Page 9
Section 21 of the LAG Contract
TERMINATION:
(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
No comments:
Post a Comment