Page 14
A1 towed the wrong dude
120,028 Views |
1747 Replies |
Last: 10 yr ago by Psych
Pretty sure that within 10 posts we will figure out that it's him, charpie
I can't believe they still claim the tow was "legal"
lol at this thread
I think the thing I find most distasteful is that they have "spotters"....like a bunch of guys whacking off waiting for the tow
makes me want to organize a counterintelligence effort and set up an OP to spot the spotter and then pepper him with paintball fire
makes me want to organize a counterintelligence effort and set up an OP to spot the spotter and then pepper him with paintball fire
quote:
I think the thing I find most distasteful is that they have "spotters"....like a bunch of guys whacking off waiting for the tow
What is distasteful about maximizing revenue? I'm sure that the break-even point on employing these spotters is extremely low. If it keeps their drivers towing instead of waiting around, then IMO there is nothing wrong with it.
So the spotter is the real culprit but the tow truck spokesman is still "towing" the company line, insisting A1 made a mistake but it was still a legal tow?
Awesome logic. This guy would have made a great Iraqi Information Minister.
"The spotters employed by A1 are of the highest caliber. These men and women are highly credentialed in the spotting profession, having graduated from Blinn College with honors. They never make mistakes and are not lowlife scumbags in any way at all."
Awesome logic. This guy would have made a great Iraqi Information Minister.
"The spotters employed by A1 are of the highest caliber. These men and women are highly credentialed in the spotting profession, having graduated from Blinn College with honors. They never make mistakes and are not lowlife scumbags in any way at all."
quote:
What is distasteful about maximizing revenue?
It's distasteful because these spotters are towing people that shouldn't be towed. It's ****ed up and a perfect example of improper business practices.
quote:
It's distasteful because these spotters are towing people that shouldn't be towed. It's ****ed up and a perfect example of improper business practices.
Assuming the spotters are performing their due diligence regarding who is towed and do not falsely report legally parked vehicles, the business model is fine. It is the employees within the system that are the problem. They don't need to find a new business model, just a new spotter or spotting system.
Had the employer provided a list of their employees vehicles to the tow company, this would likely not have happened. The fast food establishment shares liability in this instance.
A1 the poster's decision to come here and play white knight of the internet was a terrible call on his part. All he did was end up stepping all over his own dick, and further tarnished the name of his employer.
[This message has been edited by jh0400 (edited 2/26/2011 11:54a).]
but regardless of whether Schlotzsky's provided a list with employee license plate numbers, A1 should have returned the car without having to pay the $118. They KNEW they wrongfully towed it...it's theft.
It could have easily been a customer's car that had been towed.
It could have easily been a customer's car that had been towed.
quote:
but regardless of whether Schlotzsky's provided a list with employee license plate numbers, A1 should have returned the car without having to pay the $118. They KNEW they wrongfully towed it...it's theft.
Once it was proven that the car was wrongfully towed, they should have immediately relinquished the vehicle.
Had Schlotzky's provided the list this incident would likely have never occured, because they would have been able to easily determine if the vehicle was supposed to be there.
Unfortunately, it was the responsibility of the wrongly towed to prove that they were legally parked.
[This message has been edited by jh0400 (edited 2/26/2011 12:00p).]
quote:
Unfortunately, it was the responsibility of the wrongly towed to prove that they were legally parked.
And this is the problem with the whole system. It should be the responsibility of the towing company to prove the person was illegally parked. Not the other way around.
Making it the responsibility of the wrongfully towed is the same as saying that you have to prove your innocence because once you are arrested you are automatically guilty.
quote:
Unfortunately, it was the responsibility of the wrongly towed to prove that they were legally parked.
How about it be the towing company's responsibility to prove that the car was illegally parked and could be towed? They can provide no evidence that it was legally towed. Actually they have provided us with evidence that it was illegally towed.
Some of you people that defend this auto theft should have your head examined.
quote:
Actually they have provided us with evidence that it was illegally towed.
Have you ever made a decision that you believed to be correct based on the limited information that was available to you at that time?
The biggest mistake made here was letting this all play out on an internet message board.
quote:
Once it was proven that the car was wrongfully towed, they should have immediately relinquished the vehicle.
This is the thing I'm bothered by. They stole a legally parked car and wanted payment to get it back. That's like organized crime sheet.
quote:
They stole a legally parked car and wanted payment to get it back.
Until it was proven that the car was wrongfully towed they should have had every right to expect payment for services rendered.
[This message has been edited by jh0400 (edited 2/26/2011 12:12p).]
You are kidding right? Where is their proof that the car was illegally parked?
jh0400 apparently believes A1 could clear an entire lot and tell all of the vehicle owners "pay or prove you were legally parked!" and that would be perfectly fine.
quote:
Where is their proof that the car was illegally parked?
In this area, it is common for people to attempt to park for free and walk to campus. A spotter sees the vehicle park, the driver exits the vehicle, and then proceeds to walk across the street toward campus.
