Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I feel that people are focusing too much on the OPs property being a council house and putting responsibility on the council to resolve this.   imagine for a moment that the OPs house is privately owned, now what powers would they have to take action on the trees? Pretty much none without taking the tree owner to court right. Well as the trees are privately owned, that is the same power that the council have right now.   the information with the £375 will be inline with high hedges legislation as this will be the only power the council will have and it is common for there to be a charge for this.   this is not a social housing issue, but a neighbor dispute with a private homeowner.   i used to work as a tree officer for a local authority and from experience have seen that people’s idea of dangerous and what is actually dangerous are two different issues. A councils power to enforce tree works are also limited and will usually only be where a private tree poses a risk to the highway, not to another property as that is a civil matter (even where the council own the 2nd property).    With regards to risk to underground pipes, this is something you will be unlikely to successfully argue as various studies have found that unless a tree is planted on top of the pipe and crush it, the roots will not cause damage, but rather only enter through already damaged areas as they are opportunistic, any tree roots in drains are usually a secondary issue where a pipe had existing damage and to resolve it will require a permanent repair to the pipe to prevent recurrence.   the only options i see here are to calculate the height allowed under high hedges legislation (it varies depending on what direction the property faces , the location of hedges etc) and try to enforce that which will involve the fee. Otherwise there is little you can do as the private homeowner has a right to have trees in their garden although they may be liable if they were to cause damage to your property (such as a shed) or the councils property in the future.
    • Served on 16 Feb.   On reviewing the MCOL website today for an updated, I noticed that 1) Hermes has aknowledged the claim, but not yet filed a defence, and 2) that I there was a glitch / error on the form. Essentially, it looks like I had accidentally left the "I will send detailed particulars of claim" box ticke (I thought I had unticked it), with the result that the claim section has been truncated, and some extra text has automatcially been added - in red below):   "...Claimant seeks £XXX, plus I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of..."   This is obviously not ideal. Is it better to try to amend the claim somehow, or to just submit a brief POC that a) clarifies that I am seeking £XXX plus costs (which was automatically truncated), and b) sets out my calculation of the £XXX?  
    • Hi   It amazes me how they pass the buck as they don't want to deal with a private homeowner but if the shoe was on the other foot they would be hammering down on you for breach of tenancy.   As this is council housing you need to make a Formal Complaint in writing to the Council Housing about this (as a social housing landlord they have a complaints process they have to follow). you need to exhaust their complaints process. Make sure and title your letter Formal Complaint.   From what you have posted this tree is not just a nuisance but also a Health & Safety risk:   1. The tree being overgrown is now a danger to the occupants/Guest/Visitors to your property   2. The tree has overgrown into the Council Housings Boundaries your property causing damage/endangerment to the occupants/guest/visitors.   3. As the roots of the tree are also overgrown into your property you have concerns that these may be causing/damaging to any underground pipework that may be within the boundray of the property.   4. So far the Councils actions have been to treat their Council Housing tenant as a third class citizen with a private homeowner aloud to cause endangerment/possible damage due to these overgrown trees which are encroaching on your council house property/bounderies.   You also require clarification why you were sent the Healthy Neighbourhood Information which states I have to pay £375 to make a complaint. (make sure and attach a copy of the response that states this cost)   You also require copies of the following:   1. Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) 2. Customer Service Standard (not the leaflet) 3. Health & Safety Policy (not the leaflet) 4. Public Liability Insurance Policy. (not the leaflet) 5. Clarification from you if their is any underground pipeworks running through the bounderies within the garden area (you should have full knowledge of this it being your property/plans) 6. Compensation Policy (not the leaaflet) 7. Equality & Diversity Policy (not the leaflet)   When you get the above policies sit with a pen/pencil/highlighter and take you time reading them and just think to yourself 'DID THEY DO THAT' if not mark it then leave it for a while then do the same again this way you can basically throw/write back stating the haven't followed x policy with which part of that policy and your reason. (you are building evidence to use against them using their own policies. I would also like to refer you to The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1976: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/57/part/I/crossheading/dangerous-trees-and-excavations     You need to remember yes it is the Council but the Council Housing is a separate entity and is a Registered Social Landlord (RSL)   Is the Council Housing classed as a registered Charity? (what is their registration number whether charity or RSL?)   Also have a wee look at this CAG link:     
    • @rocky_sharma   Fame at last!!   Dunno how much help it would be in your case, but I could try digging out the txt of my defence if you think it might be relevant to your defence. We might hafta do this via PM, then e-mail though if ya wanna go down that route.   Good luck with yours anyway mate.
  • Our picks

jan2002

PPI Ticket and McDonalds response

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2828 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

BYE BYE McD's

 

Da-da-da-da-da - I'm loving it!

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would anyone want to put that **** in their bodies anyway?


Ash.

 

If you think I have helped you, please add to my reputation by clicking the star button to the left.

Thankyou.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they are not proper "regulations", they are a set of rules made up by the parking company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember this being in watchdog if I recall correctly ? and the advise was.

 

IGNORE and DO NOT PAY :)

Share this post


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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fast response.

Fast food.

 

Not a lot of substance in either!

Share this post


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',

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this branch of McDonald's in a retail park ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this branch of McDonald's in a retail park ?

 

No next to a petrol station

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...