Quantcast
Impark Loss Prevention Specialist - Page 6 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 164

Thread: Impark Loss Prevention Specialist

  1. #101
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    alberta
    Posts
    322
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Please read the article of the parking company who was charged by the police because they prevented vehicles from leaving while forcing people to pay major fines.

    It's not legal to black mail people or block cars in any way like the ops described. Doesnt matter if they want you to pay $20 or $300. It's still a crime the police have actively charged people over.

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Homeless
    My Ride
    Blue Dabadee
    Posts
    9,593
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by know1edge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    ?
    i could have 20 tickets on a flagged vin, sell my car and when the new owner pays for parking, theyre going to tow them for a flagged vin?
    They probably won’t tow you just for a flag no, but next time you are caught you are going to get towed the first time. Which is their right if you are parked in their lot without paying.

    The debate isn’t so much what they can do to collect on previous fines, because it has been established that these “fines” themselves aren’t enforceabke, there is also some debate on if they can come after you for the actual parking fee you didn’t pay previously (rather than the punitive fine amount which is not enforeceable) but that is more a topic of civil action. But if you piss them off they can do a lot to make your life hell next time they catch you on their property.

    Sounds like OP has been experiencing that first hand.

    Also if you have a history of unpaid fees I don’t see why they can’t ban you from using the lot, in which case whether you pay or not they can remove your car since you are violating the terms of service. They aren’t obligated to provide service to people they don’t want to do business with due to a history of issues.

    Life isn’t a free for all, and there are consequences to trying to game the system.
    Last edited by killramos; 04-18-2018 at 06:23 PM.
    Originally posted by Thales of Miletus

    If you think I have been trying to present myself as intellectually superior, then you truly are a dimwit.
    Originally posted by Toma
    fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yolobimmer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    guessing who I might be, psychologizing me with your non existent degree.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    SE Calgary
    My Ride
    Silverado, G37x
    Posts
    1,419
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Please read the article of the parking company who was charged by the police because they prevented vehicles from leaving while forcing people to pay major fines.

    It's not legal to black mail people or block cars in any way like the ops described. Doesnt matter if they want you to pay $20 or $300. It's still a crime the police have actively charged people over.
    I'm actually curious about this, because in that article the company was using boots to keep the car, which is illegal in Alberta. But here they're not using boots, just blocking you in. Does that same law apply as it's still the same type of extortion? Because I thought that law was pretty specific to wheel boots

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    2010 S4
    Posts
    168
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sexualbanana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I would argue that you're not being forced to park in the lot either. When you enter, for example, an Impark parking lot you've implicitly consented to the terms of use of the lot. In this case it's: use the parking spot and pay for its use. Lots have like a million signs that remind you that a) you're entering a pay lot, b) you're on private property and c) you need to pay for your parking spot.

    As for Cash Money's point: Just because Impark/Vinci and other companies don't own the land doesn't mean they can't administer and enforce the rules of the property, in fact that's what they're there for. If someone trespasses on a tenant's property, the tenant can still claim trespassing. It doesn't have to be the landlord/owner doing it.


    Actually by parking in the lot you really don't consent to the terms of anything, having a sign posted with a bunch of rules on it is hardly legally binding. This is one of the reason parking "Tickets" can not be reported to the credit bureaus.

    "But unlike a ticket from the Parking Authority or police, notices from a private parking company or property owner are not legally binding, according to lawyer Murray Harris."

    https://globalnews.ca/news/1694520/p...ones-you-dont/

    Equifax said: "If you park in a private parking lot and do not pay the fee, since there is no contractural agreement (or proof), it would not be reported."

    https://globalnews.ca/news/1694520/p...ones-you-dont/

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    536
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    .
    Last edited by know1edge; 08-16-2018 at 09:46 PM.

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    alberta
    Posts
    322
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by btimbit View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm actually curious about this, because in that article the company was using boots to keep the car, which is illegal in Alberta. But here they're not using boots, just blocking you in. Does that same law apply as it's still the same type of extortion? Because I thought that law was pretty specific to wheel boots
    The premise behind the boots is no different then blocking someones car in until they pay. In both cases theyve immobilized and prevented the vehicle from moving until they pay a fee.

    It's a very slippery slope to demand money in a case like the ops.

    We hired a parking company for one of my condos who would block people in till they paid, got towed and they also booted for a while... the owners ran into major trouble. Ended up with cease and desist from the police.

    Simply put if everyone understands the tickets are not legally binding in any way why would anyone think a parking company can hold you hostage to hold you to their parking terms??? It's common sense. they cant.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Medicine Hat AB
    My Ride
    General Motors Competizione
    Posts
    1,460
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    If they block you in, you should go get another car and block them in.
    2007 GMC 2500 Duramax
    1981 GMC C1500 454

  8. #108
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    The White Ghetto
    My Ride
    Altima Se-R
    Posts
    2,360
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dubhead View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Actually by parking in the lot you really don't consent to the terms of anything, having a sign posted with a bunch of rules on it is hardly legally binding. This is one of the reason parking "Tickets" can not be reported to the credit bureaus.

