Source: http://advancedtowing-fraud.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:28:27+00:00

Document:
As a member of the Trespass Towing Advisory Board (TTAB), I am requesting the Arlington County Board to reject the TTAB's recommendations from 12/11/18 as written, and include language that protects consumers who are regularly victimized by Advanced Towing (which currently has the monopoly in Arlington, in the legislative process, and in the cozy relationship with the officers enforcing the law). To be clear, I am not anti-towing and believe that there can be a balance between residents, businesses, and honest and ethical tow companies, but residents have been victimized by Advanced Towing for too long and I believe additional legislation may help to curb abuses. My statements are factual and backed with evidence at my web site http://advancedtowing-fraud.com/ and in two videos at https://youtu.be/oDK4z8__JPA and https://youtu.be/qtKWd3Okce0.
In the three years since Advanced Towing damaged my vehicle during a (legitimate) tow, I have witnessed an appalling amount of illegal and unsavory behavior from Advanced Towing and its owner John O'Neill. While I am a member of the Trespass Towing Advisory Board, you likely know that the TTAB is little more than an industry advocacy group where industry insiders make "recommendations" for their sole benefit at the expense of Arlington Residents. And when he doesn't like the recommendations or feel that that the TTAB is giving too much of a voice to residents, John has spent thousands lobbying to have the law changed at the state level to overturn county law and get dissenting voices like mine removed from the board.
The amendment in section 14.3-12 should be updated to include the process for a resident to initiate the violation proceedings. While the Federal Liaison (Brian Stout) made clear in the meeting that the county has always had the ability to issue fines for violations, the police officers on the TTAB have made it abundantly clear that they don't.
An officer repeatedly stated during the TTAB meeting that they have no intention of using this statue against "anyone in the room".
Back in 2016, when I tried to get a copy of photographs taken at the time of the tow, I was dragged through the court system for countless fruitless hours, rather than just have this simple process executed and fine levied.
Emboldened by their victory in lying to the judge in that case, Advanced Towing refused to comply with the law again last year when I accompanied a resident on-site to get access to his photographs and the contract authorizing the tow. Instead, they had the police file what amounts to a restraining order against us. When I inquired about the current procedure for addressing this violation to the officers on the TTAB two weeks ago, my request was ignored (see attached; no response was ever received). Whether it is in the TTAB meeting or over email, the officers charged with enforcing the law simply will not provide an answer as to how violations are processed even when clear evidence of violations are provided. Ergo, the law should be clear more on the process. Codify the appeals process (as recommended by the TTAB) is a good start, but codifying the process for initiating a charge should also be included.
A simple and documented policy for levying fines and having an appeals process is a much better option for justice to be served and simple violations to be rectified. It would be similar to small claims court, where "substantial justice" can be done without the burden on the court system, and should lead to tow companies that regularly comply with the law. The problem is that the officers plead ignorance to the fact that the county has the ability to levy fines without going through the court systems (or ignore requests about what the procedure is); this is something that should be addressed in this code: a clear and documented process that empowers residents and enforcement officers alike and perhaps mandates that the enforcement officers actually reply to requests.
C. Such record, including complete, unaltered copies of all photographs taken at the time of the tow, and the contract authorizing the tow, shall be provided in print form to the owner of the vehicle or the owner's authorized representative via postal mail in response to a certified request sent via postal mail within 7 business days. Certification of vehicle ownership or owner's representation shall be made by providing a copy of the vehicle's registration and the tow receipt.
This language got watered down repeatedly before it was documented in the official TTAB recommendation, but I propose that the board accept this language as I have proposed it.
First, this language has to be in there in some shape or form. During a tow, typically the only 2 witnesses are the photographs and the driver. The law allows for residents (or, importantly, their "representative") to get access to these photos and other supporting documentation. John has made it clear that he will simply ban a resident from his property rather than comply with the law, and there must be a way for residents (or their representative) to get access to these records even when someone like John decides that he won't allow a victim on his property.
Second, there was an issue with the law requiring certified mail rather than email. I propose leaving the requirement for certified mail in the legislation, and the reason I feel that it is that email does not provide "guaranteed message delivery". This is an important point because, for example, the recipients of the attached message can plausibly claim that they never received the email. Additionally, Advanced Towing has claimed that they "didn't get the emails" in recorded audio I have posted when presenting evidence of damage they caused. Given Advanced Towing's repeated lies to residents, judges, and the Attorney Generals' office, I fear that if the law simply says "email", Advanced Towing will again lie and say they "didn't get the email". The advantage of Certified Mail is that there is third-party proof a message was sent and received. I can't prove that the officers on the TTAB are ignoring my request on the attached email, and they can't prove that they responded but for some reason I never got the response. Certified Mail would address both of those possibilities.
Finally, there is the issue of what constitutes an owner's "representative" as defined in the law. I attempted to address that in this language as well, as Advanced Towing has consistently lied and changed the definition just so they didn't have to comply with the law. I can't say why the law allows for a "representative" to access photographs and the contract authorizing the tow, but I suspect it has to do with convenience (if a vehicle owner lives out of town, for example) or fear (if a vehicle owner is afraid of getting stabbed by an Advanced Towing employee, like the unfortunate resident from May of last year). Whatever the reason, the representative language is there, and Advanced Towing and the Arlington Police officers are united on this front in the TTAB recommendation: they want the law to demand a notarized letter from a vehicle owner to establish another person as a "representative". This is an appalling attack on residents' ability to collect evidence when they're involved in a situation with the towing company: requiring a notarized letter is a ridiculous and blatant way to make it harder for an aggrieved party to request the assistance of someone else. A regular signature is valid for signing a contract, purchasing a vehicle, signing a check, or signing a "Notice Not to Trespass" being issued by a cop. To require a resident to go through the unnecessary burden of finding a Notary Public to establish someone like myself as their representative is a gross overreach, even for these people.
Thank you for your consideration. I welcome any questions, comments, or feedback, and look forward to the open hearing where these recommendations are discussed in front of the County Board.
Calling out businesses for their aggressive and predatory towing practices works!
I originally emailed you late in november concerning the contract between the virginia square giant and advance towing. When I complained to that stores manager at that time, he told me that he had only been there for two months and was from fredicksburg, wasn't sure about what was happening, but he'd look into it.
Yesterday, 12/11/19, roughly two weeks later, an acquaintance of mine visited that store and witnessed an advance towing truck in the parking lot, taking up one of your precious spaces. When he questioned the manager inside, he was told by that exact same manager that he had only been there for two months and was from fredicksburg, wasn't sure about what was happening, but he'd look into it.
I can understand why he might have been embarrassed, but why the blatant dishonesty?
You told me earlier that you would pass my concerns up to the district manager. Could you please just give me that persons email ?
Additionally, if you're not to ashamed of yourself, could you email me a copy of your contract with advanced towing ?
Wanted to follow up with you to let you know we have suspended our towing service. While we further investigate our current company.
I can't say for certain that Giant will continue this suspension (or even if it continues to this day). Honestly, if trespass parking continues to be a problem, they SHOULD find an honest and reputable vendor to help them address this problem without damaging vehicles - I've said before and I'll say again that businesses have every right to protect their property. But, there are other tow vendors in the region, and not all of them are run by such shady operators as Advanced Towing.
Hopefully this resident's story goes to show that vehicle owners DO have a voice, and businesses have a right to hear from their patrons when they have a complaint. John O'Neill with Advanced Towing has openly stated that he will not comply with the law to provide residents with access to the contract authorizing a tow, and in the video below he has demonstrated his willingness to go to extreme lengths to avoid complying. The Arlington Police have refused to state on the record what they would do to enforce compliance, and appear complicit in allowing Advanced Towing to keep operating as they have while blatently disregarding the consumer protection laws already in place.
I am writing this open letter today to ask that John O'Neill be removed from the Trespass Towing Advisory Board. Over the years, John has been responsible for lies to residents, judges, police officers, and the Attorney General's office. John has leveraged his near-monopoly power in Arlington and considerable lobbying dollars to undermine local ordinances or silence alternative points of view on the TTAB. John recently encountered a law that was inconvenient to his business (requiring contracts that authorize a tow to be available at the site of the tow), and his course of action was to use his pulpit on the TTAB to attempt to change the law. At the time, even I voted for the change, since I was under the impression that a resident or their representative could just pick up a copy at the tow office with the photographs taken at the time of the tow. However, when I went to assist a resident to exercise the right to get access to that tow, John called the police and had both of us removed from the lot, banned from ever returning. We were never able to see the contract. John knows that many residents are too intimidated to make these requests, so by preventing me from legally helping residents access these photos and contracts, he is again hurting consumers' ability to defend themselves against illegal tows and damages caused as a consequence.
I respectfully request that you view all or part of it to hear and see a perspective that you will never get through the TTAB while John is chairperson.
John currently enjoys the ability to manipulate state law, local law, the TTAB, and the Arlington County Police. While the county is legally required to take advice from a biased and recently crippled advisory board, nothing in the law says that its chairperson has to be run by the local monopoly holder in town. Last year Arlington County expanded the border from which tow companies could operate from. I suggest that the county board install a member from one of those new businesses to get a greater diversity of advice from other tow companies in the market.
I am available to provide additional evidence to substantiate my claims or answer any questions arise from the video or counter-claims from other members of the TTAB.
4/22/2018 - Towing in Arlington, Virginia is a $2.7 million/year business. Advanced Towing accounts for roughly $1.6 million of this figure. For details on specific lots and companies, click on the map below.
2/18/2018 - There are a lot of things that are important to me, like honesty, integrity, and fairness. That's why I have spent so much time and energy on what those in the towing industry (and perhaps some in the business community) enjoy mocking me for. When I first met John O'Neill, he said something that left an impression on me - basically, that he was the "most hated man in Arlington" and he just has a really thick skin. I respect him for that, and can't really fault him for some of the legal tactics he has used to further his agenda of fighting any form of regulation around his business. His words have helped me deal with the vitrol I get from those defending his practice and industry - it's nothing personal, and we're all just fighting for what we believe in. When John paid thousands to "lobbyists" to have the state government override a local ordinance designed to curb predatory towing, he had every right to do that. Frankly it was kind of brilliant to use local businesses to help get the law passed - and then "sneak in" a few other provisions for his benefit (like getting more money for himself on each tow, crippling the advisory board that makes recommendations to the Arlington County Board on legislation, and for some reason allowing him to tow cars with pets in them). On the flip side, I have every right to publicize these facts.
Since that horrible law was passed at the state level, the only voting member of the Trespass Towing Advisory Board who represented vehicle owners and businesses (ironic because those are often two opposing factions), has resigned from the board. In September the County Board appointed me to fill that role. Now, I am now the sole voting resident on the Trespass Towing Advisory Board for a 3-year term (ending in September 2020), and as of my first meeting in November of '17, John O'Neill is chairman of that board.
