International Parking Systems

RE: RESPONSE: Revdex.com Complaint #* *** C*** Complaint- May 2, 2015-lnternational Parking LotESan Ysidro Blvd San YsidroCA (J&M InternationalLtd.)Dear Ms***:I am writing you this response on behalf of my client, J&M
International,Ltd ., in response to your Complaint #***The Revdex.com Rules request that aresponse letter (which may be published and/or edited) not identify by name thecustomer who filed the ComplaintWe will refer to the Complainant as"Customer," even though we have learned his full name is *** *** ***.SUMMARY OF THE PARKING LOT EVENTS OF MAY ,2,3, 2015This Parking Lot (owned and operated by J&M International, Ltd.) is amongthe closest least expensive of all public parking lots near the USA/MEXICOBorder Crossing at San Ysidro, CaliforniaIt is open hours a day, days aweek to accommodate huge numbers of people who wish to park their cars onthe USA side and then cross the Border into Mexico for visits lasting from anhour, to several hours, to one day, and longerThe Parking Lot has many regularand faithful customers who often express their appreciation for the welcomingcourtesy shown to them by the employees of the Parking Lot.The Parking Lot posts signs at the entrance telling customers the entrycharge is $to park for hours (that means for minute up to hours)If thecustomer remains on the lot even "minute" beyond the initial $charge forthe first hours (as determined by the time stamp on the customer receipt givenwhen paying the first $to enter), then another $is owed for time from 8hours and minute, up to second hour time periodThis rule is no different than other similar rules we must all live by:Your parking meter is expired by minute, you get a $parking ticket;Your car won't start, you leave, your meter expires, you get a $ticket;Tax Return to IRS postmarked minute after midnight July 16, 10% penalty;You miss your connecting flight by minute, your whole vacation is ruined;The Customer's lady friend and her lady friend, parked their T***on the Parking Lot at about 10:p.mFriday nightMay 2015, and returnedto their car in the Parking lot at approximately 3:30a.mon Saturday morning,May 2, Their car stalled and would not start, even after one of the ParkingLot's security workers spent over one hour trying to start itThe defective caralarm sounded and shut off the ignition every time the ladies tried to start their carand leaveAfter the Parking Lot people could not get the car started, the ladieselected not to call a tow truck or a road service (like the Auto Club), and insteadapparently telephoned friends, asking for help in getting their car started.The Parking Lot's policy is that any and all cars entering the Parking Lotmust pay an initial $for any time from minute up to hours, and if the car isthere for any reason beyond the initial hours (even by minute, hours and 1minute up to hours), an additional $is then dueAll records of cars, andtimes for entering and exiting are kept on computer records to allow auditing tomake sure employees are collecting and depositing all parking fees for each carentering the Parking LotThe Parking Lot employees are not allowed to give"free parking" to anyone.Some friends of the ladies, driving a Red Jeep, arrived at the Parking Lot at6:15a.mon Saturday, May 2015, paid without protest their $parking fee(for minute up to the first hours), got their receipt, and drove about a blockdistance into the Parking Lot to where the ladies' stalled T*** was parked.The Customer making this Revdex.com Complaint first arrived at the Parking Lot at6:39a.mon Saturday, May and asked to drive his BMW automobileonto the parking lot "for free" to try and help his lady friend start her stalled car.When told that all cars entering the Parking Lot must pay an initial $for up tothe first hours, the Customer complained, then exited and parked in the Jack InThe Box "customer only" parking lot next door, and walked into the Parking Lot tohelp his lady friend.Later, at 6:59a.mon SaturdayMay , the Customer had walkedout of the Parking Lot, gotten his BMW parked next door, and again showed up atthe entrance to the Parking Lot demanding "free parking" because he was thereto help his lady friend start her stalled carThe Customer was again told that no"free parking" was allowed and that he had to pay the initial $to the enter theParking LotThe Customer paid the $under protest (demanding to talk tothe "owners") and entered the Parking LotAbout minutes later at 7:16a.m.,
the Customer drove his BMW up to the exit, got into an argument about having topay $to enter the Parking Lot instead of being given "free parking" with theon-site manager (holding up other cars trying to exit), and demanded to talk to the"owner" (the owners live in Los ***es County), and then left.Thereafter, the Customer's lady friend drove to the Parking Lot exit in herT***, presented her ticket receipt which showed she exceeded the initial 8hours of time which $was paid upon entry to the Parking Lot (entered Friday,May 1, around 10:p.mand exited Saturday morning, May 2, a fewminutes after 7:16a.m., thus exceeding by more than hour the initial hourspreviously paid for) and she paid without protest the additional $charge andexited the parking lotThereafter, the ladies' friends in the Red Jeep exited theParking Lot after showing their ticket receipt which required no further payment.CUSTOMER ACTIONS AFTER THE CUSTOMER LEFT THE PARKING LOTOn the afternoon of Saturday, May 2015, the Customer filed anelectronic Complaint with the Revdex.com admitting he "flew off the handle" at theParking Lot, claiming he was badly treated and that he and his lady friends wereunfairly charged , and asked the Revdex.com to obtain for him a refund of $forhimself and a refund of $for his lady friends (total of $28.00), along with anapology from the owner and from the on-site manager, ***.On the afternoon of SaturdayMay 2015, the Customer posted anunfavorable review of the Parking Lot on YELP, again admitting he "flew off thehandle" and claiming bad treatment and overcharging for parking fees.On the afternoon of SaturdayMay 2015, the Customer sent separateFAXES to the Parking lot (FAXES sent at 4:27p.m., 4:p.m.,4:p.m, 4:39p.m, 4:44p.m., and 4:53p.m.) demanding to speak to the "owner" and accusingthe on-site manager of being a "liar." The FAX messages totaled pages ofmaterials, mostly consisting