Elmwood U-Haul HARASSMENT Columbia South Carolina

Why is it that U-Haul customers at the Elmwood facility in Columbia, South Carolina are denied access if they are even one day late paying rent, as I've witnessed happen to another customer? (I have not been late, personally.) Yet, Assistant Manager, Cedric, locks the doors to the inside units 20 minutes early so he can "get home".

There's no safety and security issues that require Cedric to "get home" on a routine basis, though it is rumored that there is impending violence planned for certain employees at the offending U-Haul facility. (When will they learn?) And when will they sweep the inside units?

They haven't been swept in at least 5 months. U-Haul and it's advocate, who routinely responds to this report, are so hypertechnical as it pertains to U-Haul's interests, while they engage in persistent malfeasance of their own. Lord, please make units available at the nearby CubeSmart facility soon. I'm ready to relocate from this ghetto.

Apparently, you are an attorney for UHaul, otherwise, you would not be so invested in this matter. Whatever the reason for your intense interest, I'm not obligated to answer your questions! You can draw whatever conclusions you wish (technically)! And since you couldn't find a hand grenade to play with, as I suggested, I would be obliged to accomodate you.

This is a public website and when you make a claim, some may question it as to the exact situation.  So yes the public may make comments that don't exactly agree with the narrative you are trying to show.   You can try to mis-direct the actual issue, by talking about technicallities until the cows come home.  But it still comes down to one basic question you refuse to answer.

What exactly are you doing each time you are on their property?

But since you ignored that question multiple times, the public really has only one conclusion to come to. That you are not using the unit strictly for storage and you are in violation of the lease agreement.  

I understand that the filing of my report invites comments; however, aren't you just a bit too invested in my report, and aren't you being as technical as you complained about me being, if not more so? Are you the offending manager of the Elmwood U-haul, an employee of, or legal counsel for U-Haul?

You made your initial comment, now move on and get a life already. Find something constructive to do like play with a hand grenade. Just remember to pull the pin, okay? Have fun!

What is very intersting here is your failure to answer any of the questions posed as to your activities while on their property.  This tells us several things. Including when you are on the property you are not just moving items in or out and are in fact staying in your unit for extended periods of time. Which is in violation of the specific terms you posted.

It is a business and a storage unit and therefore you should have no expectation of any sort of privacy.  If you go down the road that it is your private property and therefore they can't video you, you would have to admit that it is your personal residence and that would prove your violation of the lease agreement and their residence clause.

Notwithstanding that the facility is private property, arbitration would decide whether surveillance under the stated conditions of opening a partially closed door without announcement or cause is reasonable.
- Why partially close the door? Why did you fail to answer any questions about your specific use of the storage unit? The answer is obvious, an answer to those direct questions would prove that you know you are in violation of the lease agreement and just posted this in hopes that people wouldn't see right through your post.

Finally, the manager was hypertechnical toward me, why shouldn't I reciprocate?
So I guess if the the manager jumped off a cliff, you would follow?

 Dear "genius", technically, lease agreements are based on "technicalities"; thus, one must address such issues accordingly, as I did. Additionally, you have focused too much on the "technical" issues, rather than the substance thereof. Understand how it works now?

As I stated in my report, I was sitting on the floor for the purpose of photographing the manager photographing me. And there is no provision in my lease agreement for video surveillance of customers within their leased units.

Notwithstanding that the facility is private property, arbitration would decide whether surveillance under the stated conditions of opening a partially closed door without announcement or cause is reasonable. Finally, the manager was hypertechnical toward me, why shouldn't I reciprocate? 

Sounds like you are trying to play the "technicallity" game by your focus on the "residential" clause.

However, by your own admission you were just sitting on the floor of your unit. That is technically neither storing or removing items so based on that definition you were in fact in violation of your lease agreement.

So the question is how long were you just sitting there? How often do you go there and how long are you there each time? What do you do while yo0u are there? Do you happen to do things such as change clothes or other activities?

As for the recording, SC is a 1-Party consent State and there is no reasonable expectation you should have while you are at the storage unit for any sort of "Privacy". I would also not be surprised if there was an item on video surveillence in your lease as well. So them recording you is probably not only legal, but in no way harrassment.

You previously stated you had no delinqency issues, but by your own time-line you would have been required to make only 1 payment which is hardly any proof of some sort of trackrecord. However, one does have to wonder how you know they are quick to deny you access if you are late.

I bet the full story to this would provide a lot of details.