All City Towing

I recently had my vehicle towed, I requested and paid for it. They damaged my vehicle and as I found out All City's policy is deny, deny, deny. I placed a [redacted] complaint but apparently 29 complaints in a 36 month period isn't much to bat an eye at, especially when All City is a paying customer. Avoid All City at all costs.

Review: On June 13, 2013 my van was towed by All City Towing to their yard for a non accident matter. When I received my van back on June 14, 2013 the front bumper was smashed. I asked what happened and they refused to tell me saying it was like that when the towed it, which was a complete and utter lie. On June 16, 2013 I received a call from [redacted] asking me about the claim filed. I had no idea what they were talking about. It turns out that All City Towing was involved in an accident while towing my vehicle and then proceeded to file a claim under my insurance!!! [redacted] and I both agree that this is not right!! I spoke with All City Towing and they told me to get a lawyer and are refusing to talk to me. This claim should be filed through All City Towing's Insurance Company and damages should be taken care of by them.Desired Settlement: All City Towing should repair the front bumper of my van.

Business

Response:

This

correspondence will confirm receipt and review of your e-mail of earlier this

afternoon in connection with the above captioned matter.

We have carefully examined

the circumstances surrounding this incident. We have also read the

Complainant's complaint to the Revdex.com. This loss is somewhat

confusing as it is related to two (2) separate incidents.

On June 13l

, the Complainant's car was being towed by All City Towing at the direction of

the Mesa Police Department. In the process of being lowed by All City's truck,

the Complainant"s vehicle and our tow truck were rear-ended by a hit and

run driver while our driver was headed westbound on US 60. The Department of

Public Safety was immediately notified of this incident and prepared Report #

[redacted] following our report of the hit and run. Our driver provided a

license plate of the hit and run vehicle but apparently transposed 2

letters/numbers during his report, as a

result, DPS was unable to immediately locate the vehicle when they searched

their database.

Later that

same evening, the same All City driver entered our storage facility in Chandler

to drop off an unrelated vehicle being towed at the request of another law

enforcement agency. Immediately upon entering the yard, he recognized the same

hit and run vehicle in our storage facility. The vehicle had been towed in by

another All City driver at the direction of the Gilbert Police Department

earlier that evening. This same hit and run vehicle was apparently involved in

a similar incident in Gilbert shortly after the vehicle had hit our truck and

the Complainant's vehicle.

When the owner of

the hit and run vehicle came to our facility and claimed the car, we obtained

their insurance information. We then called their insurer ([redacted]) and

reported the claim(s) involving our truck and the Complainant's vehicle. The

claim remains open and the adjuster from [redacted] will be inspecting our truck

today. They are aware the Complainant's vehicle was also damaged as a result of

this incident and have opened a claim for this damage as well.

After

careful consideration of the facts and the law, we determined we were not

legally liable for the damage to the Complainant's vehicle. As a courtesy and

prior to sending him a written denial, we called him on Friday, June 21s

to discuss the matter. Unfortunately, we were unable to leave a message for him

on his voice mail. We are sure his phone records will support receiving a call

from All City Towing on June 21st. After this attempt, we then

called his insurance company ([redacted]) and advised them of the facts of the

loss. We did not open a claim as the Complainant has alleged. We simply advised

them that their insured's car had been damaged by a hit and run driver while

being towed by our company.

We are at

a loss as to what we have done wrong. We were not responsible for the damage to

the Complainant's vehicle. Contrary to what the Complainant indicated, we did

not advise him the damage pre-existed our involvement. When I spoke with the

Complainant yesterday, he accused us of fraud, indicated his attorney was going

to sue us and further advised his insurance company indicated we were at fault.

His insurer ([redacted]) actually thanked us for notifying them of the

incident when we reported it to them back on Friday, June 21s. Why

would they now indicate we were at fault? Additionally, we never suggested the

Complainant retain an attorney as he clearly indicated to us that he already

had an attorney and would be suing us. As soon as we learned he had retained

counsel, we advised him we could no longer have direct contact with him without

his attorney being present or without his permission. Our actions were in

strict compliance with the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure.

We are sorry we were unable to provide the Complainant with a more

favorable response; however,

we were not responsible for the damage to his vehicle. As noted above, we have

already reported the matter to the at-fault party's insurer ([redacted]) and they

have indicated to us that that will be in contact with the Complainant shortly.

