A Parking Operations Company received from the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) decision that held that the parking lot contained more cars than were permitted under the issued license. The Parking Company retained ALBPC to try and reverse the decision and Pete Reid was assigned to the case.
The DCA Hearings Division had issued a default judgment against the client because the client had failed to appear at a scheduled hearing date. As a result the Parking Operations Company were faced with the threat of a ‘Stop Work’ Order. Within a matter of hours upon receipt of the file, Pete Reid went in person to the Department of Consumer Affairs Hearings Division to request a new hearing date but was told that the Hearing Division would not entertain a request for rescheduling ex parte. Later that same day, Pete Reid faxed a letter to all sides informing them that he would be seeking a new hearing date on the following day.
On the following day, Pete Reid appeared at the Department of Consumer Affairs Hearings Division and was able to speak to a Settlement Officer. Pete Reid requested a new hearing on the grounds that the client was not properly served and that the client had a meritorious defence. The Department of Consumer Affairs Settlement Officer stated that as the matter was already in default, he could only consider a new hearing with the permission of the Petitioner – the Department of Consumer Affairs.
On the next day, Pete Reid visited the Department of Consumer Affairs Offices to seek their permission to reschedule a hearing. The Department of Consumer Affairs refused to allow the default to be lifted and stated that they would need evidence of the meritorious defense before they would allow a hearing to be rescheduled. However, the Department of Consumer Affairs reluctantly agreed to stay the entering of the default to allow Respondent to submit such evidence.
On the following day, Pete Reid submitted a “motion to reschedule” to the Department of Consumer Affairs Hearing Division and the Department of Consumer Affairs Offices demonstrating that there were actually three separate licenses that could to this particular parking lot and that the Inspecting Officer had only cited one of these. This evidence demonstrated that the Inspecting Officer may have been mistaken in his allegations.
Two weeks later, ALBPC received notice from the DCA that they would be vacating the decision and order and withdrawing all related charges. The Parking Operations Company were able to continue operations throughout.
Pete Reid, Esq. appeared on behalf of ALBPC.