Parking Revenue Recovery Services Inc

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:  It's in their systems already. I have attached same records as provided on the original request to dismiss.  The notice number is [redacted]. Sincerely,
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID 1[redacted], and find that this resolution to refund $75 via check to be sent to my home address as provided is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2015/08/19) */
Our office accesses all accounts by notice number and parking company. Since none of this information has not been provided, I am unable to respond. Please submit this information asap.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 7, 2015/08/21)...

*/
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I do not accept this response. They have a way of finding my info I'm sure. They are the one who just sent me the letter.
Final Consumer Response /* (4200, 17, 2015/09/17) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
They sent me the bill so they can talk to abm and erase bill. They're not trying to resolve issue when they are the ones who sent me bill threatening payment.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 19, 2015/09/22) */
This notice was sent to our office by ABM as a valid debt. This consumer did not pay to park in their parking lot and we believe the notice issued by ABM is valid. This consumer has not submitted any proof showing she did pay. We are unable to dismiss this notice. As far as we are concerned and know, this debt is valid and our office will continue in it's attempt to collect the debt.

PRRS does not have anything to do with the pay station.  This consumer has not mentioned that he called the phone number for the parking company on the pay station and there is no record of any problem with it yesterday.  It was pinging with payments all day and evening.  In addition,...

there was only one other parking notice issued yesterday around that time and that person paid their notice.  If the machine was not working we believe that customer would have complained.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:There was no clear signage near the middle of the lot, or the entrance to the stockyards where we parked.  There might have been signage on either end of the lot, but not the middle where we were actually walking in and could observe them.  For three grown adults to enter and not a single one of us notice that we had to pay to park, that's a failing by management to install adequate signage. It is also not my fault that your computer system was not functioning correctly.  I'm sorry that you were unable to bring up the notes that I made an honest attemp at communication via telephone and email, but to be accused of never attempting communication and being called a liar should in itself be grounds to have this ticket dismissed.  Please dismiss this ticket and we can mark this matter resolved, and I will be more aware of the parking restrictions here in the future.  Thank you  
Sincerely,
[redacted]

I emailed a photo of the signage at this parking lot with my first response, did you get it?  Laz Parking posted the rules to park in their parking lot.  This consumer entered their lot which is private property and as such, she must follow the posted rules.   Laz's lot attendant checked the vehicle and determined there was no receipt on the dash and issued the notice.  When this consumer did not pay the notice, it was referred to our office for collection.  We sent this consumer a reminder letter.  Our agent determined the notice was validly written and offered a reduced settlement.  The time she says she paid has no bearing on the whether th notice is valid in this case as she was written for NO TICKET ON DASH.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 9, 2015/12/11) */
Unfortunately our office accesses all accounts by notice number and parking company name. Since this consumer has not provided this information, I am unable to respond. Please remit this information at your earliest convenience.
Initial...

Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 11, 2015/12/14) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I have submitted receipt information to them through email. I am attaching the photo that was sent to me from them showing the receipt in the window. I also forwarded the original receipt to sent as well. All communication is attached.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 13, 2015/12/19) */
As you know, Platinum Parking operates private parking lots in the Dallas area. The surface lot which is the subject of the above complaint is operated on an honor system; this lot is not manned, but is set up with a payment machine, and parking customers are expected to pay if they park in this lot. Unfortunately, many parking customers do not pay. In addition, some parking customers even attempt to defraud the parking companies by creating false paid receipts and bank statements, false monthly parking permits, and sharing payment receipts and monthly permits. We have had numerous of parkers attempting to avoid paying to park by shoving an expired or random receipt so the attendant can see it's receipt but the attendant can't verify the date or time. This is a significant and substantial problem for Platinum Parking, as it is for all parking companies who operate surface parking lots. Platinum Parking has retained our office's services to assist them with their parking monitoring and collections.
As you may also know, property owners have the right to protect their property from trespassers. Specifically, private parking companies, as the owners/authorized managers of these private parking lots, have the right to establish terms and conditions under which a customer is permitted to park their vehicle or use the parking lot. A customer is permitted to use the parking lot only if they fully comply with the terms and conditions established by the parking company. If a parking customer does not fully comply with the terms and conditions, they are trespassing.
On 11/6/15, a silver Lincoln was parked in Platinum's Ross lot. This lot requires the user to prepay or their parking space and prominently display a receipt on the dash so the lot attendant can verify payment for parking. This is the only way the attendant is able to verify payment for the parking session.
When the attendant checked her vehicle, there was a receipt on the dash but it was shoved so far under the window strip that the receipt was not readable. There are actually two separate sections of a receipt which show the expiration date and time and the attendant reported he could not read either section. The attendant issued a notice and placed it on the vehicle. Please view the photo submitted by the consumer. Our attendant also took several of the same photo which clearly shows there was no way to read and verify any receipt on this consumer's dash. We believe the notice is valid.
This consumer contacted our office and our agent offered her a reduced settlement offer of $55.00. At this time the notice remains open and due.
This consumer

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 11, 2015/10/26) */
I have attached a copy of one of the signs at the entrance to this parking lot. This parking lot is reserved for permit holders only M-F from 7a-5pm. This consumer did not have a permit displayed so our attendant issued a notice for NO...