I plan to continue to use this space to fight for consumer rights and expose as much as I can about this process, as I believe sunlight is the best disinfectant. The meeting minutes for the November meeting have still not been posted online as of 2/18/18, and I'm still trying to find out why. And I'm trying to get the date on when the recommendations by the towing industry will be presented to the County Board so I can inform you all when the public hearing is. I will update this page when I find out, and provide some commentary on the meeting once the minutes and recommendations are published. Spoiler alert - the only 3 things I recall us voting on are 1) electing John chairman of the advisory board, 2) removing the legislation that allows tow victims access to the contracts justifying the tows, and 3) we had a unanimous vote that this board does NOT equally represent citizens of Arlington.
In the meantime, I think it is important to emphasize that everything on this page is factual to the best of my knowledge, and I have provided evidence of all claims, making clear when statements are my opinion rather than fact. While Advanced Towing has threatened me with legal action regarding this site, it is my contention that exposing these practices and actions are a) in the public interest, and b) not libelous because they are facts, and every American is free to publish such information.
Having both an approximation of the photo Advanced Towing submitted in court (since I believe it was a screen capture from my video, I don't know the exact frame they took) as well as an actual copy of the photo obtained months later, the above rendition of the Mona Lisa is the same percentage of the original image they presented in court. Which is a) clearly not a copy and b) clearly doesn't convey the original content. So it is simply a FACT that the evidence in the public record is NOT a copy of the original image. And, it is a FACT that not having access to that image compromised my ability to fight the case in civil court. It is my OPINION that Advanced Towing knew both of those facts, and that hurting my chances of a successful civil court complaint was their ultimate objective.
Amazing Grace Sounds like a BIG OJ Simpson conspiracy to me. I bet the police and county officals are in on it too. Lol. J Sundstrom On November 4, 2016, J Sundstrom wrote the following to the Attorney General's office about my case (emphasis mine): "Vehicle Damage Claim - Mr. Chiste claimed his car struck a piece of rebar that was protuding out of a concrete curb stop when it was towed from a parking space. Mr. Chiste's storyline suggests the tow driver damaged his vehicle and insiuates (sic) there is a conspiracy against him of OJ Simpson/LAPD mangintude. Mr. Chiste makes various claims, in so many words, that our "Company" is deceiving or conspiring against him.". It seems really weird that two different people would conjure up a decades-old court case, particularly one that I don't recall had anything to do with a "conspiracy". It was also strange that Mr (Mrs?) Lundstrom kept referring to me as Joey or Jimmy, as if that was supposed to mean something. Interestingly, though, our friend "Amazing Grace" has been largely absent from the dialog in the past year since I made the connection between Advanced Towing and that account (on ARLNow and below).
Chloe (August '17) Aren't you the same Matt who came at me the last towing story? The same Matt who lost lost to a tow company in court? The same Matt who sued major travel and/or booking agencies and lost?
(February '18) That victim being you? Same victim that tried to sue a major travel site and and and lost as well? J O'Neill "Chloe", who refuses to identify him/herself or her business claims "I did some research on you". But in October of 2016 Mr. O'Neill wrote the following to various members of the County Board and TTAB: "It also doesn't appear to be the first time Mr. Chiste has tried to involve himself in a class action activity. According to records Mr. Chiste may have pursued a class action lawsuit against a large travel reservation website but that case too looks like it was dismissed. Not sure if this is a pattern of behavior or just a coincidence.". "Chloe" (who I presume is Mr. O'Neill's alias) doesn't even try to make the accusation that I'm "just in it for the money" or something - s/he just keeps bringing up that case from almost a decade ago with no context. I'm guessing because in Mr. O'Neill's mind, he's already established the context when he writes those posts in a public forum.
LOL @ Cindy. Your comment made me laugh. Not because it has any validity, because it's ridiculous. Guy gets slandered by Identity theft that effects his business, your suggested move is to spend money to hire a PR team to donate to charities. LOL A Clarendon bar owner who, like me, enjoys the use of colorful language from time to time.
Update 2/25/18: After further dialog with this commenter, I now believe he truly is who he says he is - a local business owner who is fed up with people using his parking spaces. We have agreed to meet at the next TTAB meeting, and I will honor his wishes to remain anonymous if he so chooses. Being a "public figure" is not for everyone - the attacks can be ruthless sometimes. And just because you don't want to be identified doesn't mean you shouldn't have a voice in this debate.
When I challenged ArlingtonRaised to "prove" he didn't have a vested interest in Advanced Towing, he did that and then some. While we may not all believe in the solutions (or even that there is a problem in the first place), at least we agree on the same facts, and that's a start! He has convinced me he really is just a local businessperson who doesn't believe Advanced Towing should have free reign to do whatever they want. Here is his comment - thank you for this, ArlingtonRaised, whoever you are :)!
Absolutely. "No business is above the law. Every business should be held accountable when they refuse to follow the law. When a business is negligent and damages the property of an individual in their possession, they have an obligation to repair that damage." No business is above the law, that's just a fact. Business should be accountable 100% I think its fair to say many people (including myself) cross the line with comments on this forum. I'm quick to jump and try to vent before inking my thoughts. Doesn't always work out that way! But I try. Look forward to meeting you at a TTAB meeting in the future.
This account is a bit of a mystery. His attacks on me started about a year ago, but his defense of Advanced Towing has been on the record for at least four years. He has attacked other bars, called himself a "Clarendon Bro", and praised two Clarendon bars. But if he's a bar owner, it's weird he would attack some other commenter complaining that Advanced Towing towed his car 10 minutes after midnight on the day his tags expired, no? The story wasn't about being towed from a bar... He does explicitly say he doesn't work for Advanced, but brings up Advanced Towing when it's not even relevant to the story - like this one about a Vespa theft. He likes his weed (but who doesn't?) and hates former Board Member Jay Fissette. So my guess is as good as anyone else. For now all we know is that he will continue to attack me for calling for common-sense enforcement of laws on the books, he'll repeatedly victim-blame me and others by saying we deserve to have our vehicles damaged because we're criminals, and he'll randomly comment defending Advanced Towing in unusual blog posts. And of course he'll be an unabashed hypocrite for making comments like this: I watched my own vehicle get towed once, right here In Arlington. That was the last time I risked a spot that was not mine to park in and the last time my vehicle was towed. Just spitting facts here people. Follow the rules!... but time and again mocks and shows disgust for anyone else insisting that Advanced Towing ALSO needs to follow the rules.
5/7/2017 - Last month I finally made the tough decision to not take my case to court. The decision was based on not having more time, and the fact I will never receive compensation for the damage that Advanced Towing caused to my car. Even if I won the case in court, I'd end up paying more to a lawyer anyway. Advanced Towing holds all the cards: They know that capitalistic forces don't affect them since their "customers" don't have a choice of who tows their cars when they make mistakes. They have no financial incentive to be responsible with the care of vehicles. They know that the police department is unable to intervene for damage claims. They will disavow any damage caused to vehicles and openly state that they have no obligation to review evidence to the contrary. They will prevent any cases against them from being heard in small claims court, knowing that this will prevent most people from attempting action because the cost of a lawyer usually outstrips the cost of damages they cause. And they have proven willing to intimidate (following me to my car when I visited to legally get access to photographs of a vehicle) and lie to a judge (that a copy of a photograph has been provided to me, among other things).
What a year it's been. I spent an enormous amount of time pursuing action in criminal court, and was nominated as a non-voting member to the Arlington Trespass Towing Advisory Board where I was credited for having some consumer-friendly language added to local code. But the criminal case, after countless hours of my time, was overturned because Advanced Towing lied to the judge at least 3 times according to the evidence I have provided below. And the industry (no doubt led by Advanced Towing), enraged by consumer-friendly code enacted by the Arlington Board, took the issue all the way to the state government, getting legislation passed that applies only to Arlington (and surrounding counties), singling me and 9 of my peers on the Advisory Board out to have us removed, and overturning local legislation that is still in effect in other Virginia municipalities.
As I wrap up my individual case, I have one final piece of information I want to share in the hopes of educating other victims of this company. Last year, I filed a formal complaint with the Consumer Protection Section of the Office of the Attorney General, which was investigated. I never signed an NDA and have no obligation to keep this confidential, so I'll share the below email in full so that others may know what they are up against if they attempt to file a complaint. I should note that you should do this first before attempting any legal action, as the AG won't follow up if you already have tried some other path. If you've been a victim yourself, don't hesitate to reach out to me for advice on navigating the complex path you must take to attempt to pursue justice.
Coincidence that this anonymous freedom-fighter commenter on ARLNow makes the same 20-year old reference? I don't think so, do you? Just kidding, it's not a coincidence. This person has been trolling me on the comments on ARLnow for a while now, and has done background checks on me to try and harass and discredit me.
Below is the response from Advanced Towing to my complaint after the interview with the investigator. In blue you'll see my responses that I sent back to him in response. Neither the original email from Advanced Towing (in black) nor my responses (in blue) have been altered.
We have received the complaint in regard to Matt Chiste.
According to our review of his complaint Mr. Chiste makes these claims.
We will address each in order.
Vehicle Damage Claim - Mr. Chiste claimed his car struck a piece of rebar that was protuding out of a concrete curb stop when it was towed from a parking space. Mr. Chiste's storyline suggests the tow driver damaged his vehicle and insiuates there is a conspiracy against him of OJ Simpson/LAPD mangintude. Mr. Chiste makes various claims, in so many words, that our "Company" is deceiving or conspiring against him.
Response: My allegation is simply predicated on the fact that I could not have caused the damage to the car myself. Furthermore, I have a witness who was a passenger in the car with me that night who will testify that, like me, he did not hear any scraping when parking. Based on the video evidence I have produced and the testimony I and my passenger will offer, I believe an educated layman would agree with this fact in court.
It is proof the tow truck driver was the only one who could have caused the damage.
... which is proof that he took the photograph after he caused the damage.
... which is proof that not only he, but at least two other people in the company (the receptionist and the owner of the company) have used that photograph to prevent me from collecting damages.
While my claim makes no reference to OJ Simpson, it does cite VA Code 46.2-118 (https://vacode.org/46.2-118/) which says no driver or operator may use fraud or deceit in the offering or delivering of towing and recovery services. Knowingly using this deceptive photograph by multiple people within the organization is deceptive to say the least.
Mr. Chiste's car was towed. The driver took photos when towing occurred. Photos of Mr. Chiste's vehicle were taken at the time it was towed. Damage was present at the front bumper noticeable in one or more of the photos taken by the driver. Only the tow truck driver was present at the time towing occurred.
Mr. Chiste claims his car was damaged when towed. It is not possible, based on the information submitted by Mr. Chiste and by the driver to determine the vehicle was damaged as a result of towing rather than as a result of parking.
I have shown video evidence that the bumper, while in drive and in reverse, clears the rebar.
When the car is shifted to park, the vehicle lowers very close to said rebar.
