- Report: #1115842
Complaint Review: Public Storage - Concord California
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
Public Storage
2350 Monument Blvd. Concord, CA 94520 Concord, 94520 California, USA
Phone:
1-800-688-8057
Web:
http://www.publicstorage.com
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Public Storage Non-Payment of Claims Concord California
Right after I moved into my Concord, CA B190 locker, the 30ish Mexican male who had helped me unload and store broke into my locker at least three separate times, because the original riveted lock and bolt was easily pried out into the overhead door track, even with an approved disc lock on it! I replaced this with a second disc lock after the 1st break-in (around 06/15) and told Michael at the front desk that the break-in had occurred. He only told me to file a Concord Police report which I did. Then I returned within two weeks (around 06/28) and found that the original lock had been re-loosened and pried open as before, additional boxes were taken this time. I then contacted Bernard and Neil to get them to secure my locker, and they scheduled me for a second lock hasp to be installed. I relocked my locker and placed heavy tie-wraps around the lock openings to indicate any further tampering. When I returned top the locker (around 07/06) the locker had been broken into as I noticed the second lock and bolt was cut and additional boxes were removed. Then I got Bernard to expedite Perry to meet me there and ad the second lock/hasp with a third disc lock.. Hannah Evans of Sedgwick has apparently been instructed by her management (and their Broker or Insurer - Willis Storage Insurance or Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Services) to DENY ALL Claims!
So I sent the following to Christina Rita of PS Management: Hannah Evans / Casey Kerwood of Sedgwick Claims has Denied my Claim(s) using the plausible grounds of no Evidence of a Burglary as her grounds! The original hasp lock rivets were bent/broken and the bolt was pried back into the overhead door track which it scored deeply as the Thief rolled up the door to gain access. I didn't have any phone cam or camera to take pictures but showed this to both Michael and Amelia who work there at PS Concord. So then I asked the CA Dept. of Insurance Consumer Fraud to help support my Claims denial: Esther Maston (Associate Insurance Compliance Officer, Department of Insurance, Claims Services Bureau (213) 346-6519): I received your Closure letter, however there was no reason(s) proffered for deciding to not assist me in obtaining justice. No person goes to the extent which I have in trying to obtain recompence for a VALID claim. If the claims were fraudulent or invalid, the victim would NOT do and champion the efforts that I have made! I provided you with a lot or corroborating evidence. Why didn't you inform me early on that you were vulnerable to pressure from the Theft-Case company, Public Storage? Please elevate this case to your Manager (copy me please) and request that they provide me with either continued investigation or direction to where I can obtain constructive assistance in pursuing this injustice. CONCLUSION: Public Storage has adopted an unwritten Policy of denying all claims where any plausible grounds for denial exist !!
3 Updates & Rebuttals
Robert
Irvine,California,
Position?
#2Consumer Comment
Sat, January 18, 2014
Again I am not really sure what report you are looking at but I didn't have any positions, I actually just asked a series of questions that would go toward your objectiveness. Yet how many did you answer...one(well sort of).
The fact that you had someone tell you that it was this other person who stole it means NOTHING, all your evidence is circumstantial. You already have this person convicted and "strung up" so to speak on the word of another person just because he saw something. By your logic someone could accuse you of breaking into the trunk of a car and taking some item, because you parked next to them and saw what was in the trunk when they had it opened. This is why it is fairly obvious why you didn't post what the police said when you told them what you "know".
You didn't post what the agreement you signed stated about their responsibility.
So as you can see(if you are being objective) you can keep saying that you are objective, but it does NOT make it so. You are only giving your side of the events, and no saying that they declined your claim is not giving their side. You are posting things that make your position look good, and skipping things that don't.
Now, of course I expect you to continue to swear and insist that you are being 150% objective and that someone has to be a moron if they don't see it. But coming from someone who doesn't have any stake in this either way...you need to take a step back and look at what you are actually saying.
In the end if you truly want an objective person, why don't you file a suit and let a judge decide? But just know that when you do let me just give you a little hint. The judge is going to probably ask the exact same questions I asked along with several others so that they can give you an objective decision. But just remember..you have already had one government agency who didn't think you had a claim.
R Woolley
Walnut Creek,California,
Your Rebuttal positions are Incorrect!
#3Author of original report
Sat, January 18, 2014
I KNOW that the thief was the 30s Mexican male who helped me unload because his fellow day-laborers told me! Also, he remained up at the Locker as I made multiple trips down to the truck, and the ONLY person who knew that I had a new 48" Nexus TV in the locker was this person who relocated the TV from the back wall (where it was blocked in to out front next to the door. I was told that this thief has broken =in here several times before too. This facility has had a minimum of 12 Thefts reported to the Concord, CA Police plus one Car theft rom inside their gate in the last 10 months! The Security at this facility is very poor, and I've had to send them a list of deficiencies. You should spend your time trying to realize that I am telling the Objective Truth!
Robert
Irvine,California,
Comments..
#4Consumer Comment
Thu, January 16, 2014
First I don't know who you think you are talking to but this is just a consumer site and no one here has any power to do anything for you. The best you can hope for is that someone from Public Storage reads this and leaves their contact information for you.
Now as to your actual situation, one thing stands out.
the 30ish Mexican male who had helped me unload and store broke into my locker at least three separate times,
- How do you know this for a fact? What did the police do when you told them this information? Then even if this is the case why is Public Storage Responsible?
You never mentioned what your actual claim for damages are, but what ever your claims are what proof do you have of the damages, and even more importantly that those items were in the storage locker? As by your own admission they were removing boxes and unless these are see through boxes how would anyone know what was in them.
Then a big key is what does the rental agreement say about responsibility. If I was to guess it probably says they are not responsible for break-ins.
. If the claims were fraudulent or invalid, the victim would NOT do and champion the efforts that I have made!
- Actually, you would be very shocked as to what some "victims" will do to try and prove their fraudulent claim. Oh and NO I am not saying this is your case, I am just pointing out that some people are not honest as others and are very good at lying.