PERMIT. The notice is valid and cannot be dismissed. I have reviewed the information provided by this consumer and the lot attendant and see that this consumer has paid this notice and the collection is closed.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Sincerely,
Eric [redacted]

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
I have submitted the same information as I have sent originally around December 11, 2015, this information was faxed to the number recently provided. I instead receive an email from the same employee who goes by the name, [redacted], that the matter has been resolved since the ticket was paid. First and foremost, [redacted], is the same person who poorly provided me information on the initial email conversation. According to her emails, none of the information that was provided was sufficient and she did not receive the proper ticket notice despite me writing and emailing her a copy of the ticket and parking pass; since then she has gone on to ignore me. So yes, I paid the parking ticket to prevent further collection activity as their notice threatens and since [redacted] claims that I did not submit proper documentation and chose to ignore me from there on out, I had no way of knowing if they are in pursuit of treating it as insufficient or what the status is so of course, the ticket has been paid, I am looking for a fair resolution to this problem and asking for a refund. The response provided by [redacted] on 01/04/16 was not acceptable and I have followed up with her with another email but of course, I still have not received a response yet.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 8, 2015/08/10) */
Hello, I have read this complaint and believe this consumer has filed against the wrong company. Our office has nothing to do with the signage, would not know if the parking lot was closed or not and none of our agents issued this notice. He...

may wish to follow up with Standard Parking since he is stating this is their parking lot.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 10, 2015/08/21) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
The response from Parking Revenue Recovery Service (PRRS) states: "none of our agents issued this notice." As you can see from the attached photos, that attempt to evade responsibility is false: the notice was issued by PRRS itself. It states (in all capital letters): "THIS NOTICE OF PARKING NOTICE ISSUED BY PARKING REVENUE RECOVERY SERVICE."
PRRS also admits it "would not know if the parking lot was closed or not." That's my whole point! The parking lot was NOT closed, and the only posted signage was on the ticket boxes - both of them - which said "OUT OF SERVICE": not "Closed, Do Not Park Here," just that the ticket boxes were both currently out of service. I was fully expecting to get a notice on my car later that day, when the boxes were repaired, directing me how I could make my payment - but instead I got a ticket.
I am guessing that PRRS issued several notices just like mine that morning - to all the other poor suckers who parked and couldn't pay due to the "OUT OF SERVICE" signs. But PRRS has refused to disclose whether and if so how many notices just like mine were issued by PRRS that morning, and how many other people just like me have been complaining.
PRRS next says I should contact the lot owner - "Standard Parking since HE IS STATING this is their parking lot." First of all, I'm not the one who somehow dreamed up that Standard Parking owns this lot. As you can see from the attached email from PRRS itself, PRRS itself was stating that "STANDARD PARKING" was the lot owner. (And of course, the lot has signs to that effect. If those signs are wrong, the owner is in violation of Denver ordinances requiring that the owner's name and contact information be clearly displayed.
Finally, PRRS says "he may wish to follow up" with the lot owner. How is that supposed to resolve anything, since the ticket was issued by PRRS? Also, I already DID follow up with the lot owner, on 6/26, but she said that her hands were tied and that PRRS was refusing to budge from the $40 ticket!
So ... now that we have conclusively established that I have NOT "filed against the wrong company," would PRRS please do the Revdex.com and me the courtesy of responding to the merits of my complaint?
As a compromise, I not only AGAIN remain willing to pay the $14 I've been trying to pay all along since the day after I got this ticket, but I'll even compromise and go to $20.00, and I'll again pay the postage to PRRS, just to get this nonsense concluded.
Thank you.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 12, 2015/09/02) */
Standard Parking is very interested in settling this notice. Since this consumer has offered a reduced settlement offer as a compromise, I have contacted the manager for [redacted] and he has agreed to accept this offer. Please remit at your earliest convenience.
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 14, 2015/09/04) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)
THANK YOU for finally listening to my complaint. I am today mailing my check No. [redacted] for $20 payable to Parking Revenue Recovery Service, mailed to:
Parking Revenue Recovery Services Inc
Attn: Ms. [redacted]
23 Inverness Way E Ste 170
Englewood, CO XXXXX-XXXX
Please do me a favor and tell Standard that next time their machines aren't operating, they need to put up a cone or barrier preventing people from coming in to park, as well as signage on their units that clearly state not just that the payment box is broken but that parking is prohibited while the payment box is broken. I have no doubt that Standard collected money from others who fell prey to this same problem on that same day, and who didn't want to fight the ticket. That is not an honest, fair and reputable business practice. Thank you.