Logic dictates that lifting the vehicle from the back would lower the front bumper even further and put more downward pressure on the curb and rebar as it was being dragged backwards.
As seen in the video, the rebar would have been visible if the driver had conducted a simple inspection, but displayed negligence in dragging the bumper over a curb that he would have seen if he looked.
Mr. Chiste's vehicle lowers it's height while coming to a stop and when parked. If rebar was protruding from the curb stop it seems just as likely Mr. Chiste may have contacted the rebar when pulling forward. If Mr. Chiste heard contact when pulling up to the curb stop to park he might have backed up thinking he struck the curb stop. When backing up he could have caused more damage if his bumper was over top of the rebar at that point. Car owners contact curbs and curb stiops all the time. Go to any shopping center and you can see cars do it all day. They pull up to a curb stop or curb, hear contact with the curb or curb stop and back away. While Mr. Chiste has gone to great lengths to demonstrate his claim, based on his submissions it cannot be concluded the tow driver damaged his vehicle and not Mr. Chiste.
Response: Again, I have demonstrated that the bumper clears the rebar in both drive and in reverse, and the only time the car lowers is when the gear selector is put in park (not "when parking" as Mr. Sundstrom claims). The video clearly proves that the non-damaged bumper would not have contacted the rebar when pulling forward or when reversing, regardless of whether the tires contacted the curb itself.
The photographs of the damaged bumper also prove that no damage occurred while pulling forward; the only damage that occurred was when the vehicle was being dragged backwards. This can be proven by the scratches on the bumper radiating outwards from a single point from back to front, and the fact that the tear in the bumper has no scratches in front of it. If the car indeed had been driven over the rebar as Mr. Sundstrom suggests, there would have been a scratch in the bumper leading up to the tear as the bumper would have been dragged over the rebar before being caught and ripped away in reverse.
Illustration #3: scratches show forward radiation. Specifically, a piece of gravel would break apart and make V shapes towards the front if the car was dragged over the curb in reverse. But it would be impossible for two pieces of gravel to somehow converge to a single point and then disappear if that gravel was causing the scratches when the car was being driven forward.
In the video I presented, the bumper clears by only a tiny margin, but it should be noted that the bumper used in the demonstration was the damaged bumper with the plastic torn down and away; the replaced bumper has even more clearance. While it is true that people occasionally contact a curb this way, both I and my passenger that night will testify that this did not happen, as the noise would have been obvious even if I had just unconsciously backed away from the curb after making contact.
Only the tow truck driver was present when towing occurred, not all of our company employees or owners. There was and is no conspiracy to deny Mr. Chiste's damage claims. We were unable ascertain his claims are accurate or valid based on a few simple points. The photo taken at the time towing occured showed damage present. It is conceiveable Mr. Chiste could have done the damage himself when parking as Mr. Chiste has a unique vehicle that lowers when parking (most cars do not). In addition, it is a common activity for car owners to strike the curb or curb stop when parking, especially if rebar might be protruding.
Response: While it is true that the tow truck driver was the only person present at the time of the tow, I had a passenger in my car that night who will testify under oath (like me) that we did not contact that curb while parking. And I believe I have already provided the proof that I could NOT have done the damage myself.
That night, the noise of tearing off the bumper would have been blatantly obvious and my passenger and I would have heard it. It would have been so obvious, according to my version of the story, that the tow truck driver would have heard it from the inside of his cab, and gotten out of the truck to take that second photograph, 3 minutes after the initial picture was taken. The timeline is important to note because it is not credible to argue that if the driver was doing a routine "walk around" of the car to check for damage, he would take 3 minutes to do so. Instead, as it takes just seconds to lift a car up from the back (putting further downward pressure on the front bumper), my proposed scenario is more likely - and in fact the only plausible scenario given that the bumper doesn't contact the rebar in normal drive and reverse operation.
I agree with Mr. Sundstrom's statements that not all company employees were there either, but dispute the claim about the "conspiracy". As is clearly spoken on the recording in the video, the company has chosen to simply ignore the offering of ANY additional evidence, and unilaterally accepts the driver's evidence as fact, despite on at least one occasion an Advanced Towing driver has been arrested perpetrating multiple crimes: https://www.arlnow.com/2016/03/21/tow-truck-driver-arrested-charged-with-theft/. So while I have not used the phrase "conspiracy" in my reports, the definition "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful" is ironically apt in the sense that I AM alleging that company employees have initially refused to do any investigation whatsoever, and it is only through countless hours of research and community advocacy that I have even gotten this response that the company is "unable to ascertains his claims". Originally the response was literally "I'm denying your claim, I'm not going to pay for your bumper ... I don't need to [review your evidence]... because we did not damage that car ... ".
It is also a fact that I have never received any response to the three written requests (emails) I sent to the company. This evidence makes it clear that in my case the company willfully ignored evidence provided when deciding on damage claims and used deceptive evidence to justify it. It appears that the company policy is to unilaterally deny damage claims with the hope that the victim will not take the time or effort to follow up. Of course, this strategy is completely logical: why pay any damage claims regardless evidence provided when only a small percentage of people who report damage ever pursue legal action? It's not like these customers can take their business elsewhere.
As a side note, the company has deliberately withheld the full version of one of the photographs taken at the time of the tow (after repeatedly ignoring my written requests and verbally denying they had any legal obligation to do so). The charges were brought by Arlington County in criminal court and the company was initially found guilty, but they were dismissed when the tow company's lawyer appealed and convinced the judge that the pictures were already provided. After that second trial, I have made and defended the claim that the receptionist perjured herself on the stand (I provided hard evidence of one claim in video form, that there was only one other person in line instead of 5 or 6, and circumstantial evidence of another where she claims that in a brief gap in the video she said "she'd give me the picture later", despite spending the subsequent 3 minutes denying the photographs were even there).
Unfortunately, we cannot just accept claims because an individual seems adamant about their position or because they can do a Powerpoint presentation to tell their story.
Response: I absolutely agree that the ability to create a Powerpoint presentation should NEVER be the only thing that entitles a victim to compensation for negligent damage caused. EVERY victim should be able to present their case and have it heard by the company offering its "services".
Furthermore, just because I am adamant doesn't make the facts any less true. Normally this company gets away with causing damage simply because it is a matter of the driver's word against the vehicle owner, and there is no other evidence. I can provide contact information for others who allege misconduct as well, but have never followed up because they didn't have the time or energy to pursue the case. In my unique case, though, the evidence exists and I am adamant that the facts are true as I have documented them.
Fake Evidence - I am not exactly sure what Mr. Chiste means about "fake evidence". A photo taken by the driver showed damage and I am not disputing the picture shows damage. What's fake about that? The picture, or 10 pictures if there were 10, would not prove who caused the damage. There is no fake evidence.
Response: The "fabricated evidence" claim is simple, and based on this fact as I have presented it: the damage could not have been caused by me in the process of parking - in forward or reverse. Ergo, it was caused by the tow truck driver while the car was in park and he lifted the back end of the car up, putting further downward pressure on the front bumper. Ergo, the "evidence" that company says is "proof the damage was already there prior to the tow" is fabricated. Ergo, the company is being deceitful about repairing damage caused by its driver.
It seems Mr. Sundstrom is trying to deflect my claim of fabricated evidence by asserting that the photos are real and not doctored. Aside from the fact that the second photo has deliberately been modified to show less than the full version of the photo (evidence of this has been provided on the site), I agree they are real photos. However, given my chain of facts and evidence about the damage - and that it was taken by the driver AFTER the damage itself was caused - then these very real photos are indeed very fake evidence.
Deceptive Advertising - Mr. Chiste claims deceptive advertising because there is (not was) a disclaimer on our website that indicates our "customers", the entities that hire us to provide service to their property, have not made any complaints to BBB's. Our statement is accurate and also details that car owmers towed from private property without their consent are not "customers" as they do not hire our services. In most consumer transactions there is an expecation of satisfaction by the consumer for payment of goods or services. However, in the case of a non-consent towing transaction there is NO expectation of satisfaction by a car owner. To the contrary, they are expected to be dissatisfied. The statement on our site very simply points out our actual "customers" have NEVER complained to BBB's. We are not advertising to towed car owners, rather to individuals, property and business owners who require towing of illegally parked vehicles. I might add, an advertising injury did not occur to Mr. Chiste nor is advertising material to Mr. Chiste's transaction with our company.
Response: This claim is simply reiterating those from the BBB last year (https://www.bbb.org/washington-dc-eastern-pa/business-reviews/towing-automotive/advanced-towing-company-llc-in-arlington-va-8501/Alerts-and-Actions). While I make no claims that this "false advertising" caused me personally any damage, I am pointing this out as a form of "fraud or deceit in the offering or delivering of towing and recovery services" (https://vacode.org/46.2-118/), should the Office of Consumer Protection decide action is warranted against the company. I will note that the deceptive language does not currently appear on the company's home page, but according to internet archives it was there as recently as October 6: https://web.archive.org/web/20160508033518/http://www.advancedtowing.com/. Furthermore, in response to the bold claim that all customers are expected to be dissatisfied: while it is clearly not a crime to provide terrible service since a company knows its "customers" have no choice to take their business elsewhere, it is important to vigorously apply laws to protect consumers since there is often little other form of recourse. On these lines I can provide the names of other alleged victims of Advanced Towing that have contacted me since I started my informational web site.
Lastly, the owner of the company met Mr. Chiste several weeks ago after a meeting they both attended. The company owner gave Mr. Chiste a business card and told him to send his estimates and other information to him directly for review to further mediate his claims. The owner said he got the impression Mr. Chiste was playing games and would not send any information to him. As of this writing he did not send an estimate to Mr. O'Neill or any additional information.
Response: While it is true that I received a business card from Mr. O'Neill, during that conversation he implied that he "would get his lawyers involved" and that a condition of getting the repairs paid for would be to take down my web site, which I was not willing to do. While I have obtained legal advice on this issue, I have not retained counsel and chose not to engage Mr. O'Neill's counsel since they had already indicated to the Arlington Police that they were pursuing some sort of legal action against me for my "investigative journalism" web site.
So, while Mr. O'Neill can make the claim that he had the impression that I was "playing games", I could make the same argument, as my impression was the discussion was focused more on shutting down the web site than discussing actual damages and compensation.
It should also be noted that I have not received a response to any of the 3 emails I have sent to the company (emails are documented on my web site), so Advanced Towing has ignored my written requests. Mr. O'Neill has my contact information and he, too, has not reached out to me in writing to request the bill for the damage. As you have seen in this very reply, the company's representative Mr. Sundstrom is still not conceding that the evidence proves they are at fault for the damage. Consequently, I can only assume that their expectation is to pay me to shut down my informational web site and not compensate me for the negligent damage caused.
At the time, I was also working with Arlington County on a criminal case against Advanced Towing for refusing to provide me a copy of the photographs taken at the time of the tow, so I felt communication at that point would have been inappropriate.