of copies of articles printed from the internet dealingwith the subject of treating business customers with courtesy.On Sunday morningMay 3, the Customer made a constant stringof repeated phone calls to the Parking Lot phone (phone is located in the tollboth) calling the on-site manager a "liar" and demanding to speak to the "owner.The calls were so numerous and repetitive they blocked all ability to receive anyother business calls and were considered to be "harassment" by the on-sitemanagerIn an attempt to stop the endless telephone calls on Sunday morning,the on-site manager called the Police to report telephone harassmentAfter thePolice apparently talked to the Customer, they suggest that the on-site manager'ssupervisor speak to the Customer, which was done before noon on Sunday, May3, In that phone call , the Customer told supervisor *** that he wanted***, the on-site manager, "fired" for not giving him "free parking" and for "lying"and requiring him to pay the initial $charge, and threatened to stand at theentry to the Parking Lot to turn away customers if his "non-negotiable demands"were not metThe supervisor, *** (brother or one of the out of town owners),promised to investigate these claims and get back to the Customer.THE PARKING LOT'S INVESTIGATIVE REPORT OF 5-11-15The Parking Lot's attorney was asked to investigate the claim and prepareda Report Letter dated 5--which was sent to the Customer and to theowners of the Parking LotThe 5-11-Report contained pages and wasbased on a telephone interview with the customer on May 4, 2015, employeeinterviews, a review of pertinent parts of the Parking Lot video tapes for thevarious hours involved, along with a review of the Customer's FAXES sent on5-2-15, and other background information obtained during the investigation.After the customer received the Report Letter of 5-11-(FAXED, emailed,and mailed to him) which found his claims to be without merit, thecustomer posted another "update" on *** dated 5--complaining about theunfairness of the attorney's Report Letter of 5-11-The last line of his YELP"update" of 5-11-states "If you would like to read the letter he sent me you canrequest it and I'll gladly send you a copy as proof"The customer's offer to produce a copy of the unfavorable Report Letter of5-11-was contained in the customer's posting at *** under the name "***" dated 5-2-and "updated" 5-11-15, which postings can be viewed at theinternet link below:***In addition to the "update" posting on *** of 5-11-15, the Customer sentthe Parking Lot's attorney an e-mail at 5:44p.mon 5-11-saying he felt theReport Letter of 5-11-was wrong and improper, warned and threatened of apotential defamation lawsuit and other bad publicity, and stated that he wasrevising his refund request from $to $and wanted an apology.THE PARKING LOT'S APOLOGY LETTER AND $REFUND OF 5-13-15The Parking Lot's attorney provided the owners with the Customer's YELPposting of 5-2-and the "update" posting of 5-11-15, and a copy of the ReportLetter of 5-11-15, and a copy of the Customer's follow up e-mail to the attorney of5:p.mon 5-11-Thereafter, the owners authorized the attorney to send thefollowing letter to the Customer dated May 13, The text of the letter is asfollows:TEXT OF LETTER SENT TO CUSTOMER ON MAY 2015Thank you for your e-mail message to me of 5-11-@5:44p.m., whichpresented your reactions and disagreements with my letter e-mailed/FAXED to youearlier that dayYou also advised of your updating on 5-11-of your 5-2-YELPpost, expressing further disagreement with my response letter of 5-11-15.After *** 's Supervisor, *** (brother of one of the owners), talked with you byphone Sunday morning, May 3, 2015, *** asked me to investigate your complaints,which is why I became involved.In my letter to you of 5-11-15, I tried to explain the results of my investigation ofyour complaintsI conducted employee interviews, watched the video tapes of yourvisit to the Parking Lot (between @6:39a.mand @7:12a.mon Saturday, May 2,2015), I read the FAXES (total of pages) you sent to the Parking lot on 5-2-15where you demanded to speak to the "owner" and accused *** of being a "liar" (sentat 4:27p.m, 4:p.m.,4:p.m., 4:39p.m., 4:44p.m., and 4:53p.m.), and I listened toyour complaints and demands in our telephone conversation of @5:30p.mon Monday,May 4, 2015.As we both know, your explanation of what happened is different from the facts Ireported to you as the result of my investigation as set forth in my letter to you of 5--15.I have given all forms of your written complaints and e-mails to the owners forreview, along with my report letter to you of 5-11-15.Because there is such a disagreement as to what happened, the owners haveadvised me to tell you that the main issue is that if you, as the customer, feel you werenot treated properly, then the owners would like to apologize to you for anything thatwas said or done to you by *** or anybody else (including me, the attorney) whichoffended you in any way.In this case, it appears that both sides to the dispute could have acted differentlyto avoid problemsOn our side of the dispute, we will try to learn some lessons fromthis situationAs you know, nobody in this life is perfect and we all make mistakes.As a sign of goodwill, the owners have asked me to refund to you the $youhave requested in your e-mail of 5-11-15.This represents a refund of the $you paid to park your BMW in the parkinglot while helping start your lady friends' stalled T*** on 5-2-15, and represents thetwo $payments ($.00) your friends paid, $paid when they parked @0:00p.m.Friday 5-1-15, and then another $(after exceeding the initial hours) which theypaid when exiting @7:16a.mon Saturday, 5-2-15.Enclosed is my office Check #***, dated 5-13-15, for $payable to you,which is being mailed with this letter today.On behalf of the owners and myself, we wish you happiness and success in yourfuture activities.WHERE THIS MATTER STANDS AS OF TODAYJUNE 9, 2015As of the date of this response letter to Revdex.com, we see that the Customer's*** posting has not been "updated" to make any reference to the Parking Lot's"apology" letter and $parking refund check sent to him on May 13, 2015.As of the date of this response letter to Revdex.com, the Parking Lot attorney'sonline banking records indicate that the $refund check issued to theCustomer on 5-13-(Check No***) has not been cashed.
