English Bulldog Puppies for Sale in Lakewood, CO

As Steve On Your Side investigated 4x4 Colorado over frustration from customers about unfulfilled orders, the owners announced a pending bankruptcy.

LAKEWOOD, Colo. — A Lakewood-based rooftop tent company has shuttered its operations and announced plans to file for bankruptcy, leaving customers across the country waiting for orders they paid thousands of dollars for — some nearly a year ago.

4x4 Colorado Rooftop Tents padlocked its showroom near Casa Bonita, took down its website and stopped responding to some customer inquiries this fall before announcing its closure via Instagram. The company blamed tariffs, supply chain issues and a growing number of refunds for its financial troubles.

Jason Padilla, of Fresno, California, spent $3,100 on a rooftop tent in mid-May after seeing reviews from YouTube influencers.

"I really fell in love with it. I mean, the way it looked, the way how it opened up," Padilla said.

Months later, he's still waiting for his order.

"I'm just waiting for it and waiting for it," he said.

In Washington, Nicholas and his girlfriend Kelsey purchased an awning for $1,000 and a tent for $2,300 around Black Friday last year. While the awning arrived, the tent never did.

"Every month, you reach out and they said 'It's next month, it's next month, it's next month,'" Kelsey said.

The couple was repeatedly told their tent was on the next shipping container, with the company citing tariff issues as the reason for delays.

"Their customer service is always like, you had to reach out to them first. They never reached out to you first," Nicholas said.

After nearly a year of waiting, the couple said the company stopped responding entirely this summer.

4x4 Colorado has an F rating with the Better Business Bureau (BBB).

"We've seen a lot of complaints come through for this business in a relatively short period of time," said Megan Conradt with the BBB.

The complaints detail similar stories of unfulfilled orders worth thousands of dollars.

Most customers reported that their last communication from the company came in September — an email promising more detailed updates. After that, the phone went unanswered and the website disappeared.

"When you call them, it just rings and rings," Padilla said.

Steve On Your Side attempted to reach the company owners through phone messages, text messages, emails and two visits to the Lakewood showroom, but received no response.

The company's Instagram post announcing the closure and bankruptcy filing came late on Monday morning before the story was set to air on 9NEWS. The company said new tariffs equaled a 130% increase in costs.

As of the time of reporting, no official bankruptcy filing had been recorded and the company and its owners had not responded to repeated requests for comment.

In the post, the company said the owner had reached out to customers to explain the situation and had already refunded a half a million dollars.

Customers who spoke to Steve On Your Side said they didn't feel this process has been transparent.

"I'm very angry. I mean, I saved a lot, man. I mean, I had plans, you know what I mean," Padilla said.

He has since adapted by purchasing a $50 air mattress from Walmart to sleep in the back of his truck.

Nicholas and Kelsey remain uncertain about recovering their money.

"We're hopeful that the bank will work with us, but they already denied the charge back once because they said it was too far outside of the statement date," Kelsey said.

The BBB recommends customers contact their credit card company or bank to dispute charges and file complaints with the attorney general in the state where the payment was made.

"Sometimes the credit card company or the bank can help dispute those charges," Conradt said, emphasizing the importance of saving all purchase documentation, receipts and email communications.

She also recommended complaining to your state attorney general if a company hasn't fulfilled an order you paid for.

Steve Staeger is the consumer investigator at 9NEWS. Anna Hewson is the consumer investigative producer. Contact Steve On Your Side with consumer problems and story ideas.

Lakewood is the fifth largest city in Colorado and is located close to the Denver metropolitan area. It is perhaps best known for its winter weather and the area is very popular with those looking for winter adventures, thanks to its location in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. This means that there are plenty of opportunities for dog walking.

However, the city only has two dedicated off-leash dog parks. We have, therefore, include two other dog parks in the list below, so that you can find somewhere appropriate to take your pups.

The 4 Off-Leash Dog Parks in Lakewood, CO

Dogs Welcome But Must Be Kept On A Leash

Final Thoughts

Off-leash dog parks provide a great opportunity for your dog to stretch its legs, socialize with other dogs, and exercise its brain as well as its body. The best off-leash parks are usually fenced off, providing a safe place for dogs to run around with no danger of them getting free and roaming to streets and surrounding areas. There are only two off-leash dog parks in Lakewood, CO: Barnum and Forsberg.

