DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 53705--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: b789
Date: January 16, 2025, 12:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Remind me in a few days unless someone else cares to knock
something up in the meantime. There's no real rush as you have
until 18th February to submit the POPLA appeal.
#Post#: 54137--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: Wraith
Date: January 20, 2025, 4:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good morning, reminder to get something back to me as suggested.
As always, appreciated.
#Post#: 54163--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: b789
Date: January 20, 2025, 5:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Before the appeal, you may as well have some fun at METs
expense. Their appeal rejection is so absurd, that it warrants a
formal complaint to MET which they are obliged to respond to so
that you can escalate it to the BPA to highlight METs
intellectual malnourishment and why they are not fit to be
allowed to operate.
Send the following as a PDF attachment in an email to
complaints@metparking.com and CC in
customerservices@mcdonalds.co.uk and yourself:
--- Quote ---
> MET Parking Services Ltd
> PO Box 64168
> London
> WC1A 9BE
>
> By email: complaints@metparking.com
> CC: customerservices@mcdonalds.co.uk
>
> [Date]
>
> Dear MET Parking Services,
>
> I am writing to formally complain about your handling of my
appeal regarding Parking Charge Notice [PCN NUMBER], issued in
relation to an alleged parking contravention at McDonald’s
Leytonstone.
>
> The rejection of my appeal, dated 16th January 2025, is so
absurdly deficient in logic and evidence that it calls into
question not only the validity of the charge but also the
competence of the individual who composed the response. If the
author of that letter is representative of your company’s
intellectual calibre, one can only hope there is at least one
responsible adult within MET Parking Services who might explain
the gravity of this complaint to them.
>
> 1. The Preposterous "Survey" Claim
>
> You have stated that your parking attendant, in collaboration
with a McDonald’s staff member, conducted a “survey” of all
customers in the busy restaurant—including those in the
toilets—and concluded that there was no one “taking
responsibility” for my vehicle.
>
> This claim is so utterly ridiculous that it warrants closer
scrutiny:
>
> [indent]• Privacy Concerns: Are you seriously suggesting that
your attendant was monitoring customers in private areas such as
toilets? If so, this raises significant ethical and legal issues
regarding the surveillance practices of your staff.
>
> • Feasibility: How, in a busy McDonald’s restaurant, could
your attendant feasibly identify every single customer, verify
their activities, and ascertain who was “taking responsibility”
for any given vehicle? This task is not only impossible but also
nonsensical and I suggest the response is mendacious.
>
> • Fabrication: Without any evidence to support this “survey,”
it appears this narrative has been fabricated to justify the
issuance of the charge. If this “survey” truly occurred, I
request you provide time-stamped documentation, signed
statements from the parking attendant and McDonald’s staff, and
CCTV evidence to support your claim.[/indent]
>
> 2. Lack of Evidence
>
> Your rejection letter contains no evidence to substantiate
your claim that the occupants of the vehicle left the premises.
The photographs included in your Notice to Keeper merely show a
parked vehicle, which proves nothing about the alleged breach.
The complete absence of evidence in your response renders your
position untenable.
>
> 3. Unclear and Unfair Terms
>
> Your signage fails to clearly state whether it is the driver
or all occupants of the vehicle who must remain on the premises.
If the expectation is that all occupants must remain, this is an
unreasonable and unenforceable term under the Consumer Rights
Act 2015. Moreover, if the signage refers only to the driver,
your case fails outright, as you have made no effort to identify
the driver and cannot transfer liability to the keeper under the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as your Notice to Keeper is
non-compliant.
>
> 4. Entrapment and Predatory Practices
>
> If your parking attendant genuinely believed a breach was
imminent, their responsibility was to intervene and prevent it,
not sit silently while observing what they later deemed to be a
contravention. Your approach appears predatory, prioritising
revenue generation over fair and reasonable enforcement of
parking terms.
>
> 5. Conduct of Your Staff
>
> It is difficult to ignore the appalling lack of
professionalism and basic reasoning exhibited in your rejection
letter. Whoever composed it has demonstrated an extraordinary
level of intellectual malnourishment. If the recipient of this
complaint is equally incapable of grasping the absurdity of your
response, I strongly recommend that they consult a responsible
adult within your organisation who can explain it to them.
>
> Resolution Requested
>
> Given the numerous failings outlined above, I request that
you:
>
> [indent]1. Cancel the Parking Charge Notice immediately.
>
> 2. Provide a full written explanation addressing the points
raised in this complaint.
