Los Angeles Parking Violation – Unable to Physically Attach

For a suburban dweller that rarely frequents the hectic urban areas of downtown Los Angeles, I was surprised to get a ticket in the mail “because the officer was unable to physically attach the citation to your vehicle at the time the citation was issued.” I had wrongly assumed that as long as you’re inside the vehicle, you’re somehow immune from receiving a parking violation, no matter where you wait.

My mother and I had stopped behind a semi truck unloading, while I unloaded some audio equipment in front of the Biltmore hotel. I can’t remember if we were physically in a white or red zone since we were in such a hurry. I had simply assumed that if we stopped only a couple minutes, there wouldn’t had been an issue since we were standing next to the car.

Live and learn.

PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU
PAYMENTS
P.O. BOX 30420
LOS ANGELES, CA 90030

PARKING VIOLATIONS BUREAU
CORRESPONDENCE
P.O. BOX 30247
LOS ANGELES, CA 90030

The enclosed parking citation has been issued to your vehicle. Because the traffic officer was unable to physically attach the citation to your vehicle at the time the citation was issued, this copy is being forwarded to you in accordance with California Vehicle Code section 40202(d). Please note these
important payment options and citation contesting instructions

PAYMENT OPTIONS:
ONLINE: www.lacity-parking.org (Mastercard or Visa)
PHONE: (866) 561-9742 (Mastercard or Visa)
MAIL: City of Los Angeles, PO Box 30968, Los Angeles, CA 90030-0968
Please make your check or money order payable to the City of Los Angeles. Write the citation number on the check/money order.
Must be in U.S. FUNDS.
IN-PERSON: Monday-Friday, 9:00AM – 5:00 PM
312 W. 2nd Street, LA 90014
3333 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 3337, LA 90010
9911 W. Pico Blvd., Ste. B-201, West LA 90035
6309 Van Nuys Blvd., Rm. 103, Van Nuys 91401

CONTESTING INSTRUCTIONS:
Citation must be contested within 21 calendar days of violation
or 14 calendar days from mailing of Notice of Delinquent Parking
Violation (CVC 40215). To contest your citation:

ONLINE: www.lacity-parking.org
PHONE: (866) 561-9742
TTY for Hearing Impaired only: (213) 623-704 6
MAIL: Parking Violations Bureau, PO Box 30247, Los Angeles, CA 90030

If you fail to contact the Parking Violations Bureau within the
specified time, you may forfeit your right to contest the
citation and incur additional penalties to the original parking
fine.

National Cash Systems Review, Irvine, CA

UPDATE (October 15, 2012)
After numerous back and forth emails and delays over a span of about a month, I discovered why I was originally charged such a large amount. They charged me $125/hour for each ATM and then tacked on an additional one hour long driving charge for each upgrade. So I got charged two hours of $125 each for driving time for my two ATMs that were 10 minutes apart, while the actual upgrades took about 20 minutes and 30 minutes.

In any case, they just contacted me to issue me a refund for one of the driving times.

ORIGINAL
I’m currently with National Cash Systems as my ATM Processor and up until about this past month, I would recommend them to other people.  After two years of not really needing to call them for anything, they start taking this hyper aggressive, “I will take your money and you will thank me for it” approach on things.

Unfortunately, the worst part about this company is how they’ll just withdraw funds from your bank account, and not tell you what it’s for until you discover it on your own and call in.  Then trying to get an invoice for those charges becomes a drawn out game of email-tag. They’re also very unapologetic about it, so I expect this kind of treatment in the future.

JUNE 2012

I discover some monthly charges on my accounts for $7.99/month.  Why was I charged?  Because I didn’t reply to their email or contact them to “Opt Out”, I was charged $7.99/month for each of my ATMs.  Obviously, I complained and the funds were eventually refunded back to my account.

BUT SERIOUSLY WHO DOES THIS?!

Here was the email I failed to take seriously and I won’t analyze it because this seems so blatantly unethical that if I need to communicate why this is wrong to you, we will probably never associate or do business with one another.

May 15 Email Subject: Sticker Insurance Opt In

 

SEPTEMBER 2012

I discover two charges on my account, $166.67 and $144.95, labelled, “Software and Braille Stickers.”  I’m annoyed again and call in.  I discovered that technicians from National Cash Systems came over to my machines, logged into the Master password, and upgraded my machines to the latest versions back in July 2012.

So that’s annoying after what occurred with their Sticker Opt-In and I send them this email (September 6, 2012).