Since receiving the Customer's e-mail of 5:p.mon 5-11-15, and after emailing,FAXING, and mailing the "apology" letter and $check of 5-13-tothe Customer, we have received no further communications from this Customer.From what we can tell, the Customer has chosen not to provide the 888with a copy of the Parking Lot's Report Letter of 5-11-(which was unfavorableto the Customer), even though the Customer offered on his *** "update"posting of 5-11-to provide it to anybody who asked for it.From what we can tell , the Customer has chosen to not disclose and to notprovide to the 888, a copy of the Parking Lot's "apology" letter and $refundcheck sent to the Customer on 5-13-15.The Parking Lot believes it has acted reasonably in trying to show"goodwill" to this unhappy Customer by refunding the $he paid to park hisBMW in the Parking Lot (thus giving him "free parking"), and by refunding to himthe $which his lady friend paid, thus giving her "free" parking for her T***parked from 10:p.mon Friday 5-1-until leaving shortly after 7:16a.monSaturday 5-2-The Customer ~efused to provide us with her name or contactinformationThis lady has never protested her paying her parking fees.In return for the Parking Lot's attempt to show "goodwill," the Customer hasnot seen fit to update his *** postings to reflect the "apology" letter and $21.00refund check send to him (which remains uncashed), and it appears theCustomer did not provide the with a copy of the Parking Lot's Report Letterof 5-11-15, which Report was unfavorable to the Customer.More significantly, the Customer failed to inform the of the ParkingLot's "apology" letter and $parking refund check sent to him in this matteron May 13, The Customer, for unknown reasons, has elected not to cashthe $parking fee refund check, even though he demanded such a refund inboth his Complaint and in his negative posting on ***.The Parking Lot again apologizes to the Customer for being unable to meethis expectations and demands in this matter

RE: RESPONSE: Revdex.com Complaint #[redacted] C. [redacted] Complaint- May 2, 2015-lnternational Parking Lot729 E. San Ysidro Blvd .. San Ysidro. CA (J&M International. Ltd.)Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am writing you this response on behalf of my client, J&M International,Ltd ., in...

response to your Complaint #[redacted]. The Revdex.com Rules request that aresponse letter (which may be published and/or edited) not identify by name thecustomer who filed the Complaint. We will refer to the Complainant as"Customer," even though we have learned his full name is [redacted].SUMMARY OF THE PARKING LOT EVENTS OF MAY 1 ,2,3, 2015This Parking Lot (owned and operated by J&M International, Ltd.) is amongthe closest least expensive of all public parking lots near the USA/MEXICOBorder Crossing at San Ysidro, California. It is open 24 hours a day, 7 days aweek to accommodate huge numbers of people who wish to park their cars onthe USA side and then cross the Border into Mexico for visits lasting from anhour, to several hours, to one day, and longer. The Parking Lot has many regularand faithful customers who often express their appreciation for the welcomingcourtesy shown to them by the employees of the Parking Lot.The Parking Lot posts signs at the entrance telling customers the entrycharge is $7.00 to park for 8 hours (that means for 1 minute up to 8 hours). If thecustomer remains on the lot even "1 minute" beyond the initial $7.00 charge forthe first 8 hours (as determined by the time stamp on the customer receipt givenwhen paying the first $7 to enter), then another $7.00 is owed for time from 8hours and 1 minute, up to second 8 hour time periodThis rule is no different than other similar rules we must all live by:1. Your parking meter is expired by 1 minute, you get a $50 parking ticket;2. Your car won't start, you leave, your meter expires, you get a $50 ticket;3. Tax Return to IRS postmarked 1 minute after midnight July 16, 10% penalty;4. You miss your connecting flight by 1 minute, your whole vacation is ruined;The Customer's lady friend and her lady friend, parked their T[redacted]on the Parking Lot at about 10:00 p.m. Friday night. May 1. 2015, and returnedto their car in the Parking lot at approximately 3:30a.m. on Saturday morning,May 2, 2015. Their car stalled and would not start, even after one of the ParkingLot's security workers spent over one hour trying to start it. The defective caralarm sounded and shut off the ignition every time the ladies tried to start their carand leave. After the Parking Lot people could not get the car started, the ladieselected not to call a tow truck or a road service (like the Auto Club), and insteadapparently telephoned friends, asking for help in getting their car started.The Parking Lot's policy is that any and all cars entering the Parking Lotmust pay an initial $7.00 for any time from 1 minute up to 8 hours, and if the car isthere for any reason beyond the initial 8 hours (even by 1 minute, 8 hours and 1minute up to 16 hours), an additional $7.00 is then due. All records of cars, andtimes for entering and exiting are kept on computer records to allow auditing tomake sure employees are collecting and depositing all parking fees for each carentering the Parking Lot. The Parking Lot employees are not allowed to give"free parking" to anyone.Some friends of the ladies, driving a Red Jeep, arrived at the Parking Lot at6:15a.m. on Saturday, May 2. 2015, paid without protest their $7.00 parking fee(for 1 minute up to the first 8 hours), got their receipt, and drove about a 1.5 blockdistance into the Parking Lot to where the ladies' stalled T[redacted] was parked.The Customer making this Revdex.com Complaint first arrived at the Parking Lot at6:39a.m. on Saturday, May 2. 