Gamellia Homes

Hello,I have seen the attached responses (the correspondence from All City Towing did not type the correct address - it is Grand Ave not Grade) but splitting the cost of a key fob will not workThe loss, as stated, was not a result of anything done on my part and when I spoke to the Kia dealership, where All City Towing delivered my vehicle, the dealership stated they had records specifying that the keys were not given to them from the tow company upon vehicle deliveryOf course, I don't have the documents from the dealership or the tow company so it is just two groups with conflicting storiesThe fact is my keys are lost while my vehicle was in another company's possession, causing undue stress to an already stressful situation, on top of which, my claim was flat out ignored until now.The vehicle was totaled and, on behalf of my insurance adjuster, I attempted to resolve this issue months ago with All City Towing to find my keys so that my car could to turned on and testedThe adjuster ended up going with estimates and the car has since been salvaged.I would like for All City Towing to at least acknowledge of full responsibility for the loss of my keys, especially after it had taken so long to respond to my original submitted claimI appreciate the acknowledgement of the unreasonable response time but new keys aren't a solution for a now salvaged vehicle and an unknown financial loss due to a less than ideal insurance appraisal situationI just feel so disappointed to reach out to a company in a time of distress and to have claims not followed through on and investigated in a timely fashion.I really hope we can resolve this.Best, [redacted]

Dear Si r/Madam: This will confirm receipt and review of your e-mail of September 15th @ 10:19PM in connection with the above captioned matterWe have carefully examined the circumstances surrounding this incident The vehicle in question was parked on private property As it was parked on private property, the owner and/or custodian of the vehicle is subject to the parking rules and regulation as noted on the lease agreement and/or the community CC&R'sThe vehicle in quest ion was parked on private property in violation of the parking rules and regulationsThe decal that I s required to be on the windshield was not present either time the vehicle was towedIf the Complainant was told that someone from the property called and authorized the tow, this was indicated in error Our contract with this location requires patrols to ensure parking compliance and this tow resulted from one of those patrolsThis error would not give rise to a refundThe Complainant alleges that our signage indicates that $is the maximum towing charge for tows with in Tempe - this is incorrect A visual inspection of our signage confirmed the correct amount of $is listedThe additional charge of $was for an after-hours gate fee as the car was claimed outside of our business hours, which is allowed within the CodeHe was not overcharged as was alleged.The Complainant's vehicle was towed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Vehicle Towing Services contract we have with the property management company who services [redacted] *** We understand the Complainant's frustration but we respectfully suggest it is being misdirectedWe did not control whether or not the vehicle was parked on private property without the required permit properly displayedWe also had no control over the parking rules and regulation that were established for this locationThe Complainant and /or his out of town family member parked on private property in violation of the parking rules and regulations We were following the instructions of the property management company when the vehicle was towed.Our investigation into this matter clearly reveals our actions were in accordance with best practices, the Arizona Revised Statutes governing private property towing and the terms and conditions of the towing services contract for this location We trust our response adequately addresses the Complainant's concerns We thank you for the opportunity to review and respond appropriately to this inquiry

Dear Sir/Madam: This will confirm receipt and review of your e-mail of Tuesday, October , @ 10:23PM in connection with the above captioned matterIf the Complainant was told that someone from the property called and authorized the tow, this was indicated in errorPeople make errors and if he was told someone called it in, that's exactly what occurred- an error The fact that the Complainant was misinformed does not give rise to a refundIt also doesn't change the reason why he was towedIn addition, the Complainant continues to allege our signage indicates that $is the maximum towing charge for tows within Tempe - this is incorrect A visual inspection of our signage confirmed the correct amount of $is listed The additional charge of $was for an after-hours gate fee as the car was claimed outside of our business hours, which is allowed within the CodeHe was not overcharged as is being allegedAs for the grievance that we charged the maximum towing charge, we could understand this complaint if people also believed that speed limit signs on the highway were only suggestions If the maximum speed limit on the highway is 65MPH, do some people actually travel 65MPH, which is the maximum speed limit? If so, they should be disparaged the same way the Complainant is vilifying our companyOur investigation into this matter clearly reveals our actions were in accordance with best practices, the Arizona Revised Statutes governing private property towing and the terms and conditions of the towing services contract for this location We trust our response adequately addresses the Complainant's concernsWe thank you for the opportunity to review·and respond appropriately to this inquiry

