Impark Loss Prevention Specialist

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can I just ask why people don't just, you know, pay for parking?

I think I'm going to add this to my S-Class Rule as a corollary.

I don’t get it either, but on the positive side it does create jobs. You need people to patrol the lots, you need CPA employees to show up and order the tow, you need tow truck drivers to tow the vehicles, then you need lot attendants to handle the car once it’s in the impound lot.

In a way it’s good for the job market. I still have never received a parking ticket with the exception of once at the U of C when I lost track of time studying. That was forgiven though....

[know1edge]

.

[Buster]

That takes the grand prize for World's Creepiest False Equivalence.

[btimbit]

Obvious solution is just don't go downtown. Works great for me

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That takes the grand prize for World's Creepiest False Equivalence.

That’s pretty funny. Looks like he did a search on your user name and the keyword “speeding” then sifted through the threads. Would have taken some reading, that first quote is on page 3 or 4 of a thread. Plus it was from 2013!!!!!

[killramos]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That takes the grand prize for World's Creepiest False Equivalence.

[Proyecto2000]

I was at the impark lot on 6th ave and 3rd street yesterday during lunch hour and saw a CPA employee issuing a ticket inside the impark lot at the request of an impark employee. I guess CPA must be collecting on behalf of Impark now

[rage2]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I was at the impark lot on 6th ave and 3rd street yesterday during lunch hour and saw a CPA employee issuing a ticket inside the impark lot at the request of an impark employee. I guess CPA must be collecting on behalf of Impark now

Not really. CPA just issuing a $40 Unauthorized on Private Property ticket which is needed for city to tow. Impark gets none of that money. Basically they're sick of your shit and just fucking with you legitimately.

This is a service CPA provides to all private property owners and managers. I remember being a bus boy and part of my job was to check to see who was parking illegally and call 311. Ticket and tow! Eventually, the restaurant just hired Impark to manage it.

[killramos]

Anyone can call CPA.

Neighbourhood parking outside of permit zones (where they now check plates with camera cars) is pretty much all on the don’t piss off your neighbors system. CPA only comes out when they get a complaint.

They might need to chalk tires for 72hrs before they will actually fine and tow on the street though unless you are violating some other rule.

I hated visiting friends in Macewan, everyone has a front driveway and it’s pretty much impossible to find anywhere where this is 1.5m gap to driveway. Sometimes had to park blocks away.

[sexualbanana]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My point still stands the terms of service are not legally binding they are actually entitled to nothing. The flip side of this is they can tow your car from their property if you choose not to pay. Having some goons holding your property and shaking you down for money takes this into new territory.

But again, how is that different from a barrier arm? The company is legally entitled to the parking fee and nothing more, and I believe it could be legally binding (I have no idea of precedent) because it's a transaction: pay me for use of the lot, and I won't call CPA to ticket and/or tow you - which is all that they are legally able to do. Everything else is a scare tactic.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

no banana the tickets are legally unenforceable in every sense of the law including equifax. They are worth the paper their printed on.

I think I said that?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Tickets from these providers are after-the-fact and, if I remember correctly, courts have ruled that the companies are only entitled to the time the perpetrator paid for. Circling back to the OPs situation, I don't think those loss prevention guys could've legally demanded that the OP pay prior tickets, only the hour (or whatever the length was) that he had parked in the lot for that time .

[HiTempguy1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But again, how is that different from a barrier arm?

Because a barrier arm wouldn't allow you in in the first place.

Derp. That is THE difference.

[sexualbanana]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You're arguing the actual ticket, I'm arguing paying for initial use of the lot. In OP's case where he was blocked in by loss prevention staff, he's only really on the hook for the time he was parked in the lot that time. Similar to pay lots with a barrier arm, only more annoying.

Equifax's statement that they don't have proof of a contractual agreement or proof is in relation to how it effects the violator's credit, which in this case is not at all. Because of how damaging that any negative hits to your credit can be, they would ask for very strong evidence. Again, however, you're conflating paying for the use of the parking space provided by the company with paying a penalty for not paying for the same service.

To use the service provided, you have to pay for that service. Ironically, the people who are complaining about the unethical business practices of these parking companies, also don't seem to have a problem with not holding up their end of the transaction.

Tickets from these providers are after-the-fact and, if I remember correctly, courts have ruled that the companies are only entitled to the time the perpetrator paid for. Circling back to the OPs situation, I don't think those loss prevention guys could've legally demanded that the OP pay prior tickets, only the hour (or whatever the length was) that he had parked in the lot for that time .

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

My point still stands the terms of service are not legally binding they are actually entitled to nothing. The flip side of this is they can tow your car from their property if you choose not to pay. Having some goons holding your property and shaking you down for money takes this into new territory.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

no banana the tickets are legally unenforceable in every sense of the law including equifax. They are worth the paper their printed on.

