Originally Posted by
sexualbanana
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 .