January 21,JAN [redacted] Dispute Resolution ConsultantRevdex.com of Central and NArizona NStreet Phoenix, AZ 85014Complainant: [redacted] Revdex.com Case#: [redacted] ACT Invoice#: [redacted] Dear Ms [redacted] :This correspondence will confirm receipt and review of your e-mail of late last evening in connection with the above captioned matterWe have read the Complainant's claim to the Better Busine•ss Bureau and we now wish to provide factual information with respect to this claim.On the date the vehicle was towed , the Complainant's Chevrolet truck was stopped by the [redacted] Department and the operator was arrested for suspicion of DUIA breathalyzer reading of was obtained from the driver of the vehicle, which is nearly times the legal limitOur driver arrived on scene shortly after the [redacted] interventionHe walked around the vehicle and marked any readily visib le damage onhis invoice He then proceeded to load the vehicle onto his truck and take it to our securestorage facility in Tempe A copy of our driver' s invoice is enclosed for your reference.The bodies of our tow trucks are white and the beds of our trucks are redThe area of pre-existing damage on the Complainant's vehicle, which is being claimed as damage caused by All City Towing, clearly doesn't come close to l ining up with the height of our truck 's red bedThis information , coupled with the fact that the [redacted] officer on scene will confirm the damage pre-existed our invol vement , lead s us to no other conclusionThe damage was not caused by All City Towing.This damage clearly pre-exi sted our involvement; therefore, we are unable to provide any compensation for the damage bein g claimed If the Complainant chooses to file an action in small claims court, we are prepared to defend the claim, call the SPD officer as afavorable witness and file a counter-claim for malicious prosecution We trust ourposition on this matter is clear.Thank you for allowing us the ability to appropriately respond to this complaintJeffrey D [redacted] General ManagerOn Behalf of ACT Towing, LLC

This correspondence will confirm receipt and review of your e-mail of Saturday afternoon at 6:59AM in connection with the above captioned matter We have read the Complainant's claim to the RevDex.com in its entirely.The Complainant's vehicle was towed
at the direction of the Scottsdale Police Department back on July 21, following an accident which took place at approximately 21:59PM at the intersection of 60th Street & Thomas Road At the scene, the Complainant apparently advised the officers on scene that he had a weapon in the vehicle The weapon was located within the center console of the vehicle At the request of the Complainant, an officer from Scottsdale went into the vehicle and removed the weapon Shortly thereafter, our driver arrived on scene and transported the vehicle to our storage facility located at *** * *** in Tempe.The next day, the Complainant came and claimed his vehicle at approximately :43AMUpon taking possession of the vehicle, the Complainant reported that his radar detector was missing from his center console This is the same center console that was housing the gun that was removed by the Scottsdale officer at the scene of the accidentOur employee advised him to contact Scottsdale PD to see if perhaps they had impounded the unit and to contact us if that were not the case The same day, our company received an e-mail from Scottsdale PD relative to the missing radar detector A follow up call to them included our request for the officer to be contacted to confirm whether or not he saw the radar detector at the time the gun was removed from the same compartmentFour days later, we had still not received word back from Scottsdale PD; therefore, a claim form was e-mailed to the Complainant in order for him to file his claim with our company. On July 29th,after following up with them several times, we finally heard back from Scottsdale PD They advised the officer who removed the gun from the same compartment could not confirm a radar detector was in the compartment This information, coupled with the information obtained from our driver who towed the vehicle, led us to deny the claim for the missing radar detector We sent the denial letter to the Complainant the same day to the local address he provided on his claim formOn August 18,2016, we received an unannounced visit to our office from a DEA agentI went downstairs to greet the agent and asked how I could assist him He immediately got into the details of this specific claim and I asked what the DEA's interest was in this matter He advised that the Complainant was his father-in-law and I said that generally we do not discuss information with 3rd party individuals but considering he identified himself as a law enforcement officer we would make an exception in this case It was clear to me this visit had nothing to do with the DEA and everything to do with his father-in-law's claim The agent indicated that he personally saw the radar detector in the vehicle just prior to the accident, which is new informationAfter the visit, we reached out again to our employee as well as the Complainant The employee, once again, denied knowledge of the existence of a radar detector, which is consistent with the information provided by the Scottsdale officer We requested the serial number, a copy of the original purchase receipt and the "upgrade" receipt from the Complainant and he seemed to take umbrage with the requestWe assume he believed we would just write a check on a doubtful claim and move on without first confirming routine and customary claims information This has never been our policyThe Complainant did ultimately supply us additional information and upon receipt, we then contacted the manufacturer of the unit to confirm the information provided and also confirm other claims-specific information Unfortunately, the manufacturer was unable to provide this information to us as a 3rd party As such, we have since asked the Complainant to 'provide specific information once he obtains the same from the manufacturerOur claim is pending receipt of this informationThank you for allowing us the ability to appropriately response to this complaint

