Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 8 of 13
  1. #1
    ams's Avatar
    ams
    ams is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Stockton, Ca.
    Posts
    601

    Default Cook v. Public Storage

    Everyone should take a look at this. This effects others besides Wisconsin.

    There are so many things that we did as normal procedure that has been put on it's head by the Appeals Court. Like change of address, inventory prior to sale, description of goods and authorized access, to name a few (the lawsuit was brought by someone who wasn't the tenant).

    Tom Litton referenced this case a lot during his webinar, and when I downloaded the case, it made me nauseous.

    This is not fun reading, but it is very very important reading for all.

    If my employee says one more time, "well it is her or his stuff in the unit" I will terminate our employee-employer relationship

    --
    Ron

  2. #2
    ams's Avatar
    ams
    ams is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Stockton, Ca.
    Posts
    601

    Default Re: Cook v. Public Storage


  3. #3
    Autodoc's Avatar
    Autodoc is online now Mod eMeritus
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Jamestown, ND
    Posts
    2,854

    Default Re: Cook v. Public Storage

    Once again PS puts their worst foot forward

    They did so many things wrong in this case it's surprising the Cooks don't own that facility!

    Once again - following the lien laws will usually keep you safe.

    Thanks for bringing this one up again -- keeps us all thinking.
    Wayne
    Jamestown, ND


    All arguments can be resolved ... with high explosives and Humor!!!

  4. #4
    LauraGVAZ's Avatar
    LauraGVAZ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Sahuarita AZ
    Posts
    154

    Default Re: Cook v. Public Storage

    I read almost all of it, this case was brought on in 2008, some of the issues have changed, I do not think the plaintiff should have been awarded all that money BUT I would have handled all a little different, as a courtesy even if a customer has not filled out an actual "legal" address change, and this unit is in lien I will send a letter to that address also, and these people had only not paid one month, I think I would have contacted the second contact on the contract, you just have to be very careful as I did read about this case in ISS Magazine when it was unfolding and after that I have always remembered what could happen if you dont follow that law, and hey why not just go a little further, of course we would rather have that unit paid up by the customer than lose money with auctioning the unit! Okay I am ready bring it on.... I am sure this will bring alot of different views.....

  5. #5
    LauraGVAZ's Avatar
    LauraGVAZ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Sahuarita AZ
    Posts
    154

    Default Re: Cook v. Public Storage

    yes and this is why I dont and will not work for Public Storage, I have a sister in law that does in Colorado, they are not a good company to work for either....

  6. #6
    BigJ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    102

    Default Re: Cook v. Public Storage

    Even though i'm in Canada, I took the time to read about this out of curiosity. I belive the settlements are out to lunch but how does a facility auction the wrong unit? I've heard this before on here and still can't come to grips with it. That has to be an example of the poorest kind of management that I have ever heard of and they deserved to be sued.

  7. #7
    ams's Avatar
    ams
    ams is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Stockton, Ca.
    Posts
    601

    Default Re: Cook v. Public Storage

    Much of it seems to be a blunder on PS, however some of the published opinions are disturbing.

    Many facilities utilize Access Cards or an Access Option on their agreements, which the tenant grants rights to another person. Many of these Access Cards state that the person on the card has the right to get the access code from the facility etc. The judges state by allowing access to the premises it is safe to surmise the authorized party is being allowed to store their own property.

    The judges also state that for a commercially reasonable sale, it is the facility's duty to obtain the best price for a unit. Which can not be done if we don't know what is in the boxes or behind the soiled mattress.

    I know this case is from 2008 however if the Published Opinion has many targets on facilities and how we operate today.

  8. #8
    LauraGVAZ's Avatar
    LauraGVAZ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Sahuarita AZ
    Posts
    154

    Default Re: Cook v. Public Storage

    In Mr. Ltton's last seminar that I attended he said that they actually look thru the items and place the more expensive items in the front so that they may get more money for items, my company does not touch anything, but I guess laws have changed and you may do that now... If your company agrees with this arrangement. Again I do not think they should have been awarded that much money but Public Storage did make many mistakes,

 

 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •