Standard Parking

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's offer If you wish, you may update it before sending it.] Revdex.com: I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID 10668336, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to meI will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolvedIf the company does not perform as promised I can get back to you at: [redacted] Regards, [redacted]

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below While it does not resolve my complaint, I am willing to pay for damages on my own I still want this logged with the Revdex.com as it was not satisfactory Regards, [redacted]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and the proposal -- namely that the business rescind the parking violation and refund me the fine -- is satisfactory to mePlease advise on how I should contact the business to get my refund Thanks, [redacted]

Complaint: [redacted] I am rejecting this response because:The company signage in the parking lot clearly stated that 'display of parking ticket not required,' which opens customers to this type of vulnerability wherein even though the $was paid on time, the machine flashed 'printing error' and failed to deliver me a ticket that would have shown the time stamp of the payment.Furthermore, the company charged me TWICE for the same parking spot: by 1) accepting my credit card payment of $on the day of parking and then 2) accepting the $'fine.' It means I paid a total of $for one parking spot and this type of double dipping by parking companies exploits customers by capitalizing on process lacunae.If the company states that I did not pay the parking fee of $and therefore fined my $then it is only fair that they return my payment of $12.Furthermore, the company's printing machine failed to print my ticket for which I am being penalizedI state that they return my $and pay me compensation for penalizing me for their machine's error which has resulted in this disputeHad the machine printed the ticket I would have had proof of time and date of payment and the company would have no reason to harass and extract money from me Sincerely, [redacted]

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's offer If you wish, you may update it before sending it.] Revdex.com: I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to meI will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolvedIf the company does not perform as promised I can get back to you at: [redacted] Regards, [redacted]

We have received the response from Ms. [redacted] in regards to complaint # [redacted] .SP Plus operates the valet service under a third party management contract. Because of this, we do not control the garage surveillance footage that Ms. [redacted] is requesting. Our client has provided us, as well as Ms. [redacted] , with time-stamped, still photographs from the cameras at the front door of the hotel. These photographs show the condition of Ms. [redacted] 's vehicle as SP Plus returned it back into her possession on 3/23/15; the alleged damage is not present in these photographs. Based on the documentation provided, we have concluded that SP Plus did not cause the damage to Ms. [redacted] 's vehicle and will not be providing any assistance with the repairs.Thank you, [redacted] Administrative Assistant

August 22, Dear [redacted] ,I am in receipt of the complaint regarding the parking operation at [redacted] in [redacted] , VirginiaAt issue are three distinct items addressed below: Guest Parking PolicySP+ is contracted as the operator of the parking garage at [redacted] [redacted] SP+ does not set the parking rates nor are we authorized of offer free or discounted parking to any entity without express written consent from OwnershipAgreements regarding parking are between the tenants and ownership directlyIn this specific instance, there is no documented agreement between the [redacted] Group, the residential property management and [redacted] , the property ownership that states that residents will receive free guest parking or discounted guest parkingThe only authorization SP+ has is to offer discounted parking to the potential new residentsTheir parking is validated by the [redacted] agent when the guest comes to tour an apartment.Therefore, SP+ cannot offer free or discounted parking to residential guestsThis issue should be addressed to [redacted] Group Property Management and building ownershipParking Equipment Automation/Validation AcceptanceThe complaint states that the new parking equipment is not able to accept validations and is flawedAt the time of the complaint the parking equipment was being installed in stages and was not fully operationalMerchants were given more than months notice to implement the new electronic validation systemHowever, many were not compliant in doing soAs a service to the customers while the new paring equipment was being commissioned, SP+ staffed each exit gate with personnel to assist those customers who received validations from non-compliant merchantsThis service was offered in lieu of ceasing all validation programs.At this time all merchants have implemented the electronic validation system and the exit lanes are no longer staffedThe system operates effectively 24/Parking Attendants ServiceThere are no longer parking attendants employed at this location.Customer Service Representatives are on site to assist customers with equipment issues or questionsHowever, these personnel are not stationed at any entry or exit pointThey roam throughout the garage to offer proactive assistance to customers and address issues as they may ariseAs the issues identified in the complaint have been addressed and those that are within the control of SP+ have been resolved, we will consider this matter closedSincerely,STANDARD PARKING Tashana BSenior Manager

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.
Regards,
*** ***

We received your letter in regards to a complaint filed by *** *** (complaint # ***). We have done a thorough investigation of this complaint and have concluded that the damage was not caused while Ms***'s vehicle was valet parked with us at the *** ***Ms***
checked her car into our valet service on 3/22/at 14:and we released her car back to her on 3/23/at 13:We have a time-stamped photograph of the vehicle as it was being returned to Ms***; the alleged damage is not present in this photoMs*** returned to the hotel nearly hours later with the damaged vehicle; we have a time-stamped photograph from Ms***'s return to the hotel. Our Claims Administrator has been in contact with Ms*** multiple times about this matter and has shared this information and the photographs with herBased on the findings from our investigation, Ms***'s claim has been denied. I have attached copies of the photographs as well as a car log for Ms***'s vehicle showing when her car was checked in and checked out of the valet.Thank you,*** ***Administrative Assistant

The main entrance to the lot is off ***, about feet east of the ***th & *** intersectionThe entrance this person used is down ***th Street and is in the back of the lotThe main signage is at the *** entrance and is 10' in the air and states "Metered"The front (north) half does
have meters, but the back section does not and is for permit holdersThis signage is in a wind master and rate signs at the *** entranceMy only other argument is that if this person was going to the shops across the street (***), they most likely walked out the parking lot at the *** entrance and would have seen the meters and then the additional signageIf by chance they went the sidewalk on ***th, they still would see the meters and the rest of the ground signage is also visible from the sidewalk on the NW corner of lot as they would be crossing the streetWe are not running a deceptive parking scheme, but someone would have to pay a little attention to their surroundings when they parked.In conclusion, it is our opinion that the lot is clearly signedAt the same time, this person has no prior tickets or violations, so it would be OK to me to dismiss the charges

We deeply sorry again for her situationWe have a procedure in place for situation like thisThe customer submit their receipt and we will process refund for themIf she want to fax her receipt to
the office *** *** *** I will start the processThank youSent from my iPhone

As you know, Standard Parking operates private parking lots in the Denver 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 payIn addition, some parking customers even attempt to defraud the parking companies by creating paid receipts and bank statements, monthly parking permits, and sharing payment receipts and monthly permits. This is a significant and substantial problem for Standard Parking, as it is for all parking companies who operate surface parking lots. Standard Parking has retained our office's services to assist them with their collectionsAs 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. Issuing parking notices is one way for the parking company to enforce their property rightsTowing or booting vehicles would be alternative ways for a parking company to enforce their property rights. Standard Parking 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 12/10/a vehicle registered to this consumer was parked at Standard's Auraria Parking lot. This lot requires the user to prepay for the space they will park in and they must input their license plate into the pay station. When the Standard Parking lot attendant pulled onto the lot, he went to the pay station and retrieved a report of the plates that had paid to park. When he checked this consumer's vehicle, the plate number was not on the plate report so he was unable to verify payment and wrote the parking notice. There is signage at the pay station posting the requirement that the plate number number must be entered. We believe this notice is valid and cannot be dismissed.This consumer contacted our office to dispute the notice. Our agent contacted the manager at Standard and he wanted the notice upheld, however he offered to reduce the notice to $40.00. This consumer has paid this notice and we consider the issue closed. Standard Parking has not authorized our office to refund this notice

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's offer. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID 10668336, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to meI will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolvedIf the company does not perform as promised I can get back to you at: ***
Regards,
*** ***