We trust

our response adequately addresses your concerns. We thank you for the

opportunity io review and respond appropriately to this inquiry.

Sincerely,

General

Manager

On Behalf

of ACT Towing, LLC

My car was towed at the request of the [redacted] by All City Towing. I was released from custody at 8-9 am. I was told I could pick up the car at the All City Towing yard until 12 noon. I had to call for a ride and travel from [redacted] to near [redacted] and [redacted]. While I was on my way there was road construction and an accident which was going to make me late by a few minutes, so I call All City Towing and they said no problem they would wait and it would not be an issue. I arrived at 12:03. The person who answered the door was mad, very angry and starting yelling. I explained I called beforehand and he said someone was going to get fired. He let me in and processed my car for release. The person who helped me with the paperwork was [redacted]. She then said I owed an additional $75 because it was after 12 noon. I told her I called and spoke to the company rep and they claimed there was no issue or charge and she would release the vehicle without the $75. This is a rip off and I was already in a bad situation and they ,made it worse. They were mean, loud, and out spoken plus they collected funds they did not deserve. Beware.

Review: My car was towed by All City Towing in November 2013. At some point my vehicle, while in the possession with All City Towing, received damage to the rear window beyond repair. I was never contacted about the damage, and brought it to their attention during a visit to pick up personal belongings. I signed a claim for repairs, and made it very clear about how the repair needed to be done. I advised All City Towing to repair the vehicle with authentic [redacted] (manufacturer) parts to avoid any complications with my lease agreement. I also requested that somebody contact me prior to fixing the damage, so I could reiterate the importance of this and express my repair standards (i.e. professional installation). I tried contacting [redacted], the only person that would be handling this issue according to the office people. [redacted], also serves as the head of the Organization as General Manager. After 30 days of my vehicle being at the tow yard, and at least four calls to try to get in touch with someone, my vehicle was ready for pickup where my window was actually already replaced. Unfortunately, the repair was very subpar. The window was not a [redacted] part, and the window was not restored properly (heating element does not work at same capacity, and the tint was never restored at all). I have tried to contact [redacted] countless times, where he chooses to ignore all attempts of me to reach out to him. Even when he is in the office, he has the receptionist send the call to voicemail, where he ignores the issue once again. I have left at least four voice messages to [redacted], where he has never replied or even made a phone call.Desired Settlement: I am requesting that [redacted] contact me regarding the repair as I am seeking restitution for the damages to my personal property at ONLY [redacted]@**.com or to my home address. [redacted] should be advised that he must provide written responses and not phone calls as I will reach out to the Tempe Small Claims court if there is not a resolution very soon. I estimate the tint at around $150, the [redacted] window replacement above $1300, and a glass-cleanup&damage assessment of approximately $30 for the glass lodged in my speakers, upholstery, in-between seats, etc. The seats are dangerous to sit in as there is glass throughout the vehicle.

Business

Response:

This correspondence will confirm receipt and review of your e-mail of March 10, 2014 in connect ion with the above captioned matter.

We have carefully examined the circumstances surrounding this incident. We have also read the Complainant's claim to the Revdex.com.

The Complainant's vehicle was towed on September 22, 2012 at approximately 4:44PM at the direction of the [redacted] Police Department following an arrest. The vehicle was taken to our secure storage facility located at [redacted] in Tempe . The Complainant called us on November 14th and asked what was needed to get the vehicle released and we advised him the vehicle had been placed on a 3- day hold by [redacted] PD. He was advised he needed to contact [redacted] PD for further instructions. On November 21st, the Complainant came in to get property out of the vehicle and left without any issue. On November 26 he came back with a representative of a DUI Interlock Company to install as DUI interlock device. This is the day the window was noticed to be broken.

We immediately commenced an investigation and determined a neighboring business was allowing an employee to "blow things up" in their yard. This caused debris to scatter and ultimately caused the window to break. While this was of no fault of our company, the vehicle was in the care, custody and control of our company at the time the damage occurred. As such , we immediately accepted responsibility for the repair.

The vehicle in question is owned by [redacted], the Complainant 's father. As such, our written letter and claims acknowledgement was sent to him at his address in North [redacted], which was clearly noted on the [redacted] PD report. Our letter to [redacted] dated November 29th was returned to us as undeliverable. Upon receipt of the returned letter, we confirmed the address and sent a second letter to the same address. This 2nd letter was never returned as undeliverable. Copies of our letters are enclosed for your review.