Once you wrap your head around this youll begin to realize why they can't extort you with money by immobilizing your vehicle.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Because a barrier arm wouldn't allow you in in the first place.

Derp. That is THE difference.

Still trespassing if you're not paying.

[know1edge]

.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

search only this forum, keyword speed, user buster, show results as posts. 1 page. not that tuff

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

search only this forum, keyword speed, user buster, show results as posts. 1 page. not that tuff

Pimpin ain’t easy, but stalkin is!

[msommers]

Is it stalking if you have a good memory when people say stuff and later quote it?

Nope just getting called out.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is it stalking if you have a good memory when people say stuff and later quote it?

Nope just getting called out.

While I agree with you he admitted he went searching and pulled up something from 2013.

It really was a bad equivalency attempt though. The two (speeding and not paying for parking) share only the fact they are both breaking the law and both involve cars. Murder and peeing in the bushes on a ski hill are both illegal, doesn’t mean you can equate the two.....

[gwill]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But again, how is that different from a barrier arm? The company is legally entitled to the parking fee and nothing more, and I believe it could be legally binding (I have no idea of precedent) because it's a transaction: pay me for use of the lot, and I won't call CPA to ticket and/or tow you - which is all that they are legally able to do. Everything else is a scare tactic.



I think I said that?

No the parking company isn't legally entitled to any parking money. Just because there is a sign there doesnt mean they can demand money from you.

Fun fact. Most paid parking lots are not legal. Land owners place a terminal into the location and hope it sticks around without any complaints. Many are setup without any real authorization.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No the parking company isn't legally entitled to any parking money. Just because there is a sign there doesnt mean they can demand money from you.

Fun fact. Most paid parking lots are not legal. Land owners place a terminal into the location and hope it sticks around without any complaints. Many are setup without any real authorization.

Where are you getting this from?

If what you’re saying is true it would be illegal for them to have you ticketed and towed by CPA for not paying which we know they can obviously do

I think you’re confusing the fact that they can’t directly impact your credit or force you to pay the ticket with it being illegal to require payment. A false equivalency

Further If they took you to court and sued you for payment you would most likely lose (in Canada) and be legally forced to pay and it would get registered against your credit. But obviously that would be a waste of their money. But again that doesn’t make private parking operations “illegal”

Also I’m fairly certain when you do get towed you get an actual CPA ticket which is legally binding, will affect your credit and will result in the inability to register your car if you don’t pay it (can you even get your car out of impound without paying the ticket? I don’t know I’ve never been towed)

[gwill]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Where are you getting this from?

If what you’re saying is true it would be illegal for them to have you ticketed and towed by CPA for not paying which we know they can obviously do

I think you’re confusing the fact that they can’t directly impact your credit or force you to pay the ticket with it being illegal to require payment. A false equivalency

Further If they took you to court and sued you for payment you would most likely lose (in Canada) and be legally forced to pay and it would get registered against your credit. But obviously that would be a waste of their money. But again that doesn’t make private parking operations “illegal”

Also I’m fairly certain when you do get towed you get an actual CPA ticket which is legally binding, will affect your credit and will result in the inability to register your car if you don’t pay it (can you even get your car out of impound without paying the ticket? I don’t know I’ve never been towed)

I get the info from the parking company we've hired and questioned as well as friends who have hired parking companies for their commercial properties. Just to clarify my first few comments.. a company can place a sign on a property demanding payment. That doesn't mean someones now has to pay. That car can certainly be towed but just because there's a sign doesn't mean that a person is legally obligated to pay that parking provider. In the case of one of my friends properties he setup his paid parking services. All he did was hire a parking company. They brought in a terminal, placed all the signs hes legally obligated to and he started collecting cash. He never got permits from the city. He was ignoring all sorts of city bylaws by setting up a paid parking service but ultimately unless someone complained it wouldn't matter. This type of setup in all sense is illegal as its not properly permitted. He's in Edmonton and its well known that many of the properties there are not properly permitted for that type of use. People continue to setup paid parking options knowing worst case scenario for them is they shut it down if the city clamps down on them.

I've had to dive into legalities for parking services for condo properties as well as helping out different friends commercial properties.

I could dive into stats on how many fines get collected on properties, how much revenue is generated and what percentage of people pay after receiving notices in mails. Its a an interesting industry that IMO is full of shady practices with companies operating in a grey area for many areas. One thing that's been discussed in length with these companies are the legalities in trying to get people to pay their fines.... weather its with boots, the threat of a tow or just demanding someone pay. Its a very very slippery slope that has resulted with serious consequences for some.