2015 and asked to drive his BMW automobileonto the parking lot "for free" to try and help his lady friend start her stalled car.When told that all cars entering the Parking Lot must pay an initial $7.00 for up tothe first 8 hours, the Customer complained, then exited and parked in the Jack InThe Box "customer only" parking lot next door, and walked into the Parking Lot tohelp his lady friend.Later, at 6:59a.m. on Saturday. May 2. 2015 , the Customer had walkedout of the Parking Lot, gotten his BMW parked next door, and again showed up atthe entrance to the Parking Lot demanding "free parking" because he was thereto help his lady friend start her stalled car. The Customer was again told that no"free parking" was allowed and that he had to pay the initial $7.00 to the enter theParking Lot. The Customer paid the $7.00 under protest (demanding to talk tothe "owners") and entered the Parking Lot. About 17 minutes later at 7:16a.m.,the Customer drove his BMW up to the exit, got into an argument about having topay $7.00 to enter the Parking Lot instead of being given "free parking" with theon-site manager (holding up other cars trying to exit), and demanded to talk to the"owner" (the owners live in Los [redacted]es County), and then left.Thereafter, the Customer's lady friend drove to the Parking Lot exit in herT[redacted], presented her ticket receipt which showed she exceeded the initial 8hours of time which $7 .00 was paid upon entry to the Parking Lot (entered Friday,May 1, 2015 around 10:00 p.m. and exited Saturday morning, May 2, 2015 a fewminutes after 7:16a.m., thus exceeding by more than 1 hour the initial 8 hourspreviously paid for) and she paid without protest the additional $7.00 charge andexited the parking lot. Thereafter, the ladies' friends in the Red Jeep exited theParking Lot after showing their ticket receipt which required no further payment.CUSTOMER ACTIONS AFTER THE CUSTOMER LEFT THE PARKING LOTOn the afternoon of Saturday, May 2. 2015, the Customer filed anelectronic Complaint with the Revdex.com admitting he "flew off the handle" at theParking Lot, claiming he was badly treated and that he and his lady friends wereunfairly charged , and asked the Revdex.com to obtain for him a refund of $7 .00 forhimself and a refund of $21 .00 for his lady friends (total of $28.00), along with anapology from the owner and from the on-site manager, [redacted].On the afternoon of Saturday. May 2. 2015, the Customer posted anunfavorable review of the Parking Lot on YELP, again admitting he "flew off thehandle" and claiming bad treatment and overcharging for parking fees.On the afternoon of Saturday. May 2. 2015, the Customer sent 5 separateFAXES to the Parking lot (FAXES sent at 4:27p.m., 4:35 p.m.,4:37 p.m. , 4:39p.m. , 4:44p.m., and 4:53p.m.) demanding to speak to the "owner" and accusingthe on-site manager of being a "liar." The FAX messages totaled 30 pages ofmaterials, mostly consisting of copies of articles printed from the internet dealingwith the subject of treating business customers with courtesy.On Sunday morning. May 3, 2015 the Customer made a constant stringof repeated phone calls to the Parking Lot phone (phone is located in the tollboth) calling the on-site manager a "liar" and demanding to speak to the "owner.The calls were so numerous and repetitive they blocked all ability to receive anyother business calls and were considered to be "harassment" by the on-sitemanager. In an attempt to stop the endless telephone calls on Sunday morning,the on-site manager called the Police to report telephone harassment. After thePolice apparently talked to the Customer, they suggest that the on-site manager'ssupervisor speak to the Customer, which was done before noon on Sunday, May3, 2015. In that phone call , the Customer told supervisor [redacted] that he wanted[redacted], the on-site manager, "fired" for not giving him "free parking" and for "lying"and requiring him to pay the initial $7.00 charge, and threatened to stand at theentry to the Parking Lot to turn away customers if his "non-negotiable demands"were not met. The supervisor, [redacted] (brother or one of the out of town owners),promised to investigate these claims and get back to the Customer.THE PARKING LOT'S INVESTIGATIVE REPORT OF 5-11-15The Parking Lot's attorney was asked to investigate the claim and prepareda Report Letter dated 5-11 -015 which was sent to the Customer and to theowners of the Parking Lot. The 5-11-15 Report contained 16 pages and wasbased on a telephone interview with the customer on May 4, 2015, employeeinterviews, a review of pertinent parts of the Parking Lot video tapes for thevarious hours involved, along with a review of the Customer's 5 FAXES sent on5-2-15, and other background information obtained during the investigation.After the customer received the Report Letter of 5-11-15 (FAXED, emailed,and mailed to him) which found his claims to be without merit, thecustomer posted another "update" on [redacted] dated 5-11 -15 complaining about theunfairness of the attorney's Report Letter of 5-11-15. The last line of his YELP"update" of 5-11-15 states "If you would like to read the letter he sent me you canrequest it and I'll gladly send you a copy as proof"The customer's offer to produce a copy of the unfavorable Report Letter of5-11-15 was contained in the customer's posting at [redacted] under the name "[redacted]. " dated 5-2-15 and "updated" 5-11-15, which postings can be viewed at theinternet link below:[redacted]In addition to the "update" posting on [redacted] of 5-11-15, the Customer sentthe Parking Lot's attorney an e-mail at 5:44p.m. on 5-11-15 saying he felt theReport Letter of 5-11-15 was wrong and improper, warned and threatened of apotential defamation lawsuit and other bad publicity, and stated that he wasrevising his refund request from $28.00 to $21.00 and wanted an apology.THE PARKING LOT'S APOLOGY LETTER AND $21 REFUND OF 5-13-15The Parking Lot's attorney provided the owners with the Customer's YELPposting of 5-2-15 and the "update" posting of 5-11-15, and a copy of the ReportLetter of 5-11-15, and a copy of the Customer's follow up e-mail to the attorney of5:44 p.m. on 5-11-15. Thereafter, the owners authorized the attorney to send thefollowing letter to the Customer dated May 13, 2015. The text of the letter is asfollows:TEXT OF LETTER SENT TO CUSTOMER ON MAY 13. 