Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Winemark the wine merchant ltd northern ireland
    • Hi Sweet and welcome to CAG   Are you willing to disclose the employer in this case ?
    • I was the manager of an off license. We reopened on mon 30th, I received a very large delivery which we weren’t expecting (and I wasn’t told about until 2hrs before by my line manager) all managers received a text from regional manager which stated when deliveries are coming in shops are to be closed. He didn’t ring this info in, I just read the text.   When I saw how big del was (completely covered the floor, could barely move around it) I kept my shutters closed and proceeded to pack delivery away. The store remained closed and we lost 5hrs trading time. I didn’t seek permission from manager to do this, with the current safety precautions enacted (only allowed 1 customer in at a time as manadated by HQ) I didn’t feel this could be safely achieved with 3 members of staff in and all the stock everywhere.  regional manger calls into shop at 4:50, hits roof that it’s closed and storms out of shop after exclaiming I didn’t have the authority to keep shop closed.   Fast forward 1 1/2 weeks later today regional manager comes in at 4pm with prepared questions, I answer truthfully stated I didn’t think it was safe I had the best interests of business at heart that I had turned up for work every day since this incident and nothing had been said. He said that they will examine this information and can come back for more evidence if needed.    He goes away again and at 5:59 (my shift finished at 6) he came back in saying they’d examined all the evidence and that their decision was dismissal, I was to gather my things and there’d be a letter in the post with information should I wish to appeal.  quite a shock.   I will see what this letter states as their reasons I committed gross misconduct, I am a bit at a loss as to what I specifically did to be deemed gross misconduct.   I’ve worked for them for 10years, taken 2 days off sick in that entire time and had a faultless record   I’m just flabbergasted they’d immediately sack me for something which happened in unprecedented times when all I was trying to do was keep myself and my staff safe and safely make their store presentable and adequately accessible for all.   Any thoughts on the above? Obviously this is all too fresh as it happened only hours ago 
    • Hi KL1 and welcome to CAG.   You say the buyer contacted you saying, "...... he had seen it cheaper somewhere else and wanted to cancel the sale."   Do you have this in writing and, if so, in what format ?   It would be useful if you could tell us more about the item you sold.    
    • I wanted to report a success against UKPS that started in Dec 2018 and was concluded today.  I did do a bit of reading through this site for guidance though so thanks for that!    in Dec 2018 a family member reversed onto a private road in Coventry and waited about 1 minute or so to collect their partner.  Meanwhile the owner was loitering and waiting to catch anyone on his land with photos.  2 photos were taken about 40 seconds apart.   With my help I disputed the charge stating that the driver had not "parked" but had only stopped momentarily to pick up a passenger.  I did not state at any point who the driver was.   UKPS from Leamington Spa were trying to enforce this and insisted on the charge of £60 + £100 being paid.  I sent a 2nd letter confirming the position of the 1st letter and that no further letters would be sent.   4 threatening letters were sent from Debt Recovery Plus and Zenith Collections and duly ignored.  The last kindly offered to settle for £136!    Then a letter from Gladstones Sols threatening the same was also sent, and mentioned Beavis vs Parking Eye.  This was also duly ignored.   Finally a Letter Before Action was sent by email.  Aha!  Game on.  They cited Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Nick Idle and Vehicle Control Services Limited v Damen Ward and that stopping for any time is a breach, and it was only the length of time stopped that may affect the value of the breach.   I said that signage said no PARKING, not no STOPPING and that appropriate case law was JOPSON v HOMEGUARD where the judge specifically said "Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it"   They then came back at me with an evidence bundle they were allegedly going to use at court against me, stated the signage was clear,  a nd repeated their "no stopping" case   I came back at them with the same as before and added that, in their world, someone coming onto the land and wanting to read the signage would have precisely NO TIME AT ALL to so as, according to them, even stopping for mere seconds was a breach.  I also threatened that I would claim costs for my wasted time in dealing the case.   Today they emailed me as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Good Morning,   Thank you for your correspondence. We apologise for the delay in our response, however as no further action has taken place we trust you agree no prejudice has been suffered.   Please note that our Client has cancelled our instruction on this matter and the matter is considered closed.   No further action is warranted. Kind Regards ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   16 months on and UKPS gave in  
  • 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 2871 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...