Jump to content


PPI Ticket and McDonalds response


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4371 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

My daughter visited McD's in Rotherham, She stayed longer than the specified time

and because the vehicle is a company vehicle I received the parking "fine"

which of course I will not be paying. I emailed their customer relations and I think

You may be interested in the response I have received so here it is.

If this is not allowed on here please remove it thanks

 

Dear Mrs ********

I am writing further to your e-mail regarding your daughter's visit to our Tankersley restaurant. I have noted your comments and welcome the opportunity to confirm our policy on this matter.

 

As a company, putting in place enforcements within our car parks is only done after careful consideration and very much as a last resort. Primarily, we use parking measures to ensure there are spaces available for our customers’ vehicles, as well as to deter unwarranted or unreasonably prolonged usage of the facility.

 

I can confirm this parking area is managed by an independent company who are responsible for monitoring the car park and taking details of registration numbers. The regulations and signs at the restaurant clearly state our policy and the relevant charges.

 

I trust you will appreciate that in order to maintain a consistent approach; we have to adhere to the guidelines in place. As such, in a situation such as a clear contravention of parking regulations, we are unable to deal with any specifics or cases on an individual basis.

 

Suffice to say, if a customer contravenes the clearly displayed parking regulations, they will receive a ticket.

 

Thank you for contacting us and again for the opportunity to comment.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

 

Senior Customer Services Manager

 

McDonald's Customer Services Department

11 - 59 High Road

East Finchley

London

N2 8AW

 

Tel: 08705 244622

 

So now we know !! no more visits to McD's for us and all my staff of Drivers are backing me so........

BYE BYE McD's

Link to post
Share on other sites

we use parking measures to ensure there are spaces available for our customers’ vehicles, as well as to deter unwarranted or unreasonably prolonged usage of the facility.

How long is too long? Don't McD's do kids parties? Not any more apparently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to read МакДональдс response to -

 

- the 'ticket' is nothing more than a Speculative Invoice with no authority or binding force, albeit 'dressed up' and in language designed to deceive people into thinking it is a legal document .

- there are no 'Regulations'. The term is intended to deceive. There could only possibly be 'Terms and Conditions'.

- there is no 'Contravention'. The term is intended to deceive. There could only possibly be 'Breach of Terms and Conditions'.

- the only possible claim a Court might entertain in the circumstances could be for Trespass or (more dubiously) Breach of Contract. For either of which they can only possibly win their actual monetry loss. And for being in a Free Car Park their loss is?

- the only possible claim can be against the Driver and there is no legal obligation for the RK to identify the Driver, other than to Police or Councils.

- possibly only the land owner can take such action (subject to a recent case being clarified).

- notwithstanding any or all of the above, the PPC will apply 'unreasonable pressure' tantamount to harrassment, with a series of increasing threats, often incorrectly misrepresenting the Law, to attempt to coerce the RK to make payment of legally unsustainable amounts which are never the RKs responsibility in the first place.

 

Do they, as a global brand that projects and protects it's wholesome image, feel happy to be associated with and support such deceptions and dubious business practices ?

Edited by Tony P
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they, as a global brand that projects and protects it's wholesome image, feel happy to be associated with and support such deceptions and dubious business practices ?

 

Are you serious? Read up on the points they lost in the Mclibel case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony P.... I have included your points in the email I have sent to McD's in response to their email

I am not very impressed that any service supplier would treat the very people who spend their

hard earned money with them with such contempt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to read МакДональдс response to -

 

- the 'ticket' is nothing more than a Speculative Invoice with no authority or binding force, albeit 'dressed up' and in language designed to deceive people into thinking it is a legal document .

- there are no 'Regulations'. The term is intended to deceive. There could only possibly be 'Terms and Conditions'.

- there is no 'Contravention'. The term is intended to deceive. There could only possibly be 'Breach of Terms and Conditions'.

- the only possible claim a Court might entertain in the circumstances could be for Trespass or (more dubiously) Breach of Contract. For either of which they can only possibly win their actual monetry loss. And for being in a Free Car Park their loss is?

- the only possible claim can be against the Driver and there is no legal obligation for the RK to identify the Driver, other than to Police or Councils.

- possibly only the land owner can take such action (subject to a recent case being clarified).

- notwithstanding any or all of the above, the PPC will apply 'unreasonable pressure' tantamount to harrassment, with a series of increasing threats, often incorrectly misrepresenting the Law, to attempt to coerce the RK to make payment of legally unsustainable amounts which are never the RKs responsibility in the first place.

 

Do they, as a global brand that projects and protects it's wholesome image, feel happy to be associated with and support such deceptions and dubious business practices ?

 

Heres the response from McD

 

Dear Mrs Jennings

 

Thank you for your further contact regarding your visit to our Tankerley restaurant. I am very sorry to learn that you were disappointed with my response.

 

 

 

I regret that in a situation such as a contravention of parking regulations, we are unable to deal with any specifics or cases on an individual basis. Suffice to say, if a customer contravenes the clearly displayed parking regulations, they will receive a ticket.

 

 

 

I have once again reviewed all the information gained and I do appreciate your further comments, our position on this matter has not changed.

 

 

 

Thank you for contacting us again and I am sorry that we can be of no further assistance to you.

 

 

Regards

 

 

 

Rhonda Floyd

Senior Customer Services Manager

 

McDonald's Customer Services Department

11 - 59 High Road

East Finchley

London

N2 8AW

 

08705 244622

Link to post
Share on other sites

is the mclibel site still up?

 

My phones playing up and a second browser wont open.

 

Its worth a read if it is - as is the wikipedia McDs page, ?court action/libel? section.

 

Or search on sewerage store room!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's plenty about Mclibel on the internet. Wiki has a page on it. Given this widely-reported case it seems absurd to claim that they have a "wholesome image" to protect. These are some of the points on public record from the court case:

 

Bell ruled that McDonald's endangered the health of their workers and customers by "misleading advertising"

 

that they "exploit children",

 

that they were "culpably responsible" in the infliction of unnecessary cruelty to animals,

 

and that they were "antipathetic" to unionisation and paid their workers low wages.

 

Court of Appeal

 

The verdict for the appeal was handed down on 31 March, in Court 1 at the Royal Courts of Justice. The judges ruled that it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide 'do badly in terms of pay and conditions' and true that 'if one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease.'

 

They further stated that this last finding 'must have a serious effect on their trading reputation since it goes to the very business in which they are engaged. In our judgment, it must have a greater impact on the respondents' [McDonald's] reputation than any other of the charges that the trial judge had found to be true'.

 

The Court of Appeal also stated that it had 'considerable sympathy' with the defendants' submissions that the leaflet meant 'that there is a respectable (not cranky) body of medical opinion which links a junk food diet with a risk of cancer and heart disease',

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...