I have discovered your company has charged my account in the amounts of $166.67 and $144.95 on August 15, 2012 without my authorization.

See attached work orders for service done to my ATMs without my prior consent.

Please refund the charges and do not charge my account in the future without my explicit consent.

 

We can also talk about a lower amount to be charged for the software upgrades rather than an outright refund. I’d be okay with $50 for each site being upgraded for a total of $100. $150 for about 20 minutes of work that includes uploading files from a USB thumb drive does not seem reasonable (the stickers were mailed to me prior and I had already placed them on the machines). In my particular case, I would’ve been able to do the work myself if your technicians emailed me the files and the directions received from Hyosung. For the sake of expediency, however, I’m willing to compromise and at least cover your expenses.

For the two years I have been with your company, I’ve generally been satisfied and recommended you to my friends. I thought we had a great working relationship where I purchased the ATM, installed it myself, programmed it myself, maintained it, provided Internet connection, and restocked it with my own cash. I took care of the machine, and your company processed the transactions. The division of labour seemed very clear and there were minimal surprises. This was the relationship I was expecting from the very beginning and was communicated to me with your staff.

Then in June, your company started charging me an unsolicited $7.99 from my account for insurance I did not approve of (which was refunded, thank you). And now, we’re dealing with the software upgrade issue.

I would like to continue my business relationship with your company if at all possible. I have been generally very happy with your company’s service and I would like to continue and recommend your business to others. In order to do so, I need to be assured that our business relationship returns to the original intent as described at (http://www.nationalcash.com/affiliate-programs/), “Some independent deployers choose to manage its own fleet of ATMs but utilize National Cash for all its back-end processing, accounting, statement generation & reconciliation services.”

I look forward to an agreement that will enable us to have an ongoing and profitable relationship.

 

Look, I get it.  Sometimes we make mistakes and send out techs without letting people know in advance.  Then we withdraw some arbitrary amount we want from their account and still not tell them until they look at their bank statements.

No response to the email and I’m trying to get an answer from staff and I get an official one today, September 17, 2012.

Their official response is essentially, “touch luck.  We can get into your machines and that’s our right per the agreement you signed.”  Their position is that no prior notice is needed whatsoever and then they can charge me for it.  That’s what I signed up for, right?

Obviously, this company cares minimally for me as a business partner.

So now that I understand how they want to play this, I sent them cancellations for my contracts that aren’t due to expire until about a year out and another one 6 months later.  Luckily, I had enough foresight to not sign the 5 year agreement they originally wanted.

I’ve also submitted a request for them to change the contracts to make it VERY clear that I don’t want their techs touching my machines unless I give them consent first.  It’s just a pet peeve of mine to get funds withdrawn from my account by surprise.  In fact, I’m helping them to cooperate by changing the master passwords and telling them I did so that they don’t try to come out again without my consent.

I can easily imagine in a couple of months, that their techs will come out to my machine to do some additional programming without my consent despite my explicit email to them to NOT do that.  Then they will just withdraw the funds from my account and call it a travel charge.

SERIOUSLY?!  What’s wrong with these people?

Hopefully, I can get some kind of resolution from this with them creating a new contract that explicitly states they shouldn’t be touching my machines without my approval first.  Otherwise, I’ll be moving to a new ATM Processor.

Unfortunately, I don’t have experience with any other ATM Processor, so maybe this is just standard behavior in the industry.

Any recommendations?

WARNING! Korean Phone Company Shadiness in Orange / Los Angeles County

http://youtu.be/r-YXHhr5F3Y

Here’s the email (December 31, 2009) summarizing the shadiness that I sent as a complaint to Mitel.  I had attachments for the contracts and bills, but I don’t think it’s necessary for you to get the moral of the story.

Hi [redacted] ,

I was told that you are the regional representative for the [redacted] owned by [redacted] .

I would like to report to you that we are currently in a dispute with [redacted]  stemming from his misrepresentation and fraud.  The leasing company, [Financial Company] has also been pulled into the issue.

Prior to meeting [redacted] , we had 18 phone lines through a T1 Data/Voice Intergrated Phone line through Telepacific with an older model Mitel SX-200 that uses a floppy drive to boot up.

Here is the timeline of what occurred:

November 2009

[redacted]  and representatives approached me and offered me a new Mitel SX200 ICP PBX telephone system and a T1 Dynamic Voice/Data service with equivalent service for a total monthly payment of $680.00 plus tax.  How he would do this exactly wasn’t clearly explained to me at the time.