>
> 3. Confirm that you have reviewed and addressed the conduct of
the individual responsible for composing the rejection
letter.[/indent]
>
> If you fail to resolve this complaint satisfactorily, I will
have no hesitation in escalating the matter to the British
Parking Association (BPA) and other relevant bodies.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> [YOUR NAME]
--- End Quote ---
I did speak with McDonalds about this issue and the privacy
concerns and allegation that one of their staff members was
involved with this "survey" which included checking in the
toilets and they would like to be copied in and will escalate
this up their management food chain.
We have plenty of time to do the POPLA appeal if this letter
does not get the matter resolved first.
#Post#: 54201--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: Wraith
Date: January 20, 2025, 8:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, will get this sent off today. Do they need to respond
within a certain timeframe?
#Post#: 54208--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: b789
Date: January 20, 2025, 9:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Wraith link ---
>
> Thanks, will get this sent off today. Do they need to respond
within a certain timeframe?
>
--- End Quote ---
What does the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(PPSCoP) say?
BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice
HTML https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf
#Post#: 54373--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: Wraith
Date: January 21, 2025, 12:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, just received a response from Met Parking and McDonald's
customer services. The McDonald's response seems to be a
standard fob off letter and the response from Met Parking
complains is to palm the complaint back to their appeals
department...
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 54433--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: b789
Date: January 21, 2025, 7:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Not really interested in METs response. The formal complaint has
been submitted and they are required to respond to the issues
raised.
What is interesting is the response from McDonalds. Please show
it.
As they are jointly and severally liable for the actions of
their agents, and as they were copied in on the formal complaint
to MET, they have questions to answer because MET are claiming
that their operative acted together with one of their employees
and have likely breached your GDPR which makes them liable to a
claim for compensation under the Data Protection Act.
#Post#: 54435--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: Wraith
Date: January 21, 2025, 7:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It would seem from Met's response that they have no intention of
responding to the complaint. Mcdonald's response atteched...
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 54436--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: b789
Date: January 21, 2025, 7:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Send the following as a formal complaint to the BPA and copy in
MET and McDonalds:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Complaint Against MET Parking Services -
Fabrication of Evidence for PCN [reference number]
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> I am writing to lodge a formal complaint against MET Parking
Services regarding their handling of PCN [reference number] and,
more critically, the blatant fabrication of evidence upon which
their claim rests.
>
> On [date], I submitted a formal complaint to MET Parking
Services challenging the legitimacy of this PCN. Instead of
addressing the points raised, MET provided a generic and wholly
inadequate response, incorrectly treating my formal complaint as
an appeal. This dismissive handling of the matter shows a
complete disregard for the standards of professional conduct
required under the BPA Code of Practice.
>
> MET Parking Services has alleged that the driver and
passengers of the vehicle in question "left the site" while the
vehicle remained in the McDonald’s Leytonstone car park.
As part of their justification for issuing this PCN, MET has
made the preposterous claim that their operative, together with
a McDonald’s employee, conducted a "survey" of every
customer in the restaurant — including those in the
toilets — to ascertain that no one in the restaurant was
connected to the vehicle. This claim is so outrageously
implausible that it warrants immediate investigation.
>
> It is obvious to any reasonable person that such a "survey"
could not and did not take place. MET has failed to provide any
credible evidence to support this mendacious allegation. Their
claim is an insult to intelligence and demonstrates a complete
disregard for the standards of professionalism and fairness
required of a BPA member.
>
> This fabrication is not only absurd but also indicative of a
wider issue with MET’s conduct. It raises serious concerns
about their willingness to rely on blatantly false narratives to
pursue parking charges. Should MET attempt to litigate this
matter, their claims would be laughed out of court, and their
behaviour would likely result in sanctions for unreasonable
conduct. I am prepared to counterclaim for damages and expose
this farce to the media if MET persists in pursuing this
baseless charge.
>
> The BPA must take this matter seriously. By allowing such
behaviour to go unchecked, the BPA risks its own reputation and
credibility as the Approved Trade Association that purports to
regulate its members. If the court were to see such conduct
exposed, it would undoubtedly reflect poorly on the BPA’s
oversight of its members.
>
> I request that the BPA:
>
> [indent]1. Investigate MET Parking Services for fabricating
evidence in support of PCN [reference number].
>
> 2. Require MET to provide clear and unequivocal evidence to
substantiate their claim, including detailed records of the
alleged "survey."
>
> 3. Take appropriate action to ensure that MET Parking Services
ceases such deceitful practices immediately.[/indent]
>
> The BPA’s role is to ensure that its members adhere to
the highest standards of integrity. Allowing MET to continue
with such behaviour without consequence would undermine public
trust in the BPA and the private parking industry as a whole.