The Complainant's claims of never receiving phone calls or written correspondence are unfounded. He also claims he gave explicit instructions as to the requirement for "[redacted] glass". This is untrue. I have personally spoken with the Complainant on 3 different occasions since the window was damaged. Any inferences to the contrary are baseless, less than factual and are without merit.

After the damage was discovered, we made arrangements to have a licensed, insured and bonded glass company replace the rear glass while the vehicle was still in our care, custody and control just as our letter of November 29th stated. We did this to limit the inconvenience to the owner of the vehicle. The glass was replaced with new, aftermarket glass. This is the same glass any insurer would have paid to put in the vehicle. It is not "[redacted] glass"; however, it is the same glass that [redacted] buys, absent the "[redacted]" stamp on the glass. It's made by the same company and is of identical materials and quality.

At some point after the car was claimed, the Complainant expressed his dissatisfaction with the glass repair. He claimed it was not "[redacted] glass" and wanted only "[redacted] glass". He also claimed the window had tint on it and the replacement one did not. He also claimed the rear window defroster was not functioning properly. I personally spoke with the Complainant and advised him that we would absolutely pay for the tint and we would likewise have the window defroster inspected by the glass company who did the initial replacement. He immediately made demands that we pay him $1,300 for "[redacted] glass" and the conversation became highly unproductive from there.

Our offer to have the tint done and the installation inspected by the original installer stands. If the defroster is not working due to an improper replacement or defective glass, the installer should be given the opportunity to correct this condition. Any independent reviewer of the facts would have the same opinion.

We trust our response adequately addresses the Complainant's concerns. We thank you for the opportunity to review and respond appropriately to this inquiry.

Sincerely,

[redacted]. [redacted]

General Manager

On Behalf of ACT Towing, LLC

Review: My car was towed in January for no insurance or registration. After my car was first towed, I went to the towing lot to pick up some personal belongings. Unfortunately, my cars registration was expired at the time so I needed a 3 days use permit to remove anything from the vehicle and I could only get one more of those, so I had to wait till I got my car out of the lot to get some personal belongings. I got my car out of the lot Thursday. I checked my car Friday morning to get some things out and realized that they were missing. My Mp3 Player(80$), my 2 tb hard drive(150$), and my Coin Holder that came with the car that sits in the console. I cant believe my car was towed by the police and things were stolen out of it. They need to use a better or alternative towing lot, one with integrity. I could care less about how expensive my hard drive was, that has 3 YEARS of data on it, I design computer programs, 3 YEARS of programming GONE, my WEDDING Plans GONE, Me and my fiances pictures of when we first met GONE, my brother's wedding photo's I took in 2012 all GONE. Im going to file a police report and attempt to get my belongings back, primarily the hard drive. But Im sure Im going to get the run around and say that it was my fault for the stuff being in the car and every other excuse companies come up with when they are at fault. This utterly ridiculous.Desired Settlement: To have my personal belongings returned. I don't know why they would take my coin holder out of the console of the car and think I wouldnt notice.

Business

Response:

This correspondence will confirm receipt and review of your e-mail of Sunday, March 9, 20 15 in connection with the above captioned matter. We actually received 2 e-mails - one at 4:33AM and one at 4:40AM. The have different complaint numbers; however, they are for the same Complainant. Please remove one from the record.We have carefully examined the circumstances surrounding this incident and have read the Complainant's claim to the Revdex.com. The Complainant's vehicle was towed on January 28, 20 15 at approximately 5:00PM at the direction of the Mesa Police Department.Following the Complainant's arrest, the vehicle was towed to our secure storage facility located in Mesa. On February 10th, some 12 days after the tow, the Complainant arrived to obtain property from the vehicle. He was unable to provide proof of ownership for the vehicle so he was not allowed to remove property. Providing proof of ownership is a contract requirement and not something we have any latitude over.On March 5th, the Complainant claimed the vehicle at our facility and we assume he brought it back to his house. At the time the vehicle was claimed and for the next 4 days, we never heard from the Complainant regarding any of the property that is now being claimed. Our first notice was on March 9th. We cannot be held responsible for items after the vehicle has been released to the registered owner.We trust our response adequately addresses the Complainant's concerns. We thank you for the opportunity to review and respond appropriately to this inquiry.

