confirmation for and now I am out the money that I need.Desired Settlement: I would like a full refund for all charges that they applied to may credit card plus the orginal parking locations I requested and paid for on 05/20/2014 @10:21pm. I feel that is fair because they have taken money that I need to pay bills and now have to find other resources & they didnt refund any of the charges like they said the would