I would be willing to settle the case without going to court, and have always been interested in receiving compensation for the damage caused by the company. But I would not be interested in accepting a payment to silence my voice on my web site, which I believe provides a valuable consumer protection service and has given voice to other victims who have reached out to me with their own stories and asked for additional information. Nor would I be willing to accept any money under any conditions other than simple compensation for damages incurred, as this experience has certainly made me a verbal and outspoken consumer advocate. Nonetheless, if a settlement to pay damages was offered, I would accept the settlement to avoid spending more time and resources in court and through additional litigation.
If you have any other questions regarding his claims please let me know.
The powerful Tow Lobby is attempting to pull off a coup. They've got a bill before the state legislature that would roll back all the consumer protections that the Arlington County Board implemented in December. This bill, HB 1960 is an egregious abuse of power. It specifically undermines the board's towing code, raising the towing rate AGAIN (but only in Northern Virginia), override Arlington's "real-time authorization" requirement (again, only in Virginia - VA Beach's "second authorization" law that has been in place for a long time remains untouched), and undermines any semblance of impartiality on the Trespass Tow Advisory Board. Yes, they're literally going out of their way to pass a law singling out only our Arlington Advisory board, and only to get me and the other 9 non-voting members of the board removed, and remove Ms. Iacomini (the sole resident on the board) removed as chairperson. Really, you can't make this up: the towing industry is trying to pass a law REQUIRING Arlington to have a Towing Advisory board to advise on legislation, and FORCING Arlington to remove over half of the members because they're not insiders. Insidious!
The lobby and industry would have you believe this "second signature" law is bad for business and tells them what they can do on their private property. But it is simply a powerful consumer protection law in an industry that has time and again been anti-consumer, damaging private property and conducting illegal tows. The measure doesn't prevent businesses from removing a trespassing vehicle from their property, it simply requires property owners to confirm that said vehicle is trespassing at the time of the tow. We've all heard the Taco Bell Story as evidence that this law is needed, but today I present you with another example.
First understand I am a yoga business owner, who responded to my client's car being towed. Erroneously. As such, I am not your normal tow truck victim. In fact, I was not expecting to be nearly stuck by an angry tow truck driver when getting out of my car to assist in retrieving my client's vehicle. I was not the victim of being towed this evening, but I was nearly run down purposefully and out of the blue.
Advanced Towing has no current contract with any entity to tow from our lot on 5th rd. In point of fact, there is no signage enabling them to tow from the area in question, that I control personally.
I am the owner of the business and they stole a car from our lot about 10 hours ago, and then extorted me for $135, because they towed it 50 feet (next door). They refused to release the car even though it is obviously their mistake. They also initially lied about having the car until confronted with video evidence from my surveillace cameras.
Unrelated to that, here is video of a tow truck speeding, driving recklessly and attempting to hit me as arrive to retrieve the car. when I challenge his intimidation techniques of speeding past me and reving his engine, by raising my arms and yelling down the street, he u-turns and almost runs me down. He was swerving at me while reving his engine. The street was full of witnesses including the security guard from mercedes nextdoor who claims he saw the whole thing and agrees the man was driving like a psycho.
We have been at this location for 5 years and have largely ignored their shenanigans but this has crossed a line.
I would like to file a criminal complaint for attempted hit and run and we have many witnesses in addition to the video. The tow driver proceeded to attempt to connect to a car, but actually smashed into the bumper. Later we find out its his own car. I took photos of the tow truck smashing his own car, they are attached but blurry (dark red 4 door sedan).
I told officer capizzi #1605 that I wanted to file a complaint about the reckless driving and that we have surveillance video evidence of the tow truck drivers reck-less driving and intimidation tactics but he did not care to take a complaint (swing shift?). This tow company, our next door neighbors, is out of control.
In the past they have parked their trucks and the cars they tow in our lot, and we have overlooked it because we are good neighbors. They have even occasionally threatened to tow our vehicles if they get blocked in (yes, they're ballsy enough to unlawfully park in our lot, get blocked in and then threaten us).
I will be giving them the news in writing tomorrow that they are banned from our property and if I catch their vehices there I will lock them up myself or tow and impound them. I would appreciate any and all suggestions from you on what my options are.
To be clear - the tow truck driver who owns this red 4 door sedan in attached photos, attempted to run me down tonight when I arrived to pay to retrieve the car from their tow lot. I never even spoke to this person so I don't know what his problem is.
The moral of this story? Simple and obvious: The "second signature" law is designed to protect businesses like his. He has no contract with Advanced Towing, who essentially stole one of his customer's cars. If the second signature requirement had been in place, he would have denied the authorization to tow this car in the first place.
She filled what's called a Warrant in Debt in Arlington court, thinking she'll be going to small claims court, where "The judge shall conduct the trial in an informal manner so as to do substantial justice between the parties. The judge shall have the discretion to admit all evidence which may be of probative value although not in accordance with formal rules of practice, procedure, pleading or evidence". In other words, it's like the People's Court; no lawyers are allowed and both sides just present their cases for the judge to "do substantial justice". But, Big Towing has Big Lawyers on their side, and they're aware of a little quirk of the law: "Removal to another Court: Pursuant to The Virginia Code Annotated Title 16.1 Chapter 6 Article 5, Section 16.1-122.4, a defendant has the right to remove the case to the general district court at any point preceding the handing down of the decision by the judge.".
So, G goes to court only to find out that she's not in small claims court, she's in over her head against a lawyer in district court, who immediately has all her evidence thrown out because she's not a lawyer and doesn't know the proper procedures for evidence. Boom, she's out $1,800 and Advanced Towing lives to wreck another car another day.
Here's where I come in. Remember our old friend Arlington County Code § 14.3-11? Specifically: Such record shall be maintained for a period of at least one (1) year from the date of each tow, and shall be made available, during normal business hours, for inspection and copying by any representative of the County authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter. In addition, the portion of such log or record pertaining to a particular vehicle shall be made available, during normal business hours, for inspection and copying by the owner of the vehicle or the owner's authorized representative?
Since she has since moved and is understandably intimidated by the process given what she's seen on these pages, she makes me her authorized representative to go get a copy of the photograph. My first attempt was unsuccessful; after waiting around for 15 minutes after having the window slammed in my face, an employee tells me they won't be providing me with the pictures because despite the notarized letter, I didn't have a copy of the owner's registration of the car to prove it was her car. But what was notable about this situation was that John O'Neill, the owner, was there, and during the transaction (which I recorded) John stood behind the clerk taking pictures of me and telling me to "smile for the camera". When I left empty-handed, John followed me to my car as what can only be perceived as an act of intimidation, recording me on his phone and making a grand gesture of taking multiple pictures of my car and license plate. The law is clear: I was exercising G's right to a copy of the photographs, and yet John felt it was important to attempt these kinds of intimidation tactics.
The next day, armed with a copy of G's registration, the photograph was waiting for me. Rudeness isn't illegal so I took the window-slam-in-the-face trick again with a grain of salt, but now I had what was legally entitled to G and I: a photograph taken at the time of the tow. Or, as the law says: "The towing and recovery operator performing the tow shall obtain and retain photographic and/or video evidence clearly showing the location of the vehicle, substantiating the reason for its removal, and the condition of the vehicle."
Thanks again to you and Matt for bringing this issue to our attention. We continue to say that our complaint process is not only a way for us to work to address any issues with the towing of the individual, but also highlight areas for us to address with the towers operating in Arlington County, either through ordinance changes or through emphasizing these issues through enforcement actions. That is the case here and we appreciate you making us aware of this.
The County has informed Advanced Towing that the picture taken and provided below does not meet the requirements of the County's ordinance and that you are therefore entitled to a refund for the full amount charged to you. Please contact Advanced Towing at 703-241-2211 and ask to speak to Mike Reynolds - he will take care of this.
With regards to your damage claims, this is civil matter that the County does not have a role in.
So, the moral of this story? First, don't think that small claims court will help you. Hire a lawyer (I'll let you know when I find a good one!) Second, you have a right to these photographs, and the new legislation is even stronger - requiring at least FOUR pictures of your vehicle taken from each corner of the car BEFORE the tow. Third, don't allow these people to intimidate you. Be professional, courteous, and respectful and their attempts to intimidate or embarrass you publicly will fall on deaf ears. Finally, if you feel a law has been broken, file a complaint! The county is actively trying to help consumers when it comes to violations of the law, but will not be able to help you pursue civil damages.
The woman claimed she offered to give me a copy of the photograph "later" when the camera was briefly off "because it was in the back". While it is true that the camera was completely off, the video shows her denying me access for 2 straight minutes after the video starts recording again. Any reasonable observer would know that the claim is false, since it would not make any sense for her to make this offer when the camera was off, and then spend two minutes denying the picture existed "here" over a dozen times.
Yes, thank you J. Sundstrom for all your helpful comments on ARLNow.com as it relates to towing, your attempts to discredit me, and for trying to paint all trespass towers as malicious criminals! Keep up the great work behind that anonymous "Amazing Grace" facade.
12/11/2016 - Call to action - email our County Board to amend the towing code for additional consumer protection!
I set up a new site at ArlingtonTowCode.com with details. Please visit that site and let your representatives know your thoughts on providing additional consumer protection in the Arlington Code for trespass towing. If you don't, there are currently some amendments proposed that are very detrimental to consumers, and may pass if we don't make our voices heard! The final decisions will be made in the county board meeting on December 13th, which I encourage you to attend and speak at!
On 11/5/16, the Arlington County Board convened to discuss many topics, notably #40: "Request to authorize advertisement of a public hearing on proposed amendments to Chapter 14.3 of the Arlington County Code, Trespass Towing". Below are my notes attempting to summarize the discussion for those who don't have 90 minutes to watch or listen to the entire thing. It is not a complete transcript and some quotes may not be precise. And while I've attempted to capture all key points in the discussion, I am admittedly biased and there is the possibility I may have missed important details. Please view the video for a more precise recounting of the discussion. Time stamps in the below list are approximate points in the video, not the time of day.
3:07 Discussion starts. Brian Stout gives a good overview of the purpose of the county code (protecting consumers as well as businesses) and general tow density maps showing tow concentrations.
Mr. Stout summarizes the Staff recommendations based on the two TTAB meetings.
Rate increase. This is mandated by state law, and will raise the cost of towing from $135 to $185 in some cases (after-hours on weekends, for example).
Addition of a requirement for companies to provide additional information to the county such as proof of insurance.
Discussion of enhancing sign requirements, such as signs on the interior of lots or surface paint in the spaces.
Removal of requirement to document condition of vehicle. The justification for this is that there's a misunderstanding among vehicle owners that the county has some role to play in damage claims, which is not the case (damage claims are handled in civil court and the county is not involved).
Changing time requirements in notifying the county when towing. Currently operators have to notify the county "prior to removal from the property"; the amendment is to change that to "within 10 minutes of removal".
3:26 Nancy Iacomini presents the TTAB recommendations.