2015Thank you for your e-mail message to me of 5-11-15 @5:44p.m., whichpresented your reactions and disagreements with my letter e-mailed/FAXED to youearlier that day. You also advised of your updating on 5-11-15 of your 5-2-15 YELPpost, expressing further disagreement with my response letter of 5-11-15.After [redacted] 's Supervisor, [redacted] (brother of one of the owners), talked with you byphone Sunday morning, May 3, 2015, [redacted] asked me to investigate your complaints,which is why I became involved.In my letter to you of 5-11-15, I tried to explain the results of my investigation ofyour complaints. I conducted employee interviews, watched the video tapes of yourvisit to the Parking Lot (between @6:39a.m. and @7:12a.m. on Saturday, May 2,2015), I read the 5 FAXES (total of 30 pages) you sent to the Parking lot on 5-2-15where you demanded to speak to the "owner" and accused [redacted] of being a "liar" (sentat 4:27p.m. , 4:35 p.m.,4:37 p.m., 4:39p.m., 4:44p.m., and 4:53p.m.), and I listened toyour complaints and demands in our telephone conversation of @5:30p.m. on Monday,May 4, 2015.As we both know, your explanation of what happened is different from the facts Ireported to you as the result of my investigation as set forth in my letter to you of 5-11 -15.I have given all forms of your written complaints and e-mails to the owners forreview, along with my report letter to you of 5-11-15.Because there is such a disagreement as to what happened, the owners haveadvised me to tell you that the main issue is that if you, as the customer, feel you werenot treated properly, then the owners would like to apologize to you for anything thatwas said or done to you by [redacted] or anybody else (including me, the attorney) whichoffended you in any way.In this case, it appears that both sides to the dispute could have acted differentlyto avoid problems. On our side of the dispute, we will try to learn some lessons fromthis situation. As you know, nobody in this life is perfect and we all make mistakes.As a sign of goodwill, the owners have asked me to refund to you the $21 .00 youhave requested in your e-mail of 5-11-15.This represents a refund of the $7.00 you paid to park your BMW in the parkinglot while helping start your lady friends' stalled T[redacted] on 5-2-15, and represents thetwo $7 .00 payments ($14 .00) your friends paid, $7 paid when they parked @1 0:00p.m.Friday 5-1-15, and then another $7 .00 (after exceeding the initial 8 hours) which theypaid when exiting @7:16a.m. on Saturday, 5-2-15.Enclosed is my office Check #[redacted], dated 5-13-15, for $21.00 payable to you,which is being mailed with this letter today.On behalf of the owners and myself, we wish you happiness and success in yourfuture activities.WHERE THIS MATTER STANDS AS OF TODAY. JUNE 9, 2015As of the date of this response letter to Revdex.com, we see that the Customer's[redacted] posting has not been "updated" to make any reference to the Parking Lot's"apology" letter and $21.000 parking refund check sent to him on May 13, 2015.As of the date of this response letter to Revdex.com, the Parking Lot attorney'sonline banking records indicate that the $21 .00 refund check issued to theCustomer on 5-13-14 (Check No. [redacted]) has not been cashed. Since receiving the Customer's e-mail of 5:44 p.m. on 5-11-15, and after emailing,FAXING, and mailing the "apology" letter and $21 .00 check of 5-13-15 tothe Customer, we have received no further communications from this Customer.From what we can tell, the Customer has chosen not to provide the 888with a copy of the Parking Lot's Report Letter of 5-11-15 (which was unfavorableto the Customer), even though the Customer offered on his [redacted] "update"posting of 5-11-15 to provide it to anybody who asked for it.From what we can tell , the Customer has chosen to not disclose and to notprovide to the 888, a copy of the Parking Lot's "apology" letter and $21.00 refundcheck sent to the Customer on 5-13-15.The Parking Lot believes it has acted reasonably in trying to show"goodwill" to this unhappy Customer by refunding the $7.00 he paid to park hisBMW in the Parking Lot (thus giving him "free parking"), and by refunding to himthe $14.00 which his lady friend paid, thus giving her "free" parking for her T[redacted]parked from 10:00 p.m. on Friday 5-1-15 until leaving shortly after 7:16a.m. onSaturday 5-2-15. The Customer ~efused to provide us with her name or contactinformation. This lady has never protested her paying her parking fees.In return for the Parking Lot's attempt to show "goodwill," the Customer hasnot seen fit to update his [redacted] postings to reflect the "apology" letter and $21.00refund check send to him (which remains uncashed), and it appears theCustomer did not provide the 888 with a copy of the Parking Lot's Report Letterof 5-11-15, which Report was unfavorable to the Customer.More significantly, the Customer failed to inform the 888 of the ParkingLot's "apology" letter and $21.00 parking refund check sent to him in this matteron May 13, 2015. The Customer, for unknown reasons, has elected not to cashthe $21.00 parking fee refund check, even though he demanded such a refund inboth his 888 Complaint and in his negative posting on [redacted].The Parking Lot again apologizes to the Customer for being unable to meethis expectations and demands in this matter.