    "But unlike a ticket from the Parking Authority or police, notices from a private parking company or property owner are not legally binding, according to lawyer Murray Harris."

    https://globalnews.ca/news/1694520/p...ones-you-dont/

    Equifax said: "If you park in a private parking lot and do not pay the fee, since there is no contractural agreement (or proof), it would not be reported."

    https://globalnews.ca/news/1694520/p...ones-you-dont/
    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 .
    sig deleted by moderator, click here for info

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    2010 S4
    Posts
    168
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sexualbanana View Post
    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 .
    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.
    Last edited by dubhead; 04-18-2018 at 11:26 PM.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    alberta
    Posts
    322
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    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.

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    YYC
    My Ride
    1 x E Class Benz
    Posts
    23,598
    Rep Power
    101

    Default

    I pay for parking when I use Impark. It's like $3.
    Originally posted by SEANBANERJEE
    I have gone above and beyond what I should rightfully have to do to protect my good name

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Upstairs
    My Ride
    Natural Gas.
    Posts
    13,330
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rage2 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I pay for parking when I use Impark. It's like $3.
    Well full day downtown is $24-$34.
    Quote Originally Posted by killramos View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You realize you are talking to the guy who made his own furniture out of salad bowls right?

  13. #113
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    2015 IS350 F Sport
    Posts
    1,004
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SKR View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If they block you in, you should go get another car and block them in.
    This I would like to see.
    "if you disagree with my views are cannot adequately my criticism then ignore my posts." - Nusc

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    YYC
    My Ride
    1 x E Class Benz
    Posts
    23,598
    Rep Power
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ExtraSlow View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Well full day downtown is $24-$34.
    I pay $350/month for parking downtown as well.
    Originally posted by SEANBANERJEE
    I have gone above and beyond what I should rightfully have to do to protect my good name

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    39

    Default

    I too believe people should pay for parking, assuming you can just skate is BS IMO.

    That said, having an agent from some company, who is in NO way sworn LE in this country, essentially apprehend you, and prevent you from leaving, even if it is their property - I can see why there have been charges filed against those "parking officials" who have tried this. Tow someone's car that's on your property, fine, but to block someone in while their person is physically there...I suppose the legal argument is the person with the parked car could just walk away...

    Just a stupid policy regardless of the legal this/that, it's a sure fire way to start confrontations, which could lead to cars getting pushed out of the way with other cars, and even violence.

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    alberta
    Posts
    322
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    the cities should give property owners better rights to deal with parking issues. Legislating booting would be the simplest option.

    Set a maximum rate to get them removed and set some rules.

    Unfortunately property owners have no good options to deal with parking violations.

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    YYC
    Posts
    4,304
    Rep Power
    85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex350 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This I would like to see.
    Car2Go.

    How long do they give up calling and texting you after the ticket goes to collections? I check blocked calls and see it's been going on for 10 months now.

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    G37S
    Posts
    148
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sexualbanana View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Your example extends into a lot of other areas that are completely irrelevant to this argument.

    Parking is a service provided by the landowner and administered by Vinci, Impark, et al. So the question is: what can service companies legally do to ensure that they are compensated for their service (the ethics of their business practice not withstanding)? benyl's argument, which I'm in agreement with, is that Impark's method of using staff to trap cars until they pay is basically the same as parking lots that use barrier arms that only users to leave after payment has been confirmed/received.

    The caveat to this is that I don't think the parking companies are able to do this to retroactively enforce past incidences; ie. accumulated tickets. And can only enforce payment for the current parking situation. Even then, the case is kind of thin because then you'd have to admit to parking without payment in those prior instances and I think that can open up a much bigger can of worms from a financial standpoint, depending on how aggressively they (the parking companies) would want to pursue.
    But that is the whole point of my argument. The signs don't mean jack shit cause there are no rules as to what you can put on a sign in your own private property. If there are no laws, not rules, LAWS, governing this, what makes you think any part of the law will enforce it? As per my example of charging a million bucks for parking, if I hire Vinci to try and enforce it does that mean its now legit? Of course not.

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Moo Town
    My Ride
    (0^oo^0)~
    Posts
    746
    Rep Power
    23

    Default

    Not to go off on a tangent but you sound like the same type of person that would argue for squatter's rights and apparently the concept of property in any capacity means little to nothing.

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    ute
    Posts
    4,937
    Rep Power
    100

    Default

    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.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Spyware Removal And Prevention Guide!!!

    By GingeRRRBeef in forum Computers, Consoles, and other Electronics
    Replies: 29
    Latest Threads: 09-05-2011, 05:55 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Latest Threads: 05-09-2009, 07:10 AM
  3. For all the guys asking about hair loss prevention/reversal

    By 1-Cent in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 6
    Latest Threads: 04-03-2006, 09:24 PM
  4. Rust Prevention?

    By trdjce10 in forum Mechanical
    Replies: 5
    Latest Threads: 01-04-2004, 06:07 PM
  5. Car Theft Prevention

    By thich in forum General Car/Bike Talk
    Replies: 17
    Latest Threads: 12-24-2003, 11:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •