• Report: #35795

Complaint Review: Auto Mall Parkway Self Storage

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Wed, November 20, 2002
  • Updated: Sat, February 07, 2009

  • Reported By:Santa Barbara CA
Auto Mall Parkway Self Storage
43941 Osgood Road Fremont, California U.S.A.

Auto Mall Parkway Self Storage rip-off management's negligence and/or theft result in loss of items Fremont California

*Consumer Comment: company lock

*Consumer Comment: I HAVE BEEN STORING THERE FOR YEARS, THEY ARE GREAT

*Author of original report: Amber completely ignores my primary complaint

*Author of original report: Company's rebuttal inaccurate and unsatisfactory ..Amber completely ignores my primary complaint

*UPDATE Employee: Manager's Information ..we were not liable because of the rental agreement

*UPDATE Employee: Manager's Information ..we were not liable because of the rental agreement

*UPDATE Employee: Manager's Information ..we were not liable because of the rental agreement

*UPDATE Employee: Manager's Information ..we were not liable because of the rental agreement

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

When I went to get some things from my storage locker last month (October 2002) I discovered that my lock had been replaced. At first, management told me they'd accidentally removed my lock instead of an adjacent one.

Later they retracted that story, and said that someone else had replaced the lock and had given them the key to it (they gave me the key to the new lock when I next went to their office a week later). However, management couldn't or wouldn't tell me who that someone else was, or when that someone else installed the new lock and gave them the key.

When I inspected my locker, I discovered that many items were missing. Management said they were sorry for my loss, and apologized for not notifying me that my lock had been replaced.

They said they had done everything possible to determine what had happened, but did not say what that was. While I know they have surveillance tapes. I don't know if they were examined. I suspect they weren't.

Management claims that they are not liable. Because they were either grossly negligent in their management duties, or possibly complicit in the theft of my things, I strongly disagree.

I strongly recommend that people not do business with this company.

Tom
Fremont, California

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 11/20/2002 01:17 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Auto-Mall-Parkway-Self-Storage/Fremont-California-94539/Auto-Mall-Parkway-Self-Storage-rip-off-managements-negligence-andor-theft-result-in-loss-35795. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Auto Mall Parkway Self Storage

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
0Author 8Consumer 0Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Comment

company lock

AUTHOR: Chuck - (U.S.A.)

I wouldn't say that the storage was negligent for putting a lock on the unlocked unit. In fact, they were protecting your property and you should be thankful for that.

Negligent - NO. Stupid, yes. They should have proper notes as to why and when they put the lock on your unit so that you could properly investigate the disappearance of your property and give the police a timeline as to when it happened.

So they did everything right except for not taking the proper notes in this situation and attempting to contacting you so you can do your own investigation. In California, the tenant, not the storage, is responsible for everything that goes on in that unit. The courts in California have ruled that as long as the storage company gives you the opportunity to purchase insurance, you are solely responsible for the contents of your unit if you fail to do so (Cregg V. Ministor Ventures (1983))
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Consumer Comment

I HAVE BEEN STORING THERE FOR YEARS, THEY ARE GREAT

AUTHOR: Libby - (U.S.A.)

I dont know why this gentleman is saying such nasty things, but I have been a renter at Auto Mall for a while now and my unit has never been tampered with, and the management staff have been great! Amber is one of the nicest gals I know and deserves better than these nasty remarks.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 Author of original report

Amber completely ignores my primary complaint

AUTHOR: Tom - (U.S.A.)

In her response to my rip-off report against Auto Mall Parkway Self Storage, Amber completely ignores my primary complaint -- the reason I filed the report in the first place.

She states that a customer, meaning me, came into the office and asked for a key to the lock that was occupying his storage locker. She says that the staff took one from the file and gave it to me. She also says that they had no evidence proving that my own lock was removed or replaced, and that her maintenance person's records don't show that any such removal or replacement.

What she doesn't say is that the reason they had the key to the lock in their file is because the it was their lock that had been put on my locker. And since I found their lock on my storage locker instead of my own, I wanted to know when they had put it on.

Contrary to what she says in her rebuttal, Amber told me they had put their lock on my locker when they had discovered that my lock was missing. Amber also told me that they would have a record of when they did that, since they kept complete records of all such occurrences. However, despite my repeated requests, she either could not or would not tell me when they discovered my lock missing and put on their own.

I wanted to know when that discovery was made, because that probably would have made it possible to identify which of their many surveillance tapes had recorded whoever it was who broke into my locker and stole a toolbox and other items.

It seems suspicious to me that the storage company put their lock on my storage locker, but have no record of doing so. At the least, their actions demonstrate inexcusable negligence.

In my initial complaint I recommended that people not do business with this company. Their inaccurate, misleading, and unsatisfactory rebuttal to that complaint does nothing to mitigate that recommendation, and much to strengthen it. I strongly recommend that people not do business with Auto Mall Self Storage in Fremont, California.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Author of original report

Company's rebuttal inaccurate and unsatisfactory ..Amber completely ignores my primary complaint

AUTHOR: Tom - (U.S.A.)

In her response to my complaint Amber states that a customer, meaning me, came into their office, requested a key for the lock to my storage locker, and says they gave it to me. She continues by saying that a month later I called to report that a toolbox had been stolen, and says that the storage locker company is not liable for losses or damages.