This will confirm receipt and review of your claim form in connection with the above captioned matter We apologize for the significant delay in the handling of this claimWe have examined the circumstances surrounding this incident and have developed sufficient information to make a
complete determination regarding your claim In determining our responsibility for payment of a claim, we must be guided by information obtained from the claimant and the other parties acquainted with the facts of the loss Further, we must consider the physical evidence and the applicable law.The vehicle was originally towed to our facility on July 21" The vehicle was then towed,at your direction, to Mark Kia Collision on July 25thWe were in possession of the keys for both towsand turned over custody of the keys to Mark Kia the day it was dropped at their facility On August 6, (days after the vehicle left our care, custody and control) we were notified that the collision center was claiming that they never received the keys.Even though we do not believewe are responsible for the missing key and fob, we do believe you weren't responsible for their disappearance. As such and in.light of the delay of our handlingand the fact that we were involvedwith the transportation of the ,yehicle, we are willingto reimburse you for 50% of the cost to replace one(!) fob and one (1) ignition key We do not believe we would be found responsible for the missingignition key, especially when an independentreviewer realizes days passed between the end of our involvement and the notification of the missing key and fob.If the above is acceptable to you, we ask that you have the items replaced and then send us a copy of the receipt for same We will then send you a General Release which will require your signature in front of a notaryUpon receipt of the General Release, we will then send you a check representing 50% of the replacement cost

See attached

Response sent via US Mail on 5/

See attached response

January 21,2016 JAN 2 5 2016 
[redacted]Dispute Resolution  ConsultantRevdex.com of Central and N. Arizona 4428 N. 121 Street Phoenix, AZ  85014Complainant: [redacted] Revdex.com  Case#: [redacted]ACT Invoice#:  [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted]:This correspondence will...

confirm receipt and review of your e-mail of late last evening in connection with the above captioned matter. We have read the Complainant's claim to the Better Busine•ss Bureau and we now wish to provide factual information with respect to this claim.On the date the vehicle was towed , the Complainant's 2008 Chevrolet truck was stopped by the [redacted] Department and the operator was arrested for suspicion of DUI. A breathalyzer reading of .191 was obtained from the driver of the vehicle, which is nearly 2 times the legal limit. Our driver arrived on scene shortly after the [redacted] intervention. He walked around the vehicle and marked any readily visib le damage onhis invoice.  He then proceeded to load the vehicle onto his truck and take it to our securestorage facility in Tempe . A copy of our driver' s invoice is enclosed for your reference.The bodies of our tow trucks are white and the beds of our trucks are red. The area of pre-existing damage on the Complainant's vehicle, which is being claimed as damage caused by All City Towing, clearly doesn't come close to l ining up with the height of our truck 's red bed. This information , coupled with the fact that the [redacted] officer on scene will confirm the damage pre-existed our invol vement , lead s us to no other conclusion. The damage was not caused by All City Towing.This damage clearly pre-exi sted our involvement; therefore, we are unable to provide any compensation for the damage bein g claimed . If the Complainant chooses to file an action in small claims court, we are prepared to defend the claim, call the SPD officer as afavorable witness and file a counter-claim for malicious prosecution.  We trust ourposition on this matter is clear.Thank you for allowing us the ability to appropriately respond to this complaint. Jeffrey D. [redacted] General ManagerOn Behalf of ACT Towing, LLC

