Provo towing company sues BYU student for defamation
The parking spot where a car belonging to Carl Prince was booted and towed in September 2017 in Provo.
The parking spot where a car belonging to Carl Prince was booted and towed in September 2017 in Provo.
What started as a tow of a student illegally parked at his apartment complex turned into an online campaign against a Provo towing company and a legal circus.
University Parking Enforcement is suing Brigham Young University student Carl Prince for defamation after he sued the company twice and reportedly tried to campaign against “predatory towing,” misrepresenting his towing experience to use as an example.
The company requested $500,000 for defamation from Prince’s “intentional interference” with the company’s “existing and prospective economic relations,” court documents stated.
“You can’t go out there and attack people’s livelihoods and their businesses for no reason,” said Justin Heideman, the attorney representing the towing company. “And that’s exactly what he’s doing.”
In September, Prince parked his car in a small, striped parking area at Park Plaza, a BYU student housing apartment complex at 910 N. 900 East. The area was next to a recycling bin and had a yellow line across the bottom of the section, indicating the spot was not a legal parking stall.
One month earlier, University Parking Enforcement signed a contract with Park Plaza, allowing the towing company to nightly patrol the apartment parking lot and enforce booting and towing of vehicles parked in unauthorized parking spots or spots blocking dumpsters. This is a common relationship with many apartment complexes.
During that night’s patrol, a towing employee booted Prince’s car and left the usual warning and instructions on the window, court documents state.
According to University Parking Enforcement policy, owners of booted vehicles can contact the company and have the boot removed for $60. But if owners do not reach out within 24 hours, the company will tow the car from the restricted parking area.
Prince did not reach out to the company in the time limit, court documents state, so the towing company removed his car from the lot. The company employee took video of the car before the tow, showing the car parked illegally in the striped-off area.
“At court, Mr. Prince testified that he saw it was booted, he didn’t make a phone call, he didn’t ask for additional time, he didn’t do anything,” Heideman said.
Later the same day, Prince said he arrived at the tow company office with a police officer and demanded to see the video of his car parked illegally.
The employee in the office at the time was a recently hired full-time student, Heideman explained. The new employee asked the police officer if he was required to show the video to Prince. The police officer said no, and the employee refused to show Prince the video.
However, Provo policy requires tow companies to show evidence of the towed vehicle whenever requested by the vehicle’s owner.
“In my mind, then you are holding that car illegally,” Prince said.
He paid the fine and left. Later, Prince wrote a letter to Michael Lamont, the president of the tow company, asking for a refund for the tow and for $1,000 for “lost time, cost of alternative transportation and general inconvenience.”
Realizing his employee had made a mistake in not showing the video, Lamont fully refunded the $175 towing fee and apologized in a letter he sent to Prince.
“We have since reviewed the ordinance change again with each employee,” Lamont wrote in the letter.
But Lamont refused to pay any additional money because Prince’s vehicle was parked in violation of the requirements at the apartment complex and the towing was legal.
“From day one, we weren’t trying to get around anything or hide anything,” Lamont said. “It wasn’t a situation where Carl was claiming he was parked somewhere else. He knew exactly where he was parked. He knew he was in that blocked-off area.”
The next day, Prince called and emailed the apartment complex.
“I’m taking UPE to court for towing illegally,” Prince stated in his email. “If you’re willing, could you send me a quick email stating that that spot is indeed a legal spot?”
The admittance would “help a lot” in his court case, he added.
However, the apartment complex manager replied the area is blocked off to leave room for the recycling bin beside it. There are 102 legal parking stalls available in the lot.
“We have not designated that as a spot,” the apartment manager replied in a return email. “I think it’s ridiculous to take UPE to court for following our requests.”
But on Oct. 27, Prince filed a lawsuit in small claims court, asking the tow company for $1,000 for violating Provo city ordinances, according to court documents.
“I was parked in a stall that did not obstruct access in any way, not was it clearly marked as a no-parking zone,” Prince stated on court records.
At one point, Prince called the recycling company to determine if the company trucks really need the area to reach the recycling bin.
But that doesn’t involve the towing company, Lamont said. The towing company reports solely to the managers and contracts at apartment complexes, not the recycling companies.
“Most people think we just go in and pick and choose what we want to do. That’s definitely not the case,” he said. “This is all directed from the property owner or manager to us on what they want us to do.”
After the hearing in January, the court awarded Prince $175 since the towing company violated the law in not showing the video of his car on request.
“My purpose in my original lawsuit was to hold them accountable for what I thought was an unethical parking enforcement operation,” Prince said. “I didn’t win what was, in my opinion, the more important issue of whether or not they could tow from locations like that.”
The same day of the hearing, Prince wrote a review for the towing company on the Better Business Bureau website. He reported he was booted and towed from his parking lot but omitted the fact he was parked illegally. He also left an email address encouraging other reviewers to contact him for legal advice.
His review was not the only one that began to populate the towing company website and various online review sites.
“The day we get out of court, there are phone calls, there are emails,” Heideman said. “The whole nine yards.”
Hundreds of negative, 1-star reviews filled business review websites like Google and Yelp. Many of the reviews mentioned Prince and the defamation case.
But Prince was not an example of predatory towing, as he had actually parked illegally at the apartment complex, Heideman said.
“The court specifically and expressly found that our clients did nothing wrong,” he added. “Everything they did was pursuant to their contract.”
Later in January, Prince created a GoFundMe page with the title “Help Me Fight Predatory Towing.”
The page states University Parking Enforcement is “a company that began towing cars for profit, all while doing no service to the tenants, the management.”
Prince also mentioned he planned to sue the towing company again because he didn’t win “the most important” part of the lawsuit: getting the court to rule the company acted unethically.
He also offered to refund double the amount of any donations. The campaign collected $210 from three people of a $235 goal.
“I don’t understand why it’s going, going, going when it’s just a routine enforcement,” Lamont said. “Just don’t park where you shouldn’t anymore.”
A few days later after the account was created, Lamont reached out to Prince, offering to talk to him about his frustrations.
Prince emailed back saying the company is not “enforcing parking” but “enriching itself off of college students.”
“It’s a clear sign that my incident isn’t just an isolated incident,” Prince said.
Days later, Prince filed an appeal to his win in Fourth District Court, again asking for $1,000 plus costs for filing fees.
“I’ve given him multiple opportunities to be part of the process in making the situation better and every time it’s always come back to ‘you need to pay me this much money,'” Lamont said.
The judge awarded Prince $2 for the appeal: one dollar for the company refusing to show him the video on demand and one dollar for the lack of clear signage around the unavailable parking area.
“That’s what I wanted,” Prince said.
Even after the win, the negative reviews continued to escalate. The law firm that represented the towing company also received hateful phone calls and messages.
“The problem is when this many complaints come in and so many of them are skewed, it hurts the actual people who do have a valid complaint that they are trying to get resolved,” Lamont said.
That was when the towing company decided to sue Prince for defamation.
“I don’t even know what to say. In my entire career, I have never met anybody like this,” Heideman said. “He just won’t stop.”
Prince said he has received several Facebook messages from people offering him money and legal advice. One Lehi law firm offered to represent him in court, as Prince hasn’t yet hired an attorney.
“I knew too many stories of friends and other people who had been towed illegally or had been victims of predatory towing,” Prince said. “I didn’t feel like I could just let it slide.”