The fact in my complaint that she totally ignored is this: the reason the key to the lock was in their file is because it was the company's lock. They put it on after noticing that my locker had no lock.



In spite of the fact that Amber told me the company kept records of when they installed locks, she was unable to say when they put their lock on my locker. The reason that information is important is because it would have approximately identified the time of the theft, and made it possible for people to find and look at survelliance the camera video that recorded the break-in and theft.



Since Amber couldn't or wouldn't provide the information I requested, information she initially said she would provide, it's not possible to rule out the possibility that the theft was done by an employee of the company, or someone known to him. And that's why I strongly recommended that people not do business with this company. That recommendation still stand.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 UPDATE Employee

Manager's Information ..we were not liable because of the rental agreement

AUTHOR: Amber - (U.S.A.)

In October 2002, a customer came into our office and asked for a key to his lock that was occupying his unit. We, the staff, pulled one key from the file and handed it to the customer.



A month later, that same customer called our office to report a missing tool box. We had told the customer that we had no idea of what happened but we would look into the matter further.



We had no evidence proving that his lock was removed, replaced, or left unlocked. Our maintenance does daily walk throughs which are reports checking the status of our rented units. No where in his reports did it show this customer's lock being removed, replaced, or left unlocked. We had given the customer this information, but it did not seem to satisfy him. His story changed rapidly about what he thought had happened to his unit and his belongings. He began accusting our emplyees and at that point became difficult to talk with.



We did tell the customer that even if his unit was broken into, which there was no evidence from the daily walk throughs, or even our surveillance cameras, that we were not liable because of the rental agreement he had signed upon renting with our company. The rental agreement clearly states that our compnay is not liable for any losses or damages done to customer's personal property stored at our facility. It is customer's responsibility to supply insurance on their belongings. If it's worth storing, it's worth insuring!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 UPDATE Employee

Manager's Information ..we were not liable because of the rental agreement

AUTHOR: Amber - (U.S.A.)

In October 2002, a customer came into our office and asked for a key to his lock that was occupying his unit. We, the staff, pulled one key from the file and handed it to the customer.



A month later, that same customer called our office to report a missing tool box. We had told the customer that we had no idea of what happened but we would look into the matter further.



We had no evidence proving that his lock was removed, replaced, or left unlocked. Our maintenance does daily walk throughs which are reports checking the status of our rented units. No where in his reports did it show this customer's lock being removed, replaced, or left unlocked. We had given the customer this information, but it did not seem to satisfy him. His story changed rapidly about what he thought had happened to his unit and his belongings. He began accusting our emplyees and at that point became difficult to talk with.



We did tell the customer that even if his unit was broken into, which there was no evidence from the daily walk throughs, or even our surveillance cameras, that we were not liable because of the rental agreement he had signed upon renting with our company. The rental agreement clearly states that our compnay is not liable for any losses or damages done to customer's personal property stored at our facility. It is customer's responsibility to supply insurance on their belongings. If it's worth storing, it's worth insuring!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#7 UPDATE Employee

Manager's Information ..we were not liable because of the rental agreement

AUTHOR: Amber - (U.S.A.)

In October 2002, a customer came into our office and asked for a key to his lock that was occupying his unit. We, the staff, pulled one key from the file and handed it to the customer.



A month later, that same customer called our office to report a missing tool box. We had told the customer that we had no idea of what happened but we would look into the matter further.



We had no evidence proving that his lock was removed, replaced, or left unlocked. Our maintenance does daily walk throughs which are reports checking the status of our rented units. No where in his reports did it show this customer's lock being removed, replaced, or left unlocked. We had given the customer this information, but it did not seem to satisfy him. His story changed rapidly about what he thought had happened to his unit and his belongings. He began accusting our emplyees and at that point became difficult to talk with.



We did tell the customer that even if his unit was broken into, which there was no evidence from the daily walk throughs, or even our surveillance cameras, that we were not liable because of the rental agreement he had signed upon renting with our company. The rental agreement clearly states that our compnay is not liable for any losses or damages done to customer's personal property stored at our facility. It is customer's responsibility to supply insurance on their belongings. If it's worth storing, it's worth insuring!
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#8 UPDATE Employee

Manager's Information ..we were not liable because of the rental agreement

AUTHOR: Amber - (U.S.A.)

In October 2002, a customer came into our office and asked for a key to his lock that was occupying his unit. We, the staff, pulled one key from the file and handed it to the customer.



A month later, that same customer called our office to report a missing tool box. We had told the customer that we had no idea of what happened but we would look into the matter further.



We had no evidence proving that his lock was removed, replaced, or left unlocked. Our maintenance does daily walk throughs which are reports checking the status of our rented units. No where in his reports did it show this customer's lock being removed, replaced, or left unlocked. We had given the customer this information, but it did not seem to satisfy him. His story changed rapidly about what he thought had happened to his unit and his belongings. He began accusting our emplyees and at that point became difficult to talk with.



We did tell the customer that even if his unit was broken into, which there was no evidence from the daily walk throughs, or even our surveillance cameras, that we were not liable because of the rental agreement he had signed upon renting with our company. The rental agreement clearly states that our compnay is not liable for any losses or damages done to customer's personal property stored at our facility. It is customer's responsibility to supply insurance on their belongings. If it's worth storing, it's worth insuring!
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.



Ripoff Report Legal Directory