The board's bias is acknowledged: TTAB has 17 members, only 7 of which are voting members - 3 from industry, 3 law enforcement, 1 resident.
The original staff draft was to NOT update the provision about when the county is provided notice of a tow. The board voted anyway to change that to "within 10 minutes of a tow".
There was discussion of why the photographs are necessary (consumer protection measure), and not as a signal that the county is liable. Nonetheless, the motion to keep that recommendation failed and the official recommendation is to remove the photograph requirement.
Another motion that failed was mentioned: the "second signature" requirement, which would require someone responsible for a lot to authorize each tow at the time of the tow. "It would seem appropriate to bring the third leg of the stool into play" - the vehicle owner and tow driver, AND the business itself.
3:36 Public speaker: Jim Hurysz (resident). He suggests that residents could be appointed to the board as the law enforcement representatives, and to consider increased enforcement of handicap spots.
3:37 Public speaker: Kate Bates (representing some property owners, but not clear in the video which organization she belongs to).
Encourages board to adopt TTAB proposal.
Strongly opposes "second signature" requirement.
Made a point that not ALL non-voting residents would support the "second signature". Some of the non-voting members represent businesses as well, and they would be opposed.
States that the percentage of improper tows is miniscule and pales in comparison to people contesting parking tickets.
3:46 Jay Fisette proposes three additional amendments for advertisement (which means this is not a final decision, but open to solicit community feedback). He says the goal is modest, limited burden and regulation, but with effective protection of consumers and citizens. He also cites the biased nature of the board and how they have attempted to give others such as property owners, vehicle owners, and even AAA a voice by appointing some non-voting members of the board.
Amendment: "Require the Second Signature". His focus is an attempt to be more surgical, and only apply the requirement to commercial properties during business hours. He states that informally, this is already being done at some residential properties because the tow truck driver has to go in for the property manager to check the guest logs.
Libby Garvey: opposed it and thought it may be a burden.
Katy Cristol: Suggested the requirement need not be a signature; it could be something simpler such as a text message.
John Vihstadt: Appreciates the intent, but has practical concerns such as language barrier, having someone available to answer the phone, or liability issues related to owners being involved in confrontations.
Christian Dorsey: Asked what's the harm in making this applicable to residential as well as commercial? Mr. Fisette's response was that generally the complaints of predatory towing are on commercial lots so the limit is to address "hot spots", but he wouldn't be opposed to expanding the requirement if it proves successful.
John Vihstadt: Pointed out that the written authorization requirement doesn't explicitly require the person to be on-site, and asked if "blanket sign-off" would be allowed? Mr. Fisette's answer is that the language says "at the time the vehicle is being towed", meaning each and every tow would need authorization. However, it does not require the person to be on-site [editorial: this may limit its effectiveness if the requests are just electronic and go to some corporate headquarters or even a computer-automated response system that automatically approves the action].
Katie Cristol: The expectation is that there would be an ebb and flow of the business enforcing the tow based on the time of day and lot conditions, and that is not necessarily undesirable.
Ms. Garvey: vote, motion passes.
4:05 Data is brought up showing the number of complaints and tows are very low. Mr. Stout mentions the violations and enforcement are complaint-driven, and agrees with Mr. Fisette that the number of complaints and violations is on the low-end since not every complaint is reported through the proper channels. Additionally, a case was discussed where a resident claimed that a no parking sign was knocked down in last year's blizzard, and the signs were improper. The county agreed there was a violation and the customer was refunded. However, if indeed the sign was knocked down during the blizzard, then there technically would have been about 200-250 improper tows, arguably each of them a violation. [editorial: This number is based on a FOIA request I made; the count is an estimate based on this data. I personally believe that each of these people should be able to request a refund as well; if you parked in the Fresh Bikes parking lot between late January and mid-September, you were improperly towed since a sign violation was found].
The summary of this conversation was simply that the data should be taken for what it is, and it is clearly not representative of 100% of the complaints (since people sometimes just pay and drop the issue, or complain on social media) nor violations (since a single violation might apply to hundreds of tows).
Amendment: "Require additional information on the receipt".
The presumption is that parking tickets DO have contact information on the tickets themselves, which informs users of their rights to contest a ticket. Without similar information provided to tow "customers", many do not make the effort to follow up.
The additional language would require the email address and phone number of the complaint line so consumers would know what course of action to take if they objected to a tow.
Mr. Vihstadt suggested including the web site for additional information, and all agreed that it would be helpful to inform people prior to complaining, as there may be information legitimizing the tow on the site.
4:14 Mr. Fisette proposes last amendment.
Amendment: "Require tow truck driver to notify the county immediately prior to the tow".
Essentially this amendment is to do nothing at all regarding the notice prior to the tow. Currently the language says that a tow truck driver must notify the county "immediately prior to towing", and this amendment is to NOT change that language.
This contradicts the TTAB's recommendation to change the language to "within 10 minutes of towing".
The justification is that it has been this way for 10 years, and that if a vehicle owner is towed and calls the police immediately, there would be no record of the tow and the person would assume their car was stolen.
4:21 Ms. Cristol proposes another amendment.
Amendment: "Update the requirement for taking photographs and/or video taken at the time of the tow".
This is also in contradiction with the TTAB's recommendations, but the stated goal is to protect the vehicle owner, and potentially incent the driver to take additional care not to damage the vehicle.
It is also discussed that the measure could protect the tow company from frivolous damage claims.
Mr. Dorsey said he loves the spirit of the amendment, but is not sure about requiring the photo to be provided when the vehicle is picked up. Ms. Iacomini suggests it could be advertised "at their request", but could be stricken later. Mr. Fisette proposes that being able to produce the photos/videos isn't the issue, but whether it should be produced on request or at the moment of pickup. Ms. Iacomini suggests that the information about being able to make that request could also be put on the receipt, which was largely accepted. Mr. Vihstadt voiced concern about requiring too much information on the receipt. [editorial: As any of you who have followed my saga trying to get access to photos taken at the time my vehicle towed, you're likely aware that I spent many hours in court (unsuccessfully) trying to get a full copy. And on November 15, when acting as an authorized representative for another vehicle owner, after being denied access to the photo(s), I was followed to my car and recorded on video by John O'Neill, which appeared to me to be an act of intimidation].
Ms. Garvey: vote (on both requiring the photos, and including notice on receipt), both motions pass.
Mr. Fisette cited an April 2015 ARLNow.com poll, which had 84% voting "They're mostly shady predators out to make a buck" vs. 16% voting "They're mostly just doing their job" (2,740 total responses). His hope is that some of the measures proposed would reduce the sentiment in the county about predatory towing.
Mr. Fisette also cited an 2015 ARLNow.com editorial, where a Taco Bell patron parked, walked across the street to get cash from the ATM, then bought dinner in the restaurant. He ran out of the restaurant when he saw his car being towed, and despite showing the Taco Bell receipt, he was told it did not matter because he had left the premises. Mr. Fisette says these are the exact situations that he is trying to protect the consumer from with the "second signature" requirement, as surely a Taco Bell employee would not have wanted their customer to be towed.
Mr. Dorsey emphasized the importance of this discussion. He mentioned that when the police seize someone's asset, they have to go through a burden of proof to verify that it was a warranted action. With the towing industry, when someone can have their asset forfeited, "it's a big deal". And it's important to "look out for the interest of consumers while balancing the very real needs of the industry".
A.1. No tow truck driver shall ... Use fraud or deceit in the offering or delivering of towing and recovery services.
B.1. No towing and recovery operator shall ... Use fraud or deceit in the offering or delivering of towing and recovery services.
First off, my thanks and gratitude go out to Arlington's Assistant Commonwealth Attorney Bill Turner for his work in attempting to prosecute the criminal case against Advanced Towing on July 22nd (guilty verdict) and the appeal on October 20th (charges were dropped). The criminal case is described below, and basically boils down to the fact that as a citizen I have a legal right to get a copy of photographs taken at the time of the tow. (At least for now, as the Trespass Towing Advisory Board has recommended removing the requirement anyway).
Second, congratulations to Advanced Towing and their lawyer for simply out-lawyering us and securing the win. I respect the judge's verdict and the case for criminal charges is now closed. I'm sharing information about this public case to help others who may try to seek justice in a similar way, and as usual everything on this site is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
My first tip in trying to pursue justice this way is: don't. Just accept that there is no justice in the world and that this organization will continue to behave as they have been. Report your frustration to towcomplaints@arlingtonva.us and save yourself further trouble and wasted time - I know I'd love to get back the dozen+ hours I've spent on this! You might go ahead and contribute to the vast pool of complaints on Google, Yelp, the BBB, etc.... but don't expect anything to come of it.
Of course, you're not here because you're just going to roll over, right? You're going to try to get justice because if you don't speak up, who will? The law is there for a reason, and if a company chooses not to follow it, you want to pursue justice in any way you can! If the case is a criminal one, the first step is to have the Arlington Magistrate file a criminal summons. (Remember, predatory towing is not criminal, but the complaints about not producing pictures, not accepting a drop fee, not calling the tow into the police prior to the tow, etc - these are all legitimate criminal complaints!) The officers who monitor the towcomplaints@arlingtonva.us email address can help you with that process. You would think the officers could just write a ticket or something to the company, but unfortunately that's not the case. Instead, the Magistrate's summons will result in the case being brought in court by the county against the company, and you'll be the witness. You'll spend hours waiting in court, and even if you get a guilty verdict against the company (like I did on July 22), the company will no doubt appeal, so get ready to spend more hours in court for that.
As a witness you'll present your case, but you're not the plaintiff - which means you can't even talk to the lawyer when the case is being tried. Trust me - you just have to sit back and listen - I tried approaching the lawyer during the trial and was kicked out of the courtroom for a while! You'll also want to have a thick skin and be able to bite your tongue. The Advanced Towing lawyer tried to paint me as a crazy person who's bent on harassing the company. He started the case by making the false claim that I had taken pictures of the screen at the time I picked up the car the first time.
During my testimony, he asked me questions like "how many times did you call them? 50?". I answered "no, about 3 or 4". His next question was "Oh, 3 or 4 times per day?". He did the same thing about emails, implying I sent dozens (of course, they know I only sent 3-4 and they ignored every single one of them - you can see those emails at the bottom of this page). He even brought up this web site, which arguably has nothing to do with the fact that the company didn't allow me access to a copy of the photograph.
So they convinced the judge they have already provided the photos, via one false statement during the opening statement and one failure on my part to explain that these are not the photos taken at the time of the tow. Again, I'd have loved to be able to explain this when I walked up to the lawyer, but got kicked out instead because, hey, first time in court, ya know :)?