Review: All-City towing is in a 5 year contractual relationship with the City of Scottsdale. They came on scene to tow my vehicle that was involved in an accident on 12/15/2014 (my adult son was driving). They made a point to verbally state that the tow was free, (which is a service we have with [redacted] in addition to towing under our insurance plan). The driver did not present any options to tow the vehicle to a repair shop or our home. The driver NEVER indicated there would be impound fees before taking possession of the vehicle.

I filed a claim with our insurance company on 12/15. As of 12/19 they had not been able to get a statement from the other driver, who was cited at the accident. I contacted All City towing on 12/20/2014 and told them I wanted to retrieve my vehicle, as I was concerned about the delay in the insurance company declaring fault and accepting responsibility. It didn't appear it was going to a repair facility soon enough. I was told that it would be $199 to get my vehicle. The female who took my call was rude and dismissive. When I asked to speak with a supervisor I was told there was not one working and she had nothing further to tell me.

I telephoned back on Monday 12/22 and spoke to yet another rude female. After I politely explained that I should not be charged impound fees I was placed on hold for 19 minutes. I can only assume in the hopes that I would give up and hang up. Finally another female took the call. She was pleasant and professional, but simply could not answer my questions. I was again placed on hold and the call was later taken by [redacted], the "Yard manager". He was on a cell phone, not a land line and much of the call had interference. He vehemently refused to waive the impound fees and proceeded to tell me how I didn't understand how things work, and that nothing is free, and that my son was lying, their driver would never had said that it was free, that accidents must be cleared away, they were at the scene timely, etc and on the blame went.

I decided to document my issued through email correspondence. Interestingly, when I called their main line and asked for an email for customer service I was told to look on the website. Really, that's your company's official, professional response? I was then given a gmail address. This company seems very seedy.

This practice is abhorrent. There was never any disclosure of DAILY IMPOUND FEES during their verbal exchange at the time of the accident. That is a fraudulent business practice. It is of no consequence that they typically gouge the insurance company for these fees, so much of what they do goes unnoticed. When you are involved in an accident, you are shaken, this is not a standard occurrence and you may be unsettled, in pain, distress, and inundated with not only the surprising nature of events but also the unfamiliarity of situation and activities. You should not have to delve for details from a service provider who does this multiple times daily in their normal course of business.

All-City Towing's handling of the situation and response to my inquiries and assertions is unprofessional, exceedingly so for a company who claims to have contracts with multiple cities.Desired Settlement: I want the fees abated and I want my vehicle released as soon as possible. Most importantly, I want this practice changed. They should be required to disclose their storage fees and any other fees before they take possession of someone's vehicle at the scene of an accident.

Business

Response:

This correspondence will confirm receipt and review of your e-mail yesterday in connection with the above caption matter.We have carefully examined the circumstances surrounding this incident. We have also read the Complainant's complaint to the Revdex.com.The Complainant's son's vehicle was involved in an accident on December 15, 2014 at an approximate location of [redacted]. We were called by the Scottsdale Police Department to remove the vehicles from the scene. We arrived and towed the vehicle in question to our secure storage facility located in Tempe.While at the scene, the operator of the vehicle was given a business card by our driver and/or the police officer. The business card clearly outlines the contracted rate schedule. While at this particular scene, our driver likely told the driver of the vehicle, in question that there would be no cost to them as it was clearly the fault of the other driver involved in the accident. Our drivers never tell someone it is " free" as we would not be able to sustain a business providing free services.The rate for the tow to our ya rd, per contract, is $0.01; however, the daily storage rate is $32.50/day, also per contract. The Complainant has known this in formation since December 20th yet the vehicle remains at our facility and continues to accrue charges. Nothing has been done to mitigate the towing and storage bill.This issue is simple. We performed a service and are due fees as a result; however, in the interest of resolving this matter amicably, we are willing to credit the Complainant's invoice in the amount of $100.00 provided payment is made, less this $100.00 credit.The fees will continue to accrue if nothing is done with the vehicle. Additionally, Arizona Revised Statutes mandate towing companies to process abandon vehicles within prescribed timeframes; therefore, it's conceivable we will have to start this process tomorrow (the 10th day it's been in our possession) if the Complainant fails to act. We extend our apologies to the Complainant for any perceived misinformation and trust our response adequately addresses the concerns contained within the complaint. We thank you for the opportunity to review and respond appropriately (0 this inquiry.