This business response was received by Revdex.com via email and is a copy/paste.*** ***My name is Emilio G***, I am the *** *** *** for O'Hare's International Airport Parking Facilities.The attached email was forwarded to my attention for review and response.I would like to
inform you that I have contacted the customer *** ** ***) and have provided a refund of $as requested (see email below)He advised me that he would withdraw his complaint with the Revdex.com once he verified that his refund had been processed.To: *** ***As discussed, a credit of $was just applied to your credit card ending in It may take several business days for this credit to appear on your accountPlease contact your credit card company directly to verify/confirm this credit was applied. Thank you again for taking the time to provide us with a narrative of your experience and for your input on improving this service.Please contact me directly should you require additional assistance.Thank you,Emilio ** ***
*** *** ***

[A default
letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's offer. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID 10668336, and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to meI will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolvedIf the company does not perform as promised I can get back to you at: ***
Regards,
*** ***

We deeply sorry again for her situation. We have a procedure in place for situation like this. The customer submit their receipt and we will process refund for them. If she want to fax her receipt to the office [redacted] I will start the process.Thank you.Sent from my iPhone

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's...

offer.  If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]
Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the offer made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved. If the company does not perform as promised I can get back to you at: [redacted].
Regards,
[redacted]

John H[redacted] <jh[redacted]@spplus.com>AttachmentsJun 20 (1 day ago)to me, Rick, Bob, Michael In response to claim ID [redacted], please see the attached disclaimer posted at the entrance of the parking facility explaining that it is a self-park facility and therefore the claim was denied on this...

basis.John H[redacted]Office Manager Michael D[redacted] <md[redacted]@spplus.com>Jun 20 (1 day ago)to John, me, Rick, Bob John,       [redacted]      [redacted] I will reply direct to the Revdex.com. Her own ins carrier has paid for her damages minus her deductible. They have not sent us a subro bill as they know that we are correct with our denial. I originally spoke with her and denied the claim and she was supposed to email me her rebuttal so that I could send her a copy of the denial letter as her address and email were not in the claim report. I though she never responded but after I read your email, I searched and it was in my spam.MichaelMichael D[redacted]Claims Administrator

I respectfully disagree with the report received from Standard Parking. Their attached image of a general disclaimer was not clearly posted at the entrance of the parking facility I had my vehicle parked in a lot which happens to be outdoors and gated. The attached “signage” is clearly a sign posted indoors. Further, my parking receipt (attached) has no indication whatsoever as to this “self park” facility not being liable for the safety and security of vehicles parked in this “safe and secure” lot. I paid to park my vehicle in this lot which like all the parking facilities they manage, is advertised as being safe and secure.   As previously stated,   Standard Parking has a duty to maintain its parking lots in a manner that hinders perpetration of crimes, including the crime that perpetrated on my property while my car was in the possession of Standard Parking. This was not a scratch and dent incident. Thieves entered the secured lot, rolled under my vehicle, and proceeded to steal my catalytic converter and two sensors which is not an easy nor is it a quiet undertaking.   Standard Parking failed to provide my vehicle with the required, reasonable level of protection that is industry standard. It is as simple as that. Period.   I respectfully request that Standard Parking refund me the amount of $500.00, which represents my expenses incurred as a result of this negligence and false advertising.

Complaint: [redacted]
I am rejecting this response because:The company signage in the parking lot clearly stated that 'display of parking ticket not required,' which opens customers to this type of vulnerability wherein even though the $12 was paid on time, the machine flashed 'printing error' and failed to deliver me a ticket that would have shown the time stamp of the payment.Furthermore, the company charged me TWICE for the same parking spot: by 1) accepting my credit card payment of $12 on the day of parking and then 2) accepting the $40 'fine.' It means I paid a total of $52 for one parking spot and this type of double dipping by parking companies exploits customers by capitalizing on process lacunae.If the company states that I did not pay the parking fee of $12 and therefore fined my $40 then it is only fair that they return my payment of $12.Furthermore, the company's printing machine failed to print my ticket for which I am being penalized. I state that they return my $40 and pay me compensation for penalizing me for their machine's error which has resulted in this dispute. Had the machine printed the ticket I would have had proof of time and date of payment and the company would have no reason to harass and extract money from me.    
Sincerely,
[redacted]