I was allowed back in the court room after a few minutes but never had an opportunity to speak again. Instead I had to listen to the clerk who showed up in that video below testify. She made a claim that "the second picture is on another computer in the back". As you can see in my video, she never mentioned that in the recording. Another claim was that the recording doesn't show the whole conversation. This is true since she took my phone to take a picture of the computer screen, but then she went a step further and made the claim that she told me when the camera was off that "[I] could come back later to get a copy of the picture but she was busy because there was a line of 5 or 6 customers behind me". Of course, I was never given the opportunity to refute this claim, or request that they prove the claim with their own security camera recordings. (Strange how their security camera footage makes an appearance when it's beneficial to them, but that's another issue.).
Clearly it's her word against mine that she made those two comments. I say this because if you're going to court, you really need to think about every single possible statement - true or false - that the other side can make, and try to address it before it comes up. For example, if I'd have known the judge was going to be confused about me not having a copy of the picture taken at the time of the tow, I'd have produced the above graphics to demonstrate what I meant about them not being the actual photographs. If I'd have known that the clerk would claim that she told me I could come back later for pictures, I'd have made the case that why did she spend the next 3 minutes in the video saying the photo "is not here", rather than saying "just come back later"? Her testimony was that basically she told me to come back later when she was holding my phone, and then spent the next 3-4 minutes denying she had the picture there. Logically it doesn't make sense that she'd say one thing when the camera is off briefly and another for 3 full minutes when it was on, but again - one person's word vs. the other.
Finally, be aware that the other side may try to mischaracterize your intentions. In this case, the lawyer convinced the judge that I only went back for the photos to "harrass" them because I already had a copy. But given that I still to this day don't have a copy, why is this photo important to me? Because, as mentioned in the video below, I believe that the full version of that second photo - taken 3 minutes after the first - will prove that the vehicle was moved between when the first photograph was taken and when the second one is. That proof is what I wanted to pursue the damage claim in civil court, which is also why I believe they have steadfastly refused to release this photo.
All of this is to say, before you go to court, be ready! Try to think of every possible claim the other side can make, and don't make the assumption that every claim will be truthful. And of course, no matter how strong you think your case is or how obvious it seems, be prepared to lose. In my case, while the law says a copy of photographs taken at the time of the tow have to be provided to the vehicle owner, the judge dismissed the case because of the (false) claim that I already had a copy of both pictures. So, fight the good fight, but know that the process is long, complicated, and may not always end up with the judgment you're looking for.
Good luck out there, don't park where you're not to, and as always drop me a line at advancedtowingfraud@gmail.com if you feel you've been victimized by this industry - one of the few industries with the luxury of having involuntary customers with no choice to bring their business elsewhere.
The meeting was cordial and I am in awe of how Nancy Iacomini gracefully handles the board as Chairperson, even as the only "independent" person on the board (comprised of her, 3 members of the industry, and 3 members of the police force). The tow industry brought along its usual cadre of lawyers and lobbyist who heckled more than once, questioning the legitimacy of her as chairperson, the board itself, and the "suspiciousness" of the timing of the meetings. When someone balked at what term to use for vehicle owners, they called out "Lawbreakers! They're lawbreakers!" ... as if that doesn't mean us "lawbreakers" have rights (and ignoring the fact that I have proven once in court that Advanced Towing has broken the law as well).
Again, the meeting minutes are here: https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/06/TTAB-Recommendations-to-County-Board-9.23.16.pdf as part of the public record. What follows is my own personal opinion and thoughts on the deliberation, and is not a representation of the board's opinion or stance on these matters. However, in November or December (date is TBD), these recommendations will be made to the Arlington County Board to be codified into law. I strongly encourage all interested parties of this industry to attend and take advantage of the public hearing, as these recommendations are not yet set into Arlington law. I strongly recommend going here to sign up for email updates so you're notified when this date is set.
The county is trying to put a bunch of requirements in place to have the industry submit paperwork like their driver's licenses and truck inspections, which of course they opposed - but that amendment passed because the police voted for it.
Despite my vehement argument about removing the requirement to take photographs at the time of the tow (amendment #12), they basically argued that it's "too hard to enforce" and won that vote, which will remove that requirement. Yay! Free-for-all for the drivers to smash whatever they want and then lie about it because they're the only eye-witness! I guess it doesn't really matter much since they don't follow that existing law anyway (this comment is related to the criminal misdemeanor conviction I referred to above).
The industry had somehow gotten a line from an earlier draft removed, which doesn't have much teeth but I was able to get it re-added (amendment #10): "Nothing in this section shall release tow truck drivers from liability for failure to use reasonable care while towing a vehicle".
They killed the "second signature" requirement, which would have required property owners to personally sign off on each tow. John O'Neil's argument (as a very large man) was that if he were the person being towed and Nancy Iacomini (a petite woman) was the property owner, he would be able to intimidate her into not providing the second signature. In all honesty I have somewhat mixed feelings about this - property owners have a right to refuse people to allow parkers after-hours, or otherwise do whatever they want with their property. And the second-signature requirement would make it virtually impossible for business owners to restrict their lots at night when they're not around. AND, I concede that John's argument about intimidation does have merit when the tow driver, business owner, and vehicle owner are all forced into a confrontation on-site.
have the option to call the police if any altercation occurs.
It's unfair to not give the vehicle owner an opportunity to correct the problem. The business just wants the car removed, so they have a favorable outcome either way. This change of law has no effect on the business, benefits the tow driver, and harms residents.
It's unfair to have a 10 minute window of calling in the tow because if the owner comes back to the lot in that window and calls the police, there will be no record of the tow or which lot their car is heading to, and they'll think the car was stolen.
So... that's about it for now. Drop me a line at advancedtowingfraud@gmail.com if you've got any opinions about the meeting, the industry, or a specific company - positive or negative!
Wow, it's been an interesting week!
I started this site back in April to expose the fraudulent and deceptive practices of one Arlington tow company, but it feels like it has grown to so much more. I have heard from many of you out there who have been victims as well, and also from a shopowner who wanted to make his voice heard in this complicated dialog. While deceit - especially in a "self-policing" industry where customers don't even have a choice to do business with a different vendor - is inexcusable, I understand this all does fit into the larger question of how to strike a balance between parkers, businesses, and the tow companies we have essentially "deputized" to enforce our trespass laws for us.
I'm going to try and figure out how to update this site to be more readable - probably in a blog-type format - as it's getting pretty overwhelming to try and digest it all as it is. Once I do that I'll post reader comments and more stories I've heard from both sides of this argument. And of course, I'll also fact-check the remaining content to ensure everything is still 100% true and accurate to the best of my knowledge (for example - since this site has gone up, Arlington has posted a treasure trove of new documentation regarding the towing advisory board, and Advanced Towing has withdrawn the deceptive claim on their site about "Zero BBB Customer Complaints").
ALRNow: Thanks to ARLNow.com for drawing attention to this issue!
Meeting with Arlington County Board: Mr. Fisette and his team were incredibly gracious and seemed generally interested in listening to public comments and acting on them. I briefly described my personal issue and we spent quite a bit of time on the question of "what good is an ordinance if these 'self-policing' tow companies choose not to follow them, and there isn't a clearly defined recourse?" I also addressed the four issues from the last towing advisory meeting and why I felt they were all skewed in the favor of the industry rather than consumers (more on this later).
Tow Advisory Board facts: The Towing Advisory Board is indeed composed of 1 member of the public, 3 tow company owners, and 3 police officers. It hardly seems representative, but that's just what's set by state law. Nonetheless, this is just an advisory board that makes recommendations to the County Board, who isn't required to follow any particular regulations. In other words, they're not the guys actually making the laws, just making recommendations.
Upcoming changes to Arlington Tow Code: Aside from the state-mandated raise in towing fees that went into effect on 7/1, there are some changes being proposed that will potentially go into effect some time after the next/last Towing Advisory Board meeting on 9/15. Not only would I encourage you to attend that meeting, but you can also view and COMMENT ON the proposed changes here.
Objection to removing the requirement for photographs taken during tow: During the public hearing on 7/14, I briefly spoke about my situation and how the photographs taken to "document the condition of the vehicle" are helpful to consumers (and for that matter, to tow truck companies who should be able to generally use it for their defense). I objected to the plan to completely remove that legislation because it's "too hard to enforce", on the grounds that it's often the ONLY thing that victims of damaged vehicles have to go on when making a case, since the only eyewitness is the driver with a vested interest in being dishonest.
Everyone congratulated themselves for deceptive numbers, acting like these were some kind of "customer satisfaction survey": There was an amazing amount of "self-congratulations" going around. From the towing representatives on the board to the lawyers who represented them during their public speaking time, there was a lot of bragging about how there were only 87 complaints in 2015 despite 18,642 tows. I made the point during my time that this number is deceptive, since many people don't know HOW to complain the "right way" (towcomplaints@arlingtonva.us) to get counted in this number. Instead, they make their opinions heard on social media like Yelp and Twitter or other sites like ARLNow.com or the Better Business Bureau - none of those complaints are actually tracked in that number (although there are no doubt duplicates - for example, I've complained loudly on all of those sites).
Lawyer tells advisory board to "tread lightly" and implies they've illegally elected a chairperson who doesn't qualify: The lawyer representing the tow companies locally complained about the new regulations to file certain paperwork with the county (like insurance documents, etc.), and the "big wig" lawyer who I guess represents the industry at the state level said the same. Their message was basically the same: there is no problem in Arlington. If I was able to report less than a 1% complaint ratio at Apple, I'd get a promotion! (that was actually his example, immediately after I made the case that the number is deceptive and under-reported anyway). And he even threatened the board by telling them to "tread lightly", because "the chairman of the advisory committee according to state law has to be an industry insider". And because this particular advisory board nominated the one civilian member as chair, he ominously implied the board was illegitimate. Personally I think he's full of it - the state law doesn't mention anything about this. Of course, he WAS wearing an expensive suit so he probably knows what he's talking about.
Predatory Towing and the use of spotters is legal: Aside from me, the only other public speaker was a woman named Florence, who told a story about being a victim of "predatory towing" (ironically enough, not even in Arlington County). While her situation was unfortunate, it would be unfair for me NOT to point out that everything about that tow was completely legal. While distasteful, spotters and predatory towing practices are completely legal, and honestly make some sense to me (how else is a business going to ensure their spots are only used by their customers?). If Florence felt she was entitled to use the parking lot of a business she's not patronizing "only for about 15-20 minutes", what's to stop anyone else from doing the same? Whether she was "in a medical facility" or not, by law she was trespassing. Maybe there should be some sort of grace period, maybe there should be some other way for businesses to protect their spots, but the cold truth is that she parked illegally by her own admission, and got towed because of it. Until people like her come to these meetings and speak up not only about their experience but about what they propose to fix the problem, that's the way it's going to stay.
The Arlington County Board to review the composition of the Trespass Vehicle Towing Advisory Board for deep conflicts of interest and [Edit 6/16/16: It seems this is mandated by State Law] to consider amending legislation to better protect consumers.
