Any attorney that claims LAG has not violated its contract with the city should be disbarred!
Page 9 Section 21 of the LAG Contract
(c) Disregard of Laws – If Contractor disregards laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or orders of any public authority having jurisdiction of this Contract or the Contractor, the City may, without any prejudice to any right or remedy, and after seven (7) days notice to the Contractor, terminate this Contract and relieve the Contractor of further duty for the City.
- Did LAG disregard Pennsylvania law?
§ 7306. Payment of costs upon reclaiming vehicle.
In the event the owner or lienholder of an abandoned vehicle reclaims the vehicle, the reclaiming party shall pay the costs for towing and storage from the date the salvor submitted the abandoned vehicle report to the department, plus a fee of $50 of which $25 shall be transmitted to the department by the salvor. (Dec. 9, 2002, P.L.1278, No.152, eff. 60 days)
Cross References. Section 7306 is referred to in sections 3352, 7305, 7308 of this title.
LAG Towing Inc., the city’s designated tower, did not file a single abandoned vehicle report with PennDOT in 2012, according to Jan McKnight, a department spokeswoman.
That should mean that LAG Towing Inc., the city’s designated tower, did not collect any storage fees in 2012, RIGHT???
6/27/2012 Robert DeLeo Paid LAG Towing Inc., $400, per the LAG Towing Inc., receipt $200 for towing, and $200 for storage.
- § 7306. Payment of costs upon reclaiming vehicle.
- TITLE 75
- No forms may be problem for tower
- SALVOR MANUAL
(d) If the Contractor violates any provision hereunder or any amendments hereto, the City may, without any prejudice to any right or remedy, and after seven (7) days notice to the Contractor, terminate this Contract and relieve the Contractor of further duty for the City, unless other termination terms are set forth and applied for the specific violation.
- Did LAG violate any provision hereunder or any amendments hereto?
Page 8 of the LAG contract hereunder states: (i) Additionally, Contractor shall tow, FREE of charge, ANY vehicle owned by ANY victim of ANY crime
Charlotte and Bryan Schmidt, of Wilkes-Barre paid $245 to reclaim their vehicle that was stolen in September 2010
82-year-old Natalie Aleo, reportedly was told by Leo Glodzik III, the owner of LAG Towing Inc., that she would have to pay $1,700 to reclaim her car, which had been stolen in December.
Randall Panetta, of Salem Township, payed $275 in cash to LAG to get back his 2006 Volkswagen Beetle convertible after it had been reported stolen.
Eric Sutter, 27, of Harding had his 2004 Hyundai Tiburon stolen from Mohegan Sun Casino at 11:41 p.m. on Oct. 4, 2011, according to a copy of the Plains Township police report.Sutter said he learned his car had been found a few days later, when he called around to various towers and discovered it was at LAG. Sutter said a LAG employee told him he owed $250 for the tow plus a few days worth of storage fees. He didn’t have that much money, so he left the car there. It has remained at LAG ever since, continuing to rack up storage fees of $50 per day. “I gave up trying to get it last summer,” Sutter said. “The last time I went the fees were up to $600 or $800.”
Hum that’s 4 victims of crime, all claiming they were charged for towing and storage fees, in violation of the contract, and the law if no abandoned vehicle report was filed with PennDOT.
(c) If any officer or director of the Contractor’s corporation or business is found guilty of ANY criminal act, regardless of the nature, other than for a summary offense, the City may, without any prejudice to any right or remedy, and after seven (7) days notice to the Contractor, terminate this Contract and relieve the Contractor of further duty for the City.
- Was there an officer or director of the Contractor’s corporation or business found guilty?
Leo A Glodzik III is the owner of LAG, per his own admission, and multiple published reports.
18§5104 M2 Resist Arrest/Other Law Enforce
Leo A Glodzik III - Guilty Plea/Probation 10/25/2011
Min of 18.00 Months
Max of 18.00 Months
We didn’t even cover LAG’s failed record keeping policies, also a contract violation, so “malicious and false statements without any corroboration or evidence”????
I Think NOT!!!
P.S. If anyone is worried LAG may suing for wrongful termination, remember it didn’t work well it Pittston, and they had far less grounds than Wilkes Barre Does
- Tower's rights violation suit against Pittston is dismissed.
- Leo A. Glodzik, Iii, Individually and v. Samuel Argo