Parking Ticket Refund Is a Long Time Coming

Parking violations produce big revenue for the city of Los Angeles. Fines grossed $114 million in fiscal 1998-99, and, after expenses, netted the city’s general fund a record $91.2 million. Next year’s net is projected at $95.1 million.

So, it certainly seems appropriate to examine mistakes that are occasionally made in enforcing the parking laws by both the city and its outside private contractor, Lockheed Martin, hired 15 years ago to process citations.

This is the second time in a little over a month that a Times column is appearing about a parking fine that was reversed in court. My colleague, Shawn Hubler, wrote the first about Kenneth M. Landon of Los Angeles, who fought for a year and a half to get a favorable verdict. But once he finally did, he received his refund fairly quickly, although, as usual, without interest.

However, in this case, involving John Wilcock, a resident of Ojai, the reversal occurred nearly six months ago, but the court order that the city reimburse the fine and filing fee, a total of $330, has not yet been followed.

Now, a few days after I began inquiring into the matter, both the city and Lockheed Martin say a check will go out next week.

Still, they are imprecise as to why the refund has been so long delayed. The file on the case, both the city and the private processors say, has been “archived” by Lockheed Martin and is not available.

I first heard from Wilcock on Oct. 27. “I am sorry to bother you with what seems like a trivial matter, but it has caused me no end of stress and trouble for more than a year and I feel totally helpless about what to do next,” he wrote.

“It concerns a parking ticket that I got (at LAX in October, 1999), appealed and had my appeal upheld. But the Parking Authority defies all attempts to get the fine remitted even though that’s what the judge ordained. I feel I am dealing here with an authority that is acting completely above the law.”

Wilcock enclosed a copy of a “Notice of Decision” signed by Gerald Sallus, a Los Angeles judge pro tem, last May 22.

“Mr. Wilcock appeared,” Sallus wrote. “Court paperwork not provided (by the prosecution) in time. His argument for reversal was . . . persuasive.” So, the citation was “Reversed. Contestant to recover deposit of parking penalty and filing fee.”

In his letter, Wilcock recounted his defense for me. “It was not a handicapped parking space but one of those adjoining spaces in which the white lines were completely obscured by mud and sand,” he said, “thus giving the impression it was OK for parking. . . . I took photographs of the site and sent [them] in with the ticket, fully confident that common sense would prevail.”

Instead, he was informed that to contest the citation, he had to pay the fine and filing fees first.

When Wilcock got to court, after unsuccessfully presenting his case before a city hearing officer, the lack of any prosecutorial presence probably was decisive.

To me, I admit, Wilcock’s defense is not totally convincing. He was cited for allegedly parking, during a London trip, in a handicapped space in Lot C at LAX.

I’ve parked in Lot C many times myself and have never noticed mud and sand obscuring parking spaces.

But as Robert Andalon, speaking for the city in this matter, declares, that is not the point.

“I’ve come to understand in this job, it’s not about right or wrong,” he observes. “It’s what the law is, and the law in this particular case was that the man presented his evidence, our side wasn’t there and the judge made his decision on what evidence was available.”

So why then hasn’t Wilcock received his refund?

*

Andalon said that the reason may have something to do with Wilcock not being the registered owner of the vehicle and having lost such supporting documents as his canceled check for paying the fine.

“We have to make sure we are paying the refund to the right person,” he said. “We don’t want to find out later that it’s owed to a second person.”

But, he said, since I first called last Thursday, “We were able to find proof of his payment and we have ascertained that a copy of the court order came to us, and we forwarded it to Lockheed Martin.

“Now, we’re trying to retrieve the file from them, to see what went wrong.”

But since it was on Lockheed Martin’s watch that neither the paperwork in the case was provided the court, nor the refund was made in a timely way, Andalon, a management analyst for the parking administrator, said he was “leaning toward” a belief that the firm, not the city, bears primary blame in the matter.

He referred me to Ann Muensternuiry, a Lockheed Martin vice president in L.A. But when I reached her she said it was corporate policy that she could speak to the media only with permission from the firm’s Washington PR department. She did say, however, that for Los Angeles, “We’ve done a great job and continue to do a great job.”

Soon, I had a call from Kathleen Dezio, the Washington PR person. She did the talking for Lockheed Martin.

Dezio said that in processing the 3.1 million parking tickets that L.A. issues annually the firm handles 625,000 pieces of correspondence each year and receives a million phone calls.

“It’s a very, very complex business,” she said. “In this case, he should have received his refund and he’ll get it next week. But I don’t think we can say why this happened. We readily admit there will be isolated occurrences like this.”

Wilcock was not inclined to be understanding.

The city’s contracting out the processing of parking citations “makes it very easy for them to pass the buck,” he said. “They don’t seem to be accountable.”

*

Ken Reich can be contacted with your accounts of true consumer adventure at (213) 237-7060 or by e-mail at ken.reich@latimes.com