Review: My friends car battery went dead while in the parking lot. They refused to help her. She called me and went to rescue her. I didn't know which parking lot she was in so the first and second places I went let me in to see if she was there with out charging me and not even asking any questions... just "Sure, go ahead and see." then I get here to International Parking and he rudely says he won't let me un unless I pay. I asked to speak to the manager. He comes over and says the same thing. after I argue with him for a couple of minutes, I ask to speak to the owner. He says when I pay, he will get me the owners info. So I paid and went in. jump started the car and headed back out with in 5 minutes. At the gate I asked for the owners card and the attendant gave me a paper with a name and phone number on it. the manager was not around so I called the number before leaving the lot. The phone rang in the attendants booth... then I flew off the handle and asked to speak to the manager again. he came out of the office when I found that the name was his as well. He refused to give me the info he said he would if I paid him. He claimed he didn't know his boss or the owner and had no way of getting in touch with either one of them. He lied to me. Then they charged my friend extra when the time went over because her car was broke down and they wouldn't help her. I asked the attendant why they didn't help her... "We aren't here to help people we are a parking lot. we're in business to make money" There is no knowledge of customer service at this business.... they remind me of slumlord that takes advantage of people when they are in trouble.Desired Settlement: For starters, I would like a refund for me, $7, a refund for my friend that they would not lift a finger to help, $21, and most importantly an apology from the owner and [redacted] the manager. If they want future business from us and removing my poor [redacted] review it will take more than that and I will leave that up to them to decide.

Business

Response:

RE: RESPONSE: Revdex.com Complaint #[redacted] C. [redacted] Complaint- May 2, 2015-lnternational Parking Lot729 E. San Ysidro Blvd .. San Ysidro. CA (J&M International. Ltd.)Dear Ms. [redacted]:I am writing you this response on behalf of my client, J&M International,Ltd ., in response to your Complaint #[redacted]. The Revdex.com Rules request that aresponse letter (which may be published and/or edited) not identify by name thecustomer who filed the Complaint. We will refer to the Complainant as"Customer," even though we have learned his full name is [redacted].SUMMARY OF THE PARKING LOT EVENTS OF MAY 1 ,2,3, 2015This Parking Lot (owned and operated by J&M International, Ltd.) is amongthe closest least expensive of all public parking lots near the USA/MEXICOBorder Crossing at San Ysidro, California. It is open 24 hours a day, 7 days aweek to accommodate huge numbers of people who wish to park their cars onthe USA side and then cross the Border into Mexico for visits lasting from anhour, to several hours, to one day, and longer. The Parking Lot has many regularand faithful customers who often express their appreciation for the welcomingcourtesy shown to them by the employees of the Parking Lot.The Parking Lot posts signs at the entrance telling customers the entrycharge is $7.00 to park for 8 hours (that means for 1 minute up to 8 hours). If thecustomer remains on the lot even "1 minute" beyond the initial $7.00 charge forthe first 8 hours (as determined by the time stamp on the customer receipt givenwhen paying the first $7 to enter), then another $7.00 is owed for time from 8hours and 1 minute, up to second 8 hour time periodThis rule is no different than other similar rules we must all live by:1. Your parking meter is expired by 1 minute, you get a $50 parking ticket;2. Your car won't start, you leave, your meter expires, you get a $50 ticket;3. Tax Return to IRS postmarked 1 minute after midnight July 16, 10% penalty;4. You miss your connecting flight by 1 minute, your whole vacation is ruined;The Customer's lady friend and her lady friend, parked their T[redacted]on the Parking Lot at about 10:00 p.m. Friday night. May 1. 2015, and returnedto their car in the Parking lot at approximately 3:30a.m. on Saturday morning,May 2, 2015. Their car stalled and would not start, even after one of the ParkingLot's security workers spent over one hour trying to start it. The defective caralarm sounded and shut off the ignition every time the ladies tried to start their carand leave. After the Parking Lot people could not get the car started, the ladieselected not to call a tow truck or a road service (like the Auto Club), and insteadapparently telephoned friends, asking for help in getting their car started.The Parking Lot's policy is that any and all cars entering the Parking Lotmust pay an initial $7.00 for any time from 1 minute up to 8 hours, and if the car isthere for any reason beyond the initial 8 hours (even by 1 minute, 8 hours and 1minute up to 16 hours), an additional $7.00 is then due. All records of cars, andtimes for entering and exiting are kept on computer records to allow auditing tomake sure employees are collecting and depositing all parking fees for each carentering the Parking Lot. The Parking Lot employees are not allowed to give"free parking" to anyone.Some friends of the ladies, driving a Red Jeep, arrived at the Parking Lot at6:15a.m. on Saturday, May 2. 2015, paid without protest their $7.00 parking fee(for 1 minute up to the first 8 hours), got their receipt, and drove about a 1.5 blockdistance into the Parking Lot to where the ladies' stalled T[redacted] was parked.The Customer making this Revdex.com Complaint first arrived at the Parking Lot at6:39a.m. on Saturday, May 2. 