>
> I look forward to your response and confirmation that you are
treating this matter with the seriousness it deserves.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> 
[Your Full Name]

> [Your Address]

> [Your Contact Information]
--- End Quote ---
You will have to submit it through the BPA portal at
HTML https://portal.britishparking.co.uk/compliance/LogComplaint
You will need to upload a copy of METs response to your formal
complaint. You can also upload the original complaint. As for
the content above, you can either save it as a PDF and upload or
copy and paste it into the relevant box in the poertal.
#Post#: 54437--------------------------------------------------
Re: MET parking charge at McDonald’s
DIR By: b789
Date: January 21, 2025, 8:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Send this response to the feckwit “Harry” at McDonalds:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Urgent Escalation: Allegations of Privacy Breaches
and Possible Criminal Behaviour Involving McDonald’s Employee
and Agent
>
> To Whom It May Concern,
>
> I am writing to express my utter disbelief at the inadequate
and dismissive response provided by “Harry” from your Customer
Services team, dated 20 January 2025, regarding the serious
allegations I raised about MET Parking Services’ conduct and the
involvement of a McDonald’s employee in their supposed
activities.
>
> Harry’s response demonstrates a shocking lack of comprehension
and intellectual rigour. The tone and content of the response
are utterly inappropriate given the gravity of the situation.
This is not, as your response so absurdly implies, a simple
complaint about a Parking Charge Notice (PCN). This matter
involves serious allegations of privacy breaches and potentially
unlawful or criminal behaviour, committed not only by MET
Parking Services, one of your agents, but also by an individual
purporting to be your employee.
>
> The Allegations:
>
> MET Parking Services have claimed that their operative, in
collaboration with a McDonald’s employee, conducted a “survey”
of all customers within the Leytonstone restaurant, including
those in private areas such as toilets, to confirm that no one
was connected to a parked vehicle. This claim, if true, raises
critical concerns, including:
>
> [indent]1. Gross Breach of Privacy: Conducting such a “survey”
constitutes a clear and egregious violation of customer privacy.
No customer should be subject to such invasive actions while
using your facilities.
>
> 2. Unlawful or Criminal Behaviour: Any unauthorised
questioning of individuals in private areas, such as toilets,
borders on harassment and potentially constitutes criminal
conduct.
>
> 3. Fabrication and Misrepresentation: If this claim is
fabricated, it demonstrates a blatant lie by MET Parking
Services and implicates McDonald’s as jointly and severally
liable for their agent’s conduct under agency law.[/indent]
>
> Inadequacy of Your Response:
>
> The banal and entirely inappropriate response from “Harry”
exposes a complete lack of understanding of the seriousness of
the matter. Instead of addressing the key issues, your team has
reduced this to a generic script about parking restrictions and
referred me back to MET Parking Services. This is an insult to
my intelligence and to the seriousness of these allegations.
>
> McDonald’s Joint Liability:
>
> As MET Parking Services operates as your agent, and given the
alleged involvement of one of your employees in this invasive
and possibly unlawful activity, McDonald’s is jointly and
severally liable for their actions. This is not a matter you can
deflect onto MET Parking Services. The actions (or fabrications)
of your employee and agent are your responsibility, and the
failure to act appropriately in response to this complaint
compounds that liability.
>
> Demands for Immediate Action:
>
> I demand that McDonald’s take the following steps immediately:
>
> [indent]1. Escalate this matter to senior management or an
executive competent to address issues of privacy breaches,
potential criminality, and agency liability.
>
> 2. Conduct an urgent investigation into MET Parking Services’
claims that a McDonald’s employee participated in this alleged
“survey” and provide a clear, formal response explaining your
findings.
>
> 3. Provide assurances that McDonald’s takes such allegations
seriously and will hold both MET Parking Services and any
implicated employees accountable for their actions.[/indent]
>
> Consequences of Inaction:
>
> If McDonald’s continues to ignore the seriousness of this
issue or fails to act decisively, I will have no hesitation in:
>
> [indent]• Pursuing legal action against McDonald’s and MET
Parking Services for privacy breaches, harassment, and any other
actionable misconduct.
>
> • Publicising this matter widely to expose the gross
mishandling and negligence displayed by McDonald’s and its
agents.[/indent]
>
> This is your opportunity to demonstrate that McDonald’s takes
its obligations to customers seriously. I trust you will
escalate this matter appropriately and respond in a manner
befitting its seriousness.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> 
[Your Full Name]

> [Your Address]
> 
[Your Contact Information]
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page