Dear Revdex.com: This correspondence will confirm receipt and review of your e-mail of last evening in connection with the above captioned matter. We have read the Complainant's claim  to the Revdex.com. The information provided on the complaint does not match the information .we have.in...

our database aside from the last name. We are assuming the Complainant is related to the owner of the vehicle with the same last name and all of our responses are based on this assumption. This 'complaint was the 151 notice of any issue involving this tow. This complaint was received nearly 3 weeks after the vehicle was claimed from our facility. The vehicle in question was towed at the direction of the Phoenix Police Department back on August 16,2016. All City's driver arrived at the scene of the police stop, loaded the vehicle on his truck and then delivered it to our secure storage location. Three days later, we allowed access to an authorized part y for the purposes of removing personal properly. No mention of missing property was made at this time nor was any mention of missing property mad e at the time of the vehicle's release on August 24,2016. This claim is being reported 21 days after we released the vehicle and relinquished care, custody and control.  If there was an issue of missing personal property, why wasn't it addressed on 8119, 8/24 or at some time well prior to 911 4? The Complainant has provided no documentation to support t he items were in the vehicle at the time of the tow. Likewise, they have provided no information to support the item s were removed by our employee(s), if they were located in the car at the time of the tow. Additionally, t here's nothing that has been presented which would con-firm the items. Simply put, we are not responsible for items that we did not remove from the vehicle. We are also not responsible for items once the vehicle has been removed from our care, custody and control. If the Complainant has new information which they feel would impact our assessment of this matter, they are invited to provide same for additional review.Thank you for allowing us the ability to appropriately respond to this complaint.

Dear Si r/Madam: This will confirm receipt and review of your e-mail of September 15th @ 10:19PM in connection with the above captioned matter. We have carefully examined the circumstances surrounding this incident.  The vehicle in question was parked on private property.   As...

it was parked on private property, the owner and/or custodian of the vehicle is subject to the parking rules and regulation as noted on the lease agreement and/or the community CC&R's. The vehicle in quest ion was parked on private property in violation of the parking rules and regulations. The decal that I s required  to be on the windshield was not present either time the vehicle was towed. If the Complainant was told that someone from the property called and authorized the tow, this was indicated  in error.  Our contract with this location requires patrols to ensure parking compliance and this tow resulted from one of those patrols. This error would not give rise to a refund. The Complainant alleges that our signage indicates that $117 is the maximum towing charge for tows with in Tempe - this is incorrect.   A visual inspection of our signage confirmed the correct amount of $120.00 is listed. The additional charge of $20.00 was for an after-hours gate fee as the car was claimed outside of our business hours, which is allowed within the Code. He was not overcharged as was alleged.The Complainant's vehicle was towed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Vehicle Towing Services contract we have with the property management company who services [redacted].   We understand the Complainant's frustration but we respectfully suggest it is being misdirected. We did not control whether or not the vehicle was parked on private property without the required permit properly displayed. We also had no control over the parking rules and regulation that were established for this location. The Complainant and /or his out of town family member parked on private property in violation of the parking rules and regulations.  We were following the instructions of the property management company when the vehicle was towed.Our investigation into this matter clearly reveals our actions were in accordance with best practices, the Arizona Revised Statutes governing private property towing and the terms and conditions of the towing services contract for this location.  We trust our response adequately addresses the Complainant's concerns.  We thank you for the opportunity to review and respond appropriately to this inquiry.

See attached business response.

The subject of this complaint was not the legality of the tow. The subject of the complaint was that I was told that my tow was called in by my apt, which was  a falsehood, and I was charged $140 for a tow when the maximum allowable rate for the city of Tempe (posted on the walls of this business) was $117. Perhaps there are different laws in place since it was a private property tow? Either way, not only was this business unsavory enough to charge the MAXIMUM allowable rate, they found a loophole to exceed it. I was charged a $20 after hours fee, with the only other alternative
being to pay the company a "storage fee" and retrieve the vehicle after
the weekend. Catch 22. A clear sign of a business unaccountable to those it "serves".