2015 and asked to drive his BMW automobileonto the parking lot "for free" to try and help his lady friend start her stalled car.When told that all cars entering the Parking Lot must pay an initial $7.00 for up tothe first 8 hours, the Customer complained, then exited and parked in the Jack InThe Box "customer only" parking lot next door, and walked into the Parking Lot tohelp his lady friend.Later, at 6:59a.m. on Saturday. May 2. 2015 , the Customer had walkedout of the Parking Lot, gotten his BMW parked next door, and again showed up atthe entrance to the Parking Lot demanding "free parking" because he was thereto help his lady friend start her stalled car. The Customer was again told that no"free parking" was allowed and that he had to pay the initial $7.00 to the enter theParking Lot. The Customer paid the $7.00 under protest (demanding to talk tothe "owners") and entered the Parking Lot. About 17 minutes later at 7:16a.m.,the Customer drove his BMW up to the exit, got into an argument about having topay $7.00 to enter the Parking Lot instead of being given "free parking" with theon-site manager (holding up other cars trying to exit), and demanded to talk to the"owner" (the owners live in Los [redacted]es County), and then left.Thereafter, the Customer's lady friend drove to the Parking Lot exit in herT[redacted], presented her ticket receipt which showed she exceeded the initial 8hours of time which $7 .00 was paid upon entry to the Parking Lot (entered Friday,May 1, 2015 around 10:00 p.m. and exited Saturday morning, May 2, 2015 a fewminutes after 7:16a.m., thus exceeding by more than 1 hour the initial 8 hourspreviously paid for) and she paid without protest the additional $7.00 charge andexited the parking lot. Thereafter, the ladies' friends in the Red Jeep exited theParking Lot after showing their ticket receipt which required no further payment.CUSTOMER ACTIONS AFTER THE CUSTOMER LEFT THE PARKING LOTOn the afternoon of Saturday, May 2. 2015, the Customer filed anelectronic Complaint with the Revdex.com admitting he "flew off the handle" at theParking Lot, claiming he was badly treated and that he and his lady friends wereunfairly charged , and asked the Revdex.com to obtain for him a refund of $7 .00 forhimself and a refund of $21 .00 for his lady friends (total of $28.00), along with anapology from the owner and from the on-site manager, [redacted].On the afternoon of Saturday. May 2. 2015, the Customer posted anunfavorable review of the Parking Lot on YELP, again admitting he "flew off thehandle" and claiming bad treatment and overcharging for parking fees.On the afternoon of Saturday. May 2. 2015, the Customer sent 5 separateFAXES to the Parking lot (FAXES sent at 4:27p.m., 4:35 p.m.,4:37 p.m. , 4:39p.m. , 4:44p.m., and 4:53p.m.) demanding to speak to the "owner" and accusingthe on-site manager of being a "liar." The FAX messages totaled 30 pages ofmaterials, mostly consisting of copies of articles printed from the internet dealingwith the subject of treating business customers with courtesy.On Sunday morning. May 3, 2015 the Customer made a constant stringof repeated phone calls to the Parking Lot phone (phone is located in the tollboth) calling the on-site manager a "liar" and demanding to speak to the "owner.The calls were so numerous and repetitive they blocked all ability to receive anyother business calls and were considered to be "harassment" by the on-sitemanager. In an attempt to stop the endless telephone calls on Sunday morning,the on-site manager called the Police to report telephone harassment. After thePolice apparently talked to the Customer, they suggest that the on-site manager'ssupervisor speak to the Customer, which was done before noon on Sunday, May3, 2015. In that phone call , the Customer told supervisor [redacted] that he wanted[redacted], the on-site manager, "fired" for not giving him "free parking" and for "lying"and requiring him to pay the initial $7.00 charge, and threatened to stand at theentry to the Parking Lot to turn away customers if his "non-negotiable demands"were not met. The supervisor, [redacted] (brother or one of the out of town owners),promised to investigate these claims and get back to the Customer.THE PARKING LOT'S INVESTIGATIVE REPORT OF 5-11-15The Parking Lot's attorney was asked to investigate the claim and prepareda Report Letter dated 5-11 -015 which was sent to the Customer and to theowners of the Parking Lot. The 5-11-15 Report contained 16 pages and wasbased on a telephone interview with the customer on May 4, 2015, employeeinterviews, a review of pertinent parts of the Parking Lot video tapes for thevarious hours involved, along with a review of the Customer's 5 FAXES sent on5-2-15, and other background information obtained during the investigation.After the customer received the Report Letter of 5-11-15 (FAXED, emailed,and mailed to him) which found his claims to be without merit, thecustomer posted another "update" on [redacted] dated 5-11 -15 complaining about theunfairness of the attorney's Report Letter of 5-11-15. The last line of his YELP"update" of 5-11-15 states "If you would like to read the letter he sent me you canrequest it and I'll gladly send you a copy as proof"The customer's offer to produce a copy of the unfavorable Report Letter of5-11-15 was contained in the customer's posting at [redacted] under the name "[redacted]. " dated 5-2-15 and "updated" 5-11-15, which postings can be viewed at theinternet link below:[redacted]In addition to the "update" posting on [redacted] of 5-11-15, the Customer sentthe Parking Lot's attorney an e-mail at 5:44p.m. on 5-11-15 saying he felt theReport Letter of 5-11-15 was wrong and improper, warned and threatened of apotential defamation lawsuit and other bad publicity, and stated that he wasrevising his refund request from $28.00 to $21.00 and wanted an apology.THE PARKING LOT'S APOLOGY LETTER AND $21 REFUND OF 5-13-15The Parking Lot's attorney provided the owners with the Customer's YELPposting of 5-2-15 and the "update" posting of 5-11-15, and a copy of the ReportLetter of 5-11-15, and a copy of the Customer's follow up e-mail to the attorney of5:44 p.m. on 5-11-15. Thereafter, the owners authorized the attorney to send thefollowing letter to the Customer dated May 13, 2015. The text of the letter is asfollows:TEXT OF LETTER SENT TO CUSTOMER ON MAY 13. 