Chapter 93A Demand Against Private Parking Operator
MGL c.93A §9 (consumer protection) allows a written demand for relief against private lot operators (LAZ Parking, SP+, ABM, ImPark, etc.) who issue 'parking invoices' that are NOT government citations. Common 93A claims: deceptive signage about fee structure, threats falsely implying government authority, charging exorbitant 'collection fees,' refusal to provide photographic evidence. A 93A demand entitles a consumer to double or treble damages plus attorney's fees if not properly responded to within 30 days.
Legal basis
MGL c.93A §2 (unfair/deceptive practices); MGL c.93A §9 (consumer remedies); Aspinall v. Philip Morris, 442 Mass. 381 (consumer standing)
Sample appeal wording
CHAPTER 93A DEMAND LETTER Via Certified Mail — Return Receipt Requested To: [PRIVATE OPERATOR NAME] Date: [DATE] Re: Invoice #[ID] — Plate [PLATE] This is a demand for relief under MGL c.93A §9. Your demand for $[AMOUNT] is unfair and deceptive in that: 1. Your signage at [LOCATION] is deceptive — [DESCRIBE: hidden fee schedule / contradictory terms / no fee posted]. 2. Your invoice falsely implies governmental authority (use of words 'CITATION', 'VIOLATION', 'NOTICE', references to 'court'). 3. You have failed to produce photographic evidence on request. 4. Your 'collection fee' of $[X] is unconscionable. Demand: (a) immediate withdrawal of the invoice; (b) confirmation that no DMV/credit-bureau reporting has occurred or will occur; (c) $25 for time/postage. If not received within 30 days I will pursue MGL c.93A §9 multiple damages, attorney's fees, and costs. [NAME] [ADDRESS]
Replace [PARKING DATE], [NtK DATE] etc. with your own dates before sending.
Beat It writes this argument automatically
Scan your PCN — our AI checks if this ground applies to your specific ticket, drafts a properly-cited appeal letter, and submits it to the council on your behalf. Only pay if you win.
Scan my ticketSources
- MGL c.93A §§2, 9
- Mass AG private parking guidance — mass.gov/ago