The residents of Arlington County - particularly those who have been aggrieved by Advanced Towing and are willing to make their voices heard, such as the 111 residents who have contributed to Yelp's 1-star rating of the company, the 45 residents who have contributed to the company's F rating on the Better Business Bureau, the 196 largely negative comments on ARLNow.com's blog post, or individuals such as Cody Chance who also contends he has been victimized by the company. Please contact me at advancedtowingfraud@gmail.com if you have been a victim of this company as well.
The local media such as NBC Washington and ARLNow.com to expose this company and help fight for consumer rights.
The towing industry in Arlington, Virginia is a dirty, largely unregulated business. The regulations that are in place were put there by industry insiders - and are often not even followed if the many complaints on Yelp or the Better Business Bureau are to be believed. While most "trespass tows" are inconvenient and infuriating, they are in fact perfectly legal and don't result in vehicle damage. Predatory towing is unsavory but not illegal, and there is no grace period provided in the County's ordinance. But at the same time, customers of these tow companies do have a reasonable expectation that their vehicles will not be damaged in the towing process, and that the drivers will take care to practice their trade responsibly. If a vehicle is damaged, customers have a reasonable right to expect compensation for that damage. At very least they have a right to a reasonable investigation on the part of the towing company without being victims of lies and deceit. I have personally been such a victim, and this site is intended to expose that fraudulent behavior with a preponderance of evidence.
Deceitful advertising in definition of "customer"
On July 14, 2015, the BBB contacted the business regarding its website advertisement stating, "The BBB has a zero complaint rating from our customers." The BBB requested that the company modify the claim since BBB policies define a consumer of the business as someone who has a commercial relationship with a business. Under BBB national policy commercial relationships are created when a business does work for a customer or when services are rendered to a third party that has an effect on the complainant. The claim was based on the BBB's Code of Advertising General Principles prohibiting claims which are untrue or misleading. The company has placed under its ad claim language that indicates that it does not regard the complainants to be customers as it states their customers are the owners of the properties from which they remove cars. The company also answered the BBB's inquiry by making a similar statement. In the opinion of the BBB, the company has not substantiated its claim.
"14. Using any other deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, or misrepresentation in connection with a consumer transaction".
We can also make the general assumption that, for a tow company, unwilling customers (illegally parked vehicles that have been towed) vastly outnumber the willing customers (property owners and residents needing roadside assistance) since there are multiple tows from individual lots. This is an important point that underscores the need for additional regulation; it is clear that this "self-regulating" industry neglects to provide any consumer protection to the vast majority of its customers simply because it can, since that majority of its customers are unwilling participants in the "commercial relationship" and are unable to take their business elsewhere.
Imagine if a rental car company charged you for damaging a vehicle you rented, since you are responsible for damage to a vehicle in your possession. If you didn't do it, your first action would be to appeal the decision and provide evidence that, say, the damage already existed when you rented the car. If the company was reputable, they would have a process in place to review the evidence and make a decision on the counter-claim. They may even cut you a break if it's a "borderline" case because they're interested in keeping your business. If they were not reputable or the situation wasn't resolved to your satisfaction, you as a customer could simply stop doing business with them.
With towing companies, there is no incentive to provide any meaningful service or consumer protection because they don't have to do anything to "keep" your business. Worse, they appear to feel free to demonstrate negligence during towing, deceit during the appeals process, and blatant lawbreaking during the investigation (all these facts will be proven in my video below). Their logic is obvious: most of their victims are out a couple hundred or thousand dollars and won't have the time or energy to fight them individually in court - and they are aware that the Arlington County Police will not intervene in most cases since they call these "civil matters". I do find it gravely suspicious that if a tow truck driver rear-ends you at a stop sign or throws a rock through your window, as a citizen you have a right to file a police report - but if that same driver rips your bumper off your car during a tow because they failed to check its position, you can't. Only stricter regulation and strong fines will act as a disencentive to continue these practices, since this is an industry unaffected by "normal" capitalistic forces.
Edit 6/16/16: It seems this is mandated by State Law. Nonetheless, I have left this section in here to illustrate the fact that the board is not completely unbiased in their advising to the Arlington County Board, and that should be taken into account when developing new legislation.
Speaking of regulations, I have spent a tremendous amount of time dealing with this situation but as close as I can tell, Arlington County Code such as Chapter 14-3 Towing and Storage of Vehicles is passed by the Arlington County Board under advisement from the Trespass Vehicle Towing, Advisory Board. Here's what's really weird - on that page, a full 90% of all board- and manager-appointed groups are links providing details about the various groups and commissions, but the "Trespass Vehicle Towing, Advisory Board" is not a link allowing residents to get additional details. Many of the other links, such as the Bicycle Advisory Committee provide details, including meeting notes, contact information, and members. The closest way I could find WHO is a member of the Towing Advisory Board was to search the 2015 appointments, and the results were amazing. [Edit 7/13/16: It seems this has been fixed! There is now a link to the Trespass Towing Advisory Board page with all kinds of additional information - including the fact that the board is open to public comments for some new changes they're putting in place. More on this later..] Of the seven VOTING members of the board, 6 members are either Arlington Police or representatives of the towing industry, including John O'Neill, who runs Advanced Towing. As one commenter on this ARLNow post Who Will Tow the Tow Truck? showing a driver sleeping in his truck parked in a no-parking zone says: "The lunatics are running the asylum - the owner of Advanced Towing, John O'Neill, sits on Arlington County's Towing Advisory Board.".
Trespass towing rates are higher than consensual rates. It starts listing the history of prices for "trespass towing" and the current rates (as of 2009) for "consensual tows". As of 2007, "trespass tows" had a base tow fee of $100, while most towing companies quoted $75 for initial hookup and $3/mile. Using Advanced Towing's rates and the farthest place in Arlington from Advanced Towing I could find (5 miles), that means that in 2009, consensual tows in Arlington would cost at most $90 and non-consensual tows would cost $100. Of course, the majority of tows within Arlington would be even lower because they are closer; I was only 2 miles from their impound lot - and that was 2009. In 2016, I paid $135 for the non-consensual tow. Compare this to the "$80-$90" quoted to me by Advanced Towing when I called and asked about a consensual tow for the same distance. Are "administrative costs" REALLY that high?
a consumer information sheet, supplied by Arlington County, which will include, among other things, the fee limits and operator requirements established by this Chapter, the non-emergency telephone number of the Police Department, the business telephone number of the County official responsible for handling consumer complaints, and any other information the County determines is necessary to provide to the vehicle owner or his agent. The consumer information sheet shall also include a statement informing the consumer that a copy of the sheet shall be provided to them by the towing and recovery operator with their receipt.
a notice to vehicle owners, provided by Arlington County, which includes information regarding the County's towing ordinance and the contact information for the Arlington County Police Department. Such notice shall be posted in both English and Spanish.
§ 14.3-8.B was also removed in the final draft about what should be provided with the receipt: "In addition, the towing and recovery operator shall provide to the vehicle owner or agent a photocopy of the consumer information sheet referenced in Section 14.3-7A(2)". Goodbye consumer protection!
The vehicle owner shall have the opportunity to inspect the vehicle and any items contained therein prior to payment. No towing and recovery operator shall require a vehicle owner to sign any waiver of the owner's rights to receive compensation for damage to the owner's vehicle as a condition of the vehicle's release.
Of course this strangely omits any explicit definition of the damage caused by the tow company being their responsibility, but having the right to "inspect the vehicle prior to payment" is pretty useless anyway when the company simply produces fabricated evidence (a fact proven below), and it's an obviously pointless clause because having the right to inspect before payment means nothing since the company would simply not release the car if there was a dispute over damage. Basically this clause gives the right to the tow company to hold a damaged car indefinitely (presumably at $50/day) if an owner has a dispute about damage and refuses to pay for the tow.
On 4/19/16, Advanced Towing in Arlington, VA towed my Jeep and did a substantial amount of damage to it. I produced evidence for them showing how the damage occurred, and they contend that they took a picture of the damage to the vehicle before the car was towed. The evidence shows that the bumper was dragged across a piece of rebar, and the picture taken by the driver was clearly after the accident in an attempt to cover it up. They refused to repair the damage and continue to deny any evidence.
a copy of the receipt provided to the vehicle owner or agent.
B. Such record shall be maintained for a period of at least one (1) year from the date of each tow, and shall be made available, during normal business hours, for inspection and copying by any representative of the County authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter. In addition, the portion of such log or record pertaining to a particular vehicle shall be made available, during normal business hours, for inspection and copying by the owner of the vehicle or the owner's authorized representative.
§ 14.3-12. Violations. Except as otherwise specifically provided, any violation of this chapter is unlawful and punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00).
My vehicle was damaged on 4/19 in the parking spot it was towed from.
I could not have caused the damage because the car clears the curb when it is in drive and reverse.
The damage could only have been caused with the car in park and being lifted from the back.
Advanced Towing provided fabricated evidence that the damage was already there.
It is my understanding photos were reviewed during his initial inquires and the damage he claims appeared to be present prior to towing.
We sent the website he posted to our attorney. As a result counsel said there are sufficient grounds for a civil suit against Mr. Chist and we have authorized him to begin that process.
I will forward the info we have to you. If you need anything else please let me know.
In visiting the company to get a copy of the two photographs taken at the time of the tow, I was illegally denied access.
Advanced Towing using deceptive advertising on its web site, alleging a different definition of "customer" than defined by the Better Business Bureau.
Everything on this web site is fact, truthful and accurate as known by me, and supported by evidence. Advanced Towing has indicated that it plans to sue me for exposing these facts on this web site. I will not be intimidated by them, and will simply reference my right to expose these facts does not in any way meet the definition of defamation.
Conduct an investigation into conflicts of interest on the Towing Advisory Board; a 7 member group comprised of 3 police officers and 3 towing industry insiders does not represent the best interest of citizens.
Insist on more transparency on your web site, specifically related to the Trespass Vehicle Towing, Advisory Board listed at commissions.arlingtonva.us. Ask why that group hasn't posted an official list of members, meeting minutes, or information about events like others on the page have.
Allow residents to file a police report after an incident like this. It is very odd that the county code requires tow truck drivers to report a tow to Arlington Police prior to performing it, but a resident can't file a police report when damage has been done. Why is it that I can file a police report if a tow truck driver throws a rock through my window or rear-ends me at a red light, but not when he damages my vehicle when it's being towed? This is not to just cause more work for the Arlington Police, but to allow citizens to report these types of events for better tracking and accountability (in addition to potential insurance implications).
Bring back the "information sheet" requirement mentioned in a 2009 meeting that requires tow companies to provide an information sheet to customers explaining their rights and who to contact in the event of a dispute.
Require dashcams in tow trucks, particularly rear-facing. This isn't that outrageous, considering the plummeting cost of dash cams, and the fact that more and more other public services and companies (like police cars and taxis) use them. The cost of storage of those videos would be acceptable if the legislation didn't explicitly require the video to be kept for 1 year. Instead customers could be given the option to copy the video themselves or request that a specific video be maintained for a year if there is a dispute. This wouldn't be ideal since Advanced Towing has demonstrated the willingness to fabricate evidence (photos taken after they did the damage), but it would harder to fake video evidence.