That should provide reason enough to believe that the vehicle is legally parked.
Towing that lot is not a new phenomenon. They were doing it ten years ago when I was in school.
quote:
jh0400 apparently believes A1 could clear an entire lot and tell all of the vehicle owners "pay or prove you were legally parked!" and that would be perfectly fine.
Yes. That is exactly what I think. Thank you for your insightful observation.
[This message has been edited by jh0400 (edited 2/26/2011 12:22p).]
Of course the tow was legal. I'm sure it's in their contract with the property owner that they can tow any car not on their list. It doesn't change the fact that it was a mistake and it would just be the decent thing to do for A1 to admit they made a mistake and try to smooth things over for the sake of PR.
quote:
Until it was proven that the car was wrongfully towed they should have had every right to expect payment for services rendered.
It WAS proven that the car was wrongfully towed, and they still expected payment. That's completely f-ed up.
Apparently you are guilty until proven innocent in this country. The more you know!
Just so you guys know, if a cop sees you leaving a bar in Northgate, he can arrest you for PI and you have to prove you are sober. JUST FYI
Who leaves northgate sober?
quote:
A spotter sees the vehicle park, the driver exits the vehicle, and then proceeds to walk across the street toward campus.
That should provide reason enough to believe that the vehicle is legally parked.
You are selecting portions of the story to make your point. The part that you are leaving out is: "and a person who works at Schlotsky's and was entitled to park in the lot got out of the passenger side of the car and went to work. This fact is something that the spotter who writes down EVERYTHING in A1's own words, failed to see."
[This message has been edited by OnlyANobody (edited 2/26/2011 12:34p).]
quote:
m sure it's in their contract with the property owner that they can tow any car not on their list.
So towing patrons of the businesses there is ok, too?
Again, defenders of this practice need mental exams.
jh, you really believe that they can tow any car they feel like, and then the burden is on the victim to prove that they parked legally? How in the hell are they supposed to do that if the car was removed? Do you take photos of your car every time you park in case a rouge towing company comes along?
Wow, just wow.
quote:
Yes. That is exactly what I think. Thank you for your insightful observation.
It appears that it is from your posts. If you are suggesting you believe the contrary, let us know.
quote:
Yes. That is exactly what I think. Thank you for your insightful observation.
Well, you've made it clear that you feel it is appropriate for them to tow and place the burden of proof on the owner for any given vehicle.
So why not 2? 3? 4? The whole lot?
What's the distinction?
priceless thread
Let me break down my logic process for you, and then I am done with this thread.
1. A1 has a contract with the property owner to tow the vehicle of anyone who parks in that lot and walks across the street to campus.
2. The spotter for A1 saw someone park a vehicle and walk across the street to campus.
3. The spotter calls a truck to tow the vehicle of the person that he saw park and walk across the street to campus.
At this point, the spotter had reason to believe that the truck was illegally parked.
How about they only tow the people that an employee of A1 Towing sees park and leave the premises without entering a business?
[This message has been edited by jh0400 (edited 2/26/2011 12:42p).]
1. A1 has a contract with the property owner to tow the vehicle of anyone who parks in that lot and walks across the street to campus.
2. The spotter for A1 saw someone park a vehicle and walk across the street to campus.
3. The spotter calls a truck to tow the vehicle of the person that he saw park and walk across the street to campus.
At this point, the spotter had reason to believe that the truck was illegally parked.
quote:
Well, you've made it clear that you feel it is appropriate for them to tow and place the burden of proof on the owner for any given vehicle.
So why not 2? 3? 4? The whole lot?
What's the distinction?
How about they only tow the people that an employee of A1 Towing sees park and leave the premises without entering a business?
[This message has been edited by jh0400 (edited 2/26/2011 12:42p).]
quote:
How about they only tow the people that an employee of A1 Towing sees park and leave the premises without entering a business?
Fair enough. A person got out of the vehicle and went into a business. Why should the vehicle owner be held accountable for A1's faulty vision?
[This message has been edited by OnlyANobody (edited 2/26/2011 12:45p).]
quote:
Why should the vehicle owner be held accountable for A1's faulty vision?
When it was all said and done did the owner have to pay? It is my understanding that they did not.
Except the employee did not apply due diligence and neglected part of his duties. Therefore any proof they had was compromised and makes the action of the company culpable.
Add to it how is the employee paid, by the hour, per tow? What training does this employee have?
Add to it how is the employee paid, by the hour, per tow? What training does this employee have?
Featured Stories
See All
9:36
54m ago
547
Texas A&M adds former Florida DE T.J. Searcy via transfer portal
by Cade Draughon
Texas A&M adds former Georgia DE Sam M'Pemba via transfer portal
by Cade Draughon
rca21978
Twas the night before Christmas - Albert Regis and TAMU Football
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
66
PGAG
Twas the night before Christmas - Albert Regis and TAMU Football
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
42
Gladiator 96
SIAP: Edgerrin Cooper gets shoutout from Annie Agar
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
39