Dear Sir/Madam: This will confirm receipt and review of your e-mail of Tuesday, October 11 , 2016 @ 10:23PM in connection with the above captioned matter. If the Complainant was told that someone from the property called and authorized the tow, this was indicated in error. People make errors and if he was told someone called it in, that's exactly what occurred- an error.  The fact that the Complainant was misinformed does not give rise to a refund. It also doesn't change the reason why he was towed. In addition, the Complainant continues to allege our signage indicates that $117 is the maximum towing charge for tows within Tempe - this is incorrect.  A visual inspection of our signage confirmed the correct amount of $120.00 is listed . The additional charge of $20.00 was for an after-hours gate fee as the car was claimed outside of our business hours, which is allowed within the Code. He was not overcharged as is being alleged. As for the grievance that we charged the maximum towing charge, we could understand this complaint if people also believed that speed limit signs on the highway were only suggestions.  If the maximum speed limit on the highway is 65MPH, do some people actually travel 65MPH, which is the maximum speed limit?  If so, they should be disparaged the same  way the Complainant is vilifying our company. Our investigation into this matter clearly reveals our actions were in accordance with best practices, the Arizona Revised Statutes governing private property towing and the terms and conditions of the towing services contract for this location.  We trust our response adequately addresses the Complainant's concerns. We thank you for the opportunity to review·and respond appropriately to this inquiry.

December 12, 2016Conciliation & Engagement Specialist Revdex.com of Central and N. Arizona [redacted] 
[redacted] Complainant:     [redacted]Revdex.com Case #:      [redacted]ACT Invoice #:  [redacted]Dear Madam/Sir:This correspondence will confirm receipt and review of your e-mail of late Sunday evening in connection with the above captioned matter.        Our prior response fully explained our position.  We acknowledge and regret our delay in our handling of the original claim.  We have made a 50% offer as to the cost of the missing key fob.  This offer was made despite the fact that our first notice of the missing fob was 12 days after we released the vehicle and the keys to a 3rd party. We cannot possibly be held legally liable for items after we have released custody of the vehicle.  Our offer of November 9th remains open; however, we will need documentation to support the payment.  We are unclear as to what else we could to resolve this claim. We feel our offer is reasonable and consistent with best practices, given our extreme delay in responding to the claim originally.  A delay does not give rise to paying claims that are unsupported.   Thank you for allowing us the ability to appropriately respond to this complaint.       Sincerely,Jeffrey D. D[redacted] General Manager On Behalf of ACT Towing, LLC

Hello,I have seen the attached responses (the correspondence from All City Towing did not type the correct address - it is Grand Ave not Grade) but splitting the cost of a key fob will not work. The loss, as stated, was not a result of anything done on my part and when I spoke to the Kia dealership, where All City Towing delivered my vehicle, the dealership stated they had records specifying that the keys were not given to them from the tow company upon vehicle delivery. Of course, I don't have the documents from the dealership or the tow company so it is just two groups with conflicting stories. The fact is my keys are lost while my vehicle was in another company's possession, causing undue stress to an already stressful situation, on top of which, my claim was flat out ignored until now.The vehicle was totaled and, on behalf of my insurance adjuster, I attempted to resolve this issue months ago with All City Towing to find my keys so that my car could to turned on and tested. The adjuster ended up going with estimates and the car has since been salvaged.I would like for All City Towing to at least acknowledge of full responsibility for the loss of my keys, especially after it had taken so long to respond to my original submitted claim. I appreciate the acknowledgement of the unreasonable response time but new keys aren't a solution for a now salvaged vehicle and an unknown financial loss due to a less than ideal insurance appraisal situation. I just feel so disappointed to reach out to a company in a time of distress and to have claims not followed through on and investigated in a timely fashion.I really hope we can resolve this.Best,[redacted]