Implement the "two-signature requirement" that Jay Fisette considered last year: requiring owners of parking lots to provide a second signature offering a tow.
Q: Why doesn't Arlington County force businesses to share parking outside of normal business hours?
A: Arlington County does not have the authority to tell private property owners how to control their property. Arlington encourages businesses to share parking, and some successful arrangements are in place. Free parking is also available at parking garages in Arlington County Government facilities after 5 p.m. weekdays and all day on weekends.
Specify a minimum fine for infractions of Arlington code. While a maximum fine is documented in the Arlington code for infractions like refusing to provide customers with photographs taken at the time of the tow, no minimum fine is specified. I filed the complaint and requested the maximum fine of $1,000 to towcomplaints@arlingtonva.us on 5/15 and will update this site when I find out what fine, if any, was levied for the infraction.
California (V C Section 22651.07): "Generally the owner of a vehicle may recover for any damage to the vehicle resulting from any intentional or negligent act of a person causing the removal of, or removing, the vehicle."
(1) damages arising from the removal or storage of the vehicle"
Make your voice heard! Whether you try to pursue legal action like Cody Chance on his GoFundMe page, truthfully document the egregious behavior of Advanced Towing on Yelp, file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, or post to a forum like NextDoor.com (account required), you'll be amazed at the number of other people who claim that they too have been victimized by this company.
Unfortunately, for a morally bankrupt company like Advanced Towing (let's call that one a opinion rather than fact; you be the judge), they may produce fabricated evidence to deny your claim and make it difficult to attest anything in court, since the driver is often the only eyewitness to any claims of negligence. But there is still a chance to file a suit in Small Claims Court (which is what Arlington recommends. I will update this site with more information when/if I pursue this route.
Contact the Arlington County Board and let your feelings be known about the situation and what you think can be done to rectify it. You can email all five board members at Countyboard@arlingtonva.us.
4/19/16 8-8:30PM I parked in the lot of the defunct Alpine Restaurant. The lot was clearly marked as 24 hour no parking zone.
4/19/16 8:35PM Arlington Police receives the call that my car is about to get towed in accordance with Arlington County Code § 14.3-6. Notice. This timestamp was confirmed with Arlington Police (703) 558-2222 on 5/12/16.
4/19/16 8:40PM An email is sent from Jeep indicating the alarm has gone off (either during the initial break-in to the car, or the initial lift of the car). Unfortunately I didn't get the email until later.
4/19/16 8:42PM The driver takes a picture of the back of the car. This is the time stamp shown in the photograph provided.
4/19/16 8:45PM The driver takes a picture of damage to the front of the car. This is the time stamp shown in the photograph provided.
4/19/16 8:49PM Another alarm is triggered from Jeep and another email sent. It's assumed that this is when the actual tow started.
4/19/16 3:05PM The tow company shows me two pictures on a computer screen, one showing the back of the car and one showing the damage to the front. I left the scene believing that somehow the damage had occurred previously, despite having never seen it before.
4/19/16 3:35PM-5:53PM I send a series of emails to AdvancedTowingCompany@gmail.com (documented below) imploring the company to look at the evidence. All emails are ignored.
4/19/16 4:00PM I call the Arlington non-emergency police line to inquire about filing an accident report. I'm told that this is a civil matter, which is odd because if a tow-truck driver rear-ended me at a stop light, I would file a report.
4/19/16 4:02PM I call Advanced Towing at 703-525-0550. The woman is hostile for 8 long minutes, claiming to have not seen the emails, and refusing to look at any evidence provided thus far. She refuses to send me the two pictures she showed me while on-site (a direct violation of Arlington code § 14.3-11.B.), and the call ends with her telling me "I'll see you in court!"
4/20/16 11:13AM I call Advanced Towing again at 703-525-0550. The woman tells me to just put it on my insurance. She claims she hasn't seen the email, has not reviewed the evidence, and "does not need to" review it. She hangs up on me.
4/21/16 I spend hours documenting the evidence and creating a video that the company refuses to even look at. The video is posted to Youtube as I attempt to find other victims of this type of practice.
4/21/16 4:29PM I file a police report for fraud on Arlington County's Online Police Reporting System. Like the phone call (which was about filing an accident report), the online report was rejected as the police department considers this a "civil matter". Again, odd.
4/22/16 10:49 Found on Arlington's web site, I email towcomplaints@arlingtonva.us and have a brief correspondence with a Sergeant Brokenborough. She receives two pictures from them and forwards them to me. In reviewing the pictures, they are cropped from the originals (a cell phone camera taking a shot of the corner of a computer monitor), and I suspect Advanced Towing deliberately cropped them to conceal the position of car, which may indicate it had been moved in the time between the pictures. She also informs me that because Arlington considers this a "civil matter", the police department has no jurisdiction over the case.
4/22/16 11:00AM I file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. I'm not optimistic of any further action here; the company has an F rating on the BBB and ignores all complaints (45 of them in the past 3 years). The BBB itself calls them out for lying on their web site saying they have "no customer complaints with the BBB".
4/28/16 10:49AM I receive another email from Sgt. Brockenborough informing me she received a response from Advanced Towing. They admit to seeing the evidence (since they also have informed him that they intend to file legal action against me to suppress the evidence I'm sharing on this web site), and implicitly ignore it without any comment other than to claim "the damage he claims appeared to be present prior to towing".
5/12/16 I return to Advanced Towing to get access to the pictures as is my right by Arlington County Code. The lady lies to me and claims she doesn't have the picture on-site (despite me being able to see the computer screen), which would be yet another violation of Arlington's Code to preserve pictures for 1 year.
5/14/16 The BBB informs me that the company has ignored my complaint and ask if I have reached a resolution. I answer no.
5/14/16 Updated video evidence on this site to include video of Arlington County Code violations.
5/15/16 Sent email to towcomplaints@arlingtonva.us requesting the company be fined for non-compliance with Arlington Code. They are very helpful, and put me in touch with the Arlington Magistrate, who will eventually issue a criminal summons to them on 5/25.
5/16/16 Called Advanced Towing to inquire about the price of consensual tows. I was quoted $80-$90 for a tow similar to the one I had for my unconsensual tow - a 60% premium that Advanced Towing no doubt cites as "administrative overhead".
5/24/16 Another correspondence with Sergeant Brokenborough. I am informed she doesn't believe the Arlington Code as it is written has been violated, and she points out text on this site that could be misinterpreted to indicate that the Arlington Police Department has been anything but helpful, friendly, and responsive. I fixed the text and apologize for the ambiguous language that led to the misinterpretation.
5/25/16 I file a criminal complaint with the Arlington Magistrate. A criminal summons is issued for 6/15 based on the evidence I have provided that Advanced Towing has violated Arlington County Code § 14.3-11. I'm told this is a largely unprecedented process, and that we're basically all figuring this out as we go along.
6/9/16 I call the Commonwealth Attorney's Office at 703-228-4410 to inquire about how to bring video evidence into court since they don't allow electronic devices. I eventually speak to Assistant Attorney Bill Turner, who says that he doesn't see the case on the docket, but it sounds like a civil case. I point out that it's a violation of Arlington Code, which is why the Magistrate filed in criminal court. He gives me his direct line to call back after the case to let him know how it goes. It seems very few people in Arlington have ever stood up for their rights this way by insisting the Arlington Code be followed, but he was very helpful with what he did know.
6/10/16 I get a response from Jay Fisette from the Arlington County Board. He is incredibly nice and offers to schedule a time to meet with me in person (scheduled for 7/14). He copies additional County employees who are "engaged in the towing issue" and indicates that the staff are planning to have a public hearing at the next meeting of the Tow Advisory Board - the date is TBD but he mentions we'll be notified.
6/15/16 I go to the criminal court, presumably as a witness. Well, I waited in court staring at the wall for 2 hours. Despite the summons being for 9AM, I sat in court until 11AM staring at the wall and wishing I was a lawyer because for some reason *I* can't bring my phone into court, but they can. So I basically just watch all the lawyers check their phones for 2 hours and watch a parade of criminal trials go on. I pull the public prosector aside for a moment and ask about the case; he says that he saw it on the docket but thought that it was just to schedule a court date, but that I should stick around because "it's a weird case" and he's not very sure about it. I give it another hour, and finally give up at 11AM (contrary to the countless hours I've spent on pursuing justice here, I do have a job :) ). I'm later told that a continuance was issued until 7/22, although it's unclear who filed it. Will update more after then.
OK Final email for today as I continue to research the civil suit.
I want to be clear that I do not yet believe that you personally have committed fraud. But the photographic and video evidence indisputably show that the bumper of the Jeep was ripped off as a consequence of the Jeep being parked over the concrete curb with a piece of rebar sticking out, which had enough clearance on the way in but was ripped off on the way out as a direct result of the back end of the car being lifted up. And the "photographic proof" provided by Advanced Towing was confirmation that the driver tried to cover up this accident.
1)	a misrepresentation of a material fact: I believe the video and photographic evidence prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that that bumper was ripped off because of that rebar.
2)	by a person or entity who knows or believes it to be false: While the driver has done this, it can't be proven that you have done this yet; I suspect at this moment you just believe what the driver told you and are taking a hostile stance because it's company policy.
4)	actual injury or loss resulting from his or her reliance. The actual injury and loss will be properly documented, including the car repairs, the rental car while it's being done, and the lost time on the job for dealing with these unfortunate events.
Here is the video of the spot where your driver did the damage and tried to conceal it with the photo - you can clearly see the rivets ripped out and the plastic all over the rebar and concrete: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57saZn9xv5M&feature=youtu.be. I have saved these and a sample of the plastic from the rebar for evidence.
Please let me know at your soonest if Advanced Towing would like to file this as an insurance matter on its insurance for a simple accident, or if I will have to attempt to pursue other avenues for justice.
I'm sure you deal with a lot of people accusing your company of damaging cars, and you may completely trust the driver of the tow truck, but I'm asking you to do the right thing and look at the evidence.
So the picture that was taken at 8:45 confirms what happened: the driver started backing away, ripped the bumper off, and put it back to take the picture at 8:45.
I am desperately hoping you will be able to get the truth out of your driver and admit fault to repair the vehicle given all of this evidence, but I am prepared to file a claim if I need to. I am sure there's a possibility that you would rather take your chances by simply continuing to deny this preponderance of evidence and hoping I don't take further action, but I genuinely believe that there's a chance that YOU will be able to get the truth from the driver who caused the damage.
I was just in there picking up my black 2015 jeep and thought you guys had broken the bumper. You sent me a picture (time stamped 8:45PM last night) - would you mind emailing me that picture and the one of the car in the spot so I can use it for my insurance?

References: § 14

§ 14

§ 14
 § 14
 § 14
 § 14