But a number of other parks and trails do welcome well-behaved dogs. In all cases, owners need to keep their dogs under control and ensure that they tidy up after them, for the benefit of all park users.

Related Reads:

Featured Image Credit: Ksenia Raykova, Shutterstock

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Lakewood improperly expanded the scope of a 1969 tax ordinance twice to encompass cell phone providers without holding the popular vote the state constitution requires.

A Jefferson County judge previously determined the city’s actions failed to comply with the 1992 Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, which generally requires voters to approve any new tax or tax rate increase. Lakewood appealed to the Supreme Court with a policy argument: Local governments need to be able to reinterpret their laws to encompass emerging and unforeseen variations on things that are already taxed.

But the justices brushed aside that contention, noting the city’s modifications swept in new entities who would not otherwise be subject to the tax specifically intended to cover traditional telephone providers.

“The Lakewood City Council could have drafted the 1969 Ordinance to enact a tax on the business and occupation of providing telecommunications services, but it did not do so,” wrote Justice Richard L. Gabriel

in the Sept. 8 opinion.

Attorneys for Lakewood and for the plaintiff, T-Mobile subsidiary MetroPCS, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In 1969, Lakewood enacted a business and occupation tax on entities that maintained a “telephone exchange and lines” in the city. It encompassed one corporation, known as Mountain Bell. After federal and state laws changed in 1996 to require taxes to be “competitively neutral among telecommunications providers,” Lakewood amended its tax to encompass entities providing cellular service to businesses.

Again in 2015, the city modified its ordinance to include cell service providers to persons, as well. In neither instance did it hold a popular vote under TABOR.

When a 2021 audit showed MetroPCS owed $1.6 million to Lakewood after it began providing cell service in 2014, MetroPCS sued for a declaration that the tax violated TABOR and Lakewood should have to refund the money collected illegally pursuant to the constitutional provision.

In an April 2024 order, District Court Judge Chantel Contiguglia evaluated the 1996 and 2015 revisions to the ordinance to determine if they constituted a new tax, a tax rate increase or a tax policy change causing a net revenue gain — the three conditions requiring a TABOR vote. Under the Supreme Court’s precedent, “incidental and de minimis” revenue increases would not amount to a violation.

She agreed the ordinances were a new tax on cell phone providers. While Contiguglia believed Lakewood genuinely was responding to changes in federal law, she found the city also intended to generate tax revenue by sweeping in new targets of the business and occupation tax.

“This data clearly demonstrates that after adoption of the 1996 Ordinance Lakewood collected, attempted to collect, or was entitled to collect, monies that it would not have been entitled to under the 1969 Ordinance,” Contiguglia wrote.

She added that Lakewood took in 11.4% more revenue after the 1996 modification, making the tax change substantial.

Finally, she rejected the city’s argument that a 2018 vote authorizing Lakewood to retain revenue above the TABOR cap retroactively legitimized the revisions.

Lakewood appealed to the Supreme Court, and multiple outside entities weighed in.

“Under the district court’s rigid interpretation of TABOR, a municipality that imposes a tax using certain definitions or terminology is forever bound to those terms absent voter approval of a change,” wrote the Colorado Municipal League in favor of the city.

“Lakewood did not merely clarify the meaning of the statute,” countered the Colorado Chamber of Commerce. “Instead, the Ordinances expanded the City’s taxing authority by imposing the Tax on new taxpayers and activities that were not previously subject to the Tax.”

The Supreme Court agreed with Contiguglia’s conclusions.

“The plain language of the 1969 Ordinance expressly limited its application to a narrow class of providers, namely, utility companies that maintained a telephone exchange and lines connected therewith and that supplied local exchange telephone service in Lakewood,” wrote Gabriel. By 2015, the city “brought within the tax’s scope, for the first time, providers that supply cellular service to any person (rather than only to a business or entity).”

Because the changes did not merely increase tax revenue incidentally, the Supreme Court concluded they required advance voter approval. Consequently, both ordinances are now void.

The case is MetroPCS California, LLC v. City of Lakewood.