2015Thank you for your e-mail message to me of 5-11-15 @5:44p.m., whichpresented your reactions and disagreements with my letter e-mailed/FAXED to youearlier that day. You also advised of your updating on 5-11-15 of your 5-2-15 YELPpost, expressing further disagreement with my response letter of 5-11-15.After [redacted] 's Supervisor, [redacted] (brother of one of the owners), talked with you byphone Sunday morning, May 3, 2015, [redacted] asked me to investigate your complaints,which is why I became involved.In my letter to you of 5-11-15, I tried to explain the results of my investigation ofyour complaints. I conducted employee interviews, watched the video tapes of yourvisit to the Parking Lot (between @6:39a.m. and @7:12a.m. on Saturday, May 2,2015), I read the 5 FAXES (total of 30 pages) you sent to the Parking lot on 5-2-15where you demanded to speak to the "owner" and accused [redacted] of being a "liar" (sentat 4:27p.m. , 4:35 p.m.,4:37 p.m., 4:39p.m., 4:44p.m., and 4:53p.m.), and I listened toyour complaints and demands in our telephone conversation of @5:30p.m. on Monday,May 4, 2015.As we both know, your explanation of what happened is different from the facts Ireported to you as the result of my investigation as set forth in my letter to you of 5-11 -15.I have given all forms of your written complaints and e-mails to the owners forreview, along with my report letter to you of 5-11-15.Because there is such a disagreement as to what happened, the owners haveadvised me to tell you that the main issue is that if you, as the customer, feel you werenot treated properly, then the owners would like to apologize to you for anything thatwas said or done to you by [redacted] or anybody else (including me, the attorney) whichoffended you in any way.In this case, it appears that both sides to the dispute could have acted differentlyto avoid problems. On our side of the dispute, we will try to learn some lessons fromthis situation. As you know, nobody in this life is perfect and we all make mistakes.As a sign of goodwill, the owners have asked me to refund to you the $21 .00 youhave requested in your e-mail of 5-11-15.This represents a refund of the $7.00 you paid to park your BMW in the parkinglot while helping start your lady friends' stalled T[redacted] on 5-2-15, and represents thetwo $7 .00 payments ($14 .00) your friends paid, $7 paid when they parked @1 0:00p.m.Friday 5-1-15, and then another $7 .00 (after exceeding the initial 8 hours) which theypaid when exiting @7:16a.m. on Saturday, 5-2-15.Enclosed is my office Check #[redacted], dated 5-13-15, for $21.00 payable to you,which is being mailed with this letter today.On behalf of the owners and myself, we wish you happiness and success in yourfuture activities.WHERE THIS MATTER STANDS AS OF TODAY. JUNE 9, 2015As of the date of this response letter to Revdex.com, we see that the Customer's[redacted] posting has not been "updated" to make any reference to the Parking Lot's"apology" letter and $21.000 parking refund check sent to him on May 13, 2015.As of the date of this response letter to Revdex.com, the Parking Lot attorney'sonline banking records indicate that the $21 .00 refund check issued to theCustomer on 5-13-14 (Check No. [redacted]) has not been cashed. Since receiving the Customer's e-mail of 5:44 p.m. on 5-11-15, and after emailing,FAXING, and mailing the "apology" letter and $21 .00 check of 5-13-15 tothe Customer, we have received no further communications from this Customer.From what we can tell, the Customer has chosen not to provide the 888with a copy of the Parking Lot's Report Letter of 5-11-15 (which was unfavorableto the Customer), even though the Customer offered on his [redacted] "update"posting of 5-11-15 to provide it to anybody who asked for it.From what we can tell , the Customer has chosen to not disclose and to notprovide to the 888, a copy of the Parking Lot's "apology" letter and $21.00 refundcheck sent to the Customer on 5-13-15.The Parking Lot believes it has acted reasonably in trying to show"goodwill" to this unhappy Customer by refunding the $7.00 he paid to park hisBMW in the Parking Lot (thus giving him "free parking"), and by refunding to himthe $14.00 which his lady friend paid, thus giving her "free" parking for her T[redacted]parked from 10:00 p.m. on Friday 5-1-15 until leaving shortly after 7:16a.m. onSaturday 5-2-15. The Customer ~efused to provide us with her name or contactinformation. This lady has never protested her paying her parking fees.In return for the Parking Lot's attempt to show "goodwill," the Customer hasnot seen fit to update his [redacted] postings to reflect the "apology" letter and $21.00refund check send to him (which remains uncashed), and it appears theCustomer did not provide the 888 with a copy of the Parking Lot's Report Letterof 5-11-15, which Report was unfavorable to the Customer.More significantly, the Customer failed to inform the 888 of the ParkingLot's "apology" letter and $21.00 parking refund check sent to him in this matteron May 13, 2015. The Customer, for unknown reasons, has elected not to cashthe $21.00 parking fee refund check, even though he demanded such a refund inboth his 888 Complaint and in his negative posting on [redacted].The Parking Lot again apologizes to the Customer for being unable to meethis expectations and demands in this matter.