Don't use these people. They scammed my son last night... They did not take the insurance as they should have done, they refuse to refund his money! They used bait and switch, told him it would be $85 then charged $161! $161 to jump start a car! What a crock! I have had 2 ton truck towed for less $$ than what they charged to jump start a car!

Review: I parked my car at an [redacted], ran across the street to grab a friend (I had friends inside the restaurant already). Within 5 minutes my vehicle was towed. When I called a very RUDE lady informed me my car hadn't even arrived at the impound lot (which was less than 2 miles away). After she told me the address she hung up on me mid sentence. When I went to pick up my car, the staff was surly and rude. After I paid $125 to pick up my car they didnt bring my car back to me. I waited outside of the establishment by the gate for 25 minutes before going back in. As I was the ONLY person in there at the time I was curious where my car was. It was then I was told by an older man that it was "too bad" and they were "too busy" to get my car at the moment. As no one was doing anything I found this odd. He informed me I was gonna wait as long as he wanted. The customer service staff at this time exited to office and the tow drivers went outside to smoke cigarettes, leaving me in the lobby unattended. Ten minutes later my car was brought outside. I waited almost an hour to get my car, because a rude and vindictive staff abused what little power they had. This entire experience was terrible, and this company is basically guilty of extortion. As I am self employed, I basically lost most of the day thanks to their shenanigans.Desired Settlement: An apology, and a refund for my tow. No one should have to experience this.

Business

Response:

This will confirm receipt and review of your e-mail dated

today in connection with the

above capti oned m

atter.

We have carefu lly exam ined the circumstances surroundin

g this incid

ent. The vehicle in question was parked on private·property. A s it was parked on

private property, the owner and/or custodian on the vehicle is subject to the park ing ru

les and regulation s form

th I s location.

The private

· parking lot is for

the exclusive use of the [redacted] anc [redacted]. The prope11y is well signed; therefore, anyone parking there knO\vs who should and should not

be using

the lot. Complainant was n

ot a customer

or the [redacted] or the

hotel despite what

h3s been alleged.

The customer service issues outl ined

in the Complaint were of con.;em.

As such , J personally reviewed both

the audio and

v ideo tapes

.

Most of the informaticn could

not be confirmed during the review; however, it is factual

th at the Compla :nant

experienced delays at our storage facility due to

the fact that he was be ing argumentative

and uncoopt:r ative. He refused to provid e keys to the vehicle, wh ich would have made

the release easier and more

time ly. Instead, we were forced to use an alternative method

to release the vehicl

e and this took

a bit

longer than u

sual. The Complainant spent

a tota l of 34 minutes at our facility-

from the time

he arrived to the time

h e left.

Whil e we are not happy it took lon ger than our u sual tim e to release the car, it was caused

by the actions of the Com pl ainant. He pa id a tota l or $ 1 20.00 (not $125.JO) for the release, advised us we wou ld be hearin g from his attorney

and he and his fema

le companion left th e facil ity.

We trust our respon se adequately addresses the Complainant' s concerns. We thank you for the opportun

ity to review and respond

appropr iately to th is inquiry .

General Manager

On Behal f of ACT Towing,

LLC

Review: My husband was involved in an accident yesterday, March 6, 2014. All City Towing was called by the City of Phoenix to tow his vehicle to the collision repair center chosen by our insurance. When the driver showed up, he loaded the vehicle onto his truck and then informed us we needed to pay him a $15 charge for towing the vehicle. The driver INSISTED on a cash only payment, and then after we pulled out $20 from the bank to pay the towing charge, he refused to give us change stating he could not break a $20. With the vehicle already loaded on to the truck, we felt we had no choice but to give the driver the extra $5 to keep. However, on our receipt bill, the driver ONLY acknowledged our payment of $15, not the full $20 we had given him. I believe this is a total scam on the part of the driver. If the driver ONLY accepts cash for towing a vehicle, then he should readily have plenty of cash on hand to make change for a $20 bill.

Now some people may say that $5 isn't that big of a deal, and that we shouldn't make a fuss over it, but that is exactly my point as well. $5 here or there given "off the record" to a driver who refuses to make change when he will only accept cash, adds up to QUITE a lot of money over time. Either the driver, or the company itself is shady, and disreputable. This is in regards to invoice #[redacted].Desired Settlement: I would like an apology and a refund of our $5 that we were out from the driver refusing to make change and refusing to accept any other form of payment for services rendered.

Business

Response:

This will confirm receipt and review of your e-mail of Saturday morning in connection with the above captioned matter.