December 3, 2009

The Mitel SX200 ICP PBX was installed without the T1 Dynamic Voice/Data Service.  They gave me a leasing agreement without any mention of the T1 Dynamic Voice/Data Service.  I told them I needed it on the contract and they added it at the last second.  I signed the lease agreement ([Financial Company].pdf) after they finished installation with the added line of the “T1 Dynamic/Voice Data Service.”

December 4, 2009

[redacted]  from [Financial Company] called me to confirm that the equipment was installed.  I notified her that the equipment was installed.  There was no mention of the T1 Dynamic Voice/Data Service not being provided.  [Financial Company] then disbursed payment to [redacted]  believing or not aware of the T1 Dynamic Voice/Data Service to not be a significant feature.

[redacted]  offered to replace the T1 for a much faster 10mbps/1.5mbps DSL line for an additional $99 per month.  He verbally guaranteed the speeds and I signed up for that contract as attached (DDSL10Mbps.pdf) believing the DSL to be an upgrade to the T1.

December 14, 2009

I receive the first bill from [Financial Company] and discover that there is no mention of the T1 on the bill.  I called and emailed [redacted]  from [Financial Company] to discover that they were not aware that [redacted]  included the T1 service in the leasing agreement.  The email I sent is copied below along with the proceeding communication that the original lease agreement is invalid.

This is when I discovered that [Financial Company] could not guarantee the T1 Service.  Should [redacted]  fail to provide T1 service during the 60 month period, then [Financial Company] would still require full payment.  My understanding was that [Financial Company] gave a lump sum to [redacted]  for signing us up for a $680/month lease payment.  [redacted]  was going to use that lump sum to pay for a separate T1 service, however, no written agreement or contract was setup regarding this and it’s still unclear to me how this would make financial sense to [redacted] .

December 22, 2009

[redacted] , an employee of [redacted] , contacted me about trying to separate the Lease payment from the service portion (email chain is below).  I communicated to [redacted]  that it was not acceptable.

December 23, 2009

[redacted]  signed a contract with Telepacific (TelepacificAnalog.pdf), despite my clear communication his offers were unacceptable, to remove our T1 Line with 18 phone lines down to 10 analog lines.

December 28, 2009

[redacted]  and [redacted]  came to the hotel to attempt to straighten things out.  He offered that we pay an adjusted $399/month for the lease of the equipment, and then $380/month to his company directly for the phone and Internet service to replace the T1.  I asked [redacted]  why I needed to go through him for the service when I could just go direct, and he stated that he gets a special discount.  I questioned how it was possible for [redacted]  to offer us 18 phone lines, and a fast Internet connection for just $380/month since I knew the DSL alone would cost $169.99 at the time.  [redacted]  stated that he knew nothing about how Telepacific was going to offer us a technical solution despite the fact that he had already signed a contract with Telepacific on the 23rd.

During the meeting, a technician from Covad came to the hotel to install DSL.  I was notified by the technician that [redacted]  had signed a contract with Megapath.  I called Megapath and let them know that their service was not authorized.  I also discovered that Megapath’s contracted speed was 10mbps/1.0mbps DSL and that a 10mbps/1.5mbps DSL does not exist.  I also discovered that they could not guarantee that I would get those speeds.  The technician from Covad, after determining the line speed, declared that the maximum speed possible is 6mbps/768kbps.

By the time I found out that they had signed a contract with Megapath, [redacted]  and [redacted]  had already left after talking with the owner of the hotel.

December 29, 2009

I talked with my Account Manager, [redacted] , from Telepacific and discovered that [redacted]  had fraudulently signed a contract on December 23, 2009.  The contract signed was that Telepacific was going to cut our phone service down to 10 analog lines and remove our existing T1 circuit.

Conclusion

It became clear to me that [redacted]  was intending to cut the quality of service to my hotel without my knowledge in order to save on expenses.  He demonstrated a pattern of misrepresentation and open fraud when signing the contract for Telepacific despite my clear communication regarding the unacceptability of his offers.

I have informed [redacted]  that his company is no longer allowed to come on property.

Potential Solution

[redacted]  will need to hire someone I trust to reinstall our old phone system and to remove the phone system he installed.

I will also be including you in any future email communication I have with the leasing company and [redacted]  unless you want me to remove you from the conversation.  Unfortunately, I do believe that [redacted]  has sold these packaged deals to other customers and is jeopardizing your company’s reputation.