Our records reflect that space 133 was empty at the time the 1:30pm audit was done.  I realize this consumer has a video showing he is paying space 133 however there is no date and time stamp on this video.  He could have paid after the notice was issued.  Does he have a version of...

the video which includes a date/time stamp.

there is no notice number or parking company name provided so I am unable to locate this account to respond.  Her complaint is about signage and our office has nothing to do with any signage on the parking lots.  We do not believe this should have been lodged against our office.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 6, 2015/12/02) */
please submit a copy of your original receipt showing you paid to park on 11/4/15. You can fax to XXX-XXX-XXXX.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (3000, 9, 2015/12/07) */
(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the...

business.)
I do not accept but I will fax the copies to [redacted]'s attention per her request. I am also attaching the information to here.
Final Business Response /* (4000, 11, 2015/12/10) */
It is the responsibility of the customer to prepay for the parking space and display the receipt prominently on the dash so the lot attendant, when checking the vehicle can easily verify that the parking space has been paid for. The photos taken by the lot attendant clearly show that the expired receipt was the most prominently displayed. However, in the full dash photo taken by the attendant there appears to be what looks like another piece of paper over on the passenger [redacted] Since this customer did provide a valid receipt for 4NOV and I don't have a photo of the other piece of paper, I have requested and received authorization to dismiss this notice.
Final Consumer Response /* (2000, 13, 2015/12/27) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

As you know, ABM operates private parking lots in the Milwaukee area. The surface lot which is the subject of the above complaint is operated on an honor system; this lot is not manned, but is set up with a payment machine, and parking customers are expected to pay if they park in this lot. ...

Unfortunately, many parking customers do not pay. In addition, some parking customers even attempt to defraud the parking companies by creating false paid receipts and bank statements, false monthly parking permits, and sharing payment receipts and monthly permits. This is a significant and substantial problem for ABM, as it is for all parking companies who operate surface parking lots. ABM has retained our office's services to assist them with their collections.

As you also know, property owners have the right to protect their property from trespassers. Specifically, ABM, as the authorized manager of these private parking lots, has the right to establish terms and conditions under which a customer is permitted to park their vehicle or use the parking lot. A customer is permitted to use the parking lot only if they fully comply with the terms and conditions established by the parking company. If a parking customer does not fully comply with the terms and conditions, they are trespassing. Issuing parking notices is one way for the parking company to enforce their property rights. Towing or booting vehicles would be alternative ways for a parking company to enforce their property rights. ABM has signage posted on their parking lots detailing the terms and conditions of using their lots, including payment rates, rules and general guidelines (pre-paying for the space utilized, displaying paid receipt face up on dash, etc.)

On 11/9/15, a vehicle registered to this consumer was parked at ABM's Cullen lot. This particular parking lot is a pay and display lot which requires the user to prepay for their parking space and display the receipt FACE UP on the dash. This is the only way the lot attendant is able to verify that the parking space has been paid for. This vehicle was parked for several days and when the attendant checked this vehicle each day, there was no receipt on the dash so three notices were issued. The attendants took photos of the dash and we are able to verify that there was no prepaid receipt visible to read on the dash. We believe the notices are valid and cannot be dismissed. We believe that the consumer was clear that the requirement of parking in the lot was for the receipt to be displayed.
This consumer did contact our office to dispute the three notices and our agent reduced each of the notices from $75.00 each to $20.00 each. We believe this is a very settlement offer and do not understand why this consumer is filing this complaint against our office. At this time all the notices are open and due.

I have read this consumer's complaint and unfortunately I think she has recorded the wrong notice number.  I am unable to access her notice and review her case at this time.

Our office accesses all accounts by notice number and parking company.  Since neither has been provided, I am unable to respond at this time.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:  I have proved to the company that this parking ticket is not valid.  I showed them the attached picture which clearly shows a paid parking stub.  I further explained that their lack of maintenance on the ticket machine caused the error as the ticket screen is scratched, making it unreadable and led to me selecting parking spot 9 and not 19.  I did pay for my parking, and I will not be paying their "invented" ticket.  It is my belief (and many others if you look this company up on the internet), that their business model is based around false, misleading, and invented parking tickets.  I have contacted the Denver Police Department, and they are investigating their business processes.
I do not accept this businesses response.

Unfortunately we access all accounts by notice number and this information has not been provided so I'm unable to respond.  What I can tell you specifically about her additional comment is that displaying the receipt on the dash is the only our lot attendants are able to verify a receipt is valid and not traded with another user or picked up from the ground.  We would not take that into account.