MET PCN at Mcdonalds - Occupants left premises (POPLA successful !)

eldn

paulstevens64 said:

eldn said:

Emailing the CEO didn't work, the email was forwarded to a customer service guy and what's amazing is that, they confirmed they received my email from the CEO office, so I was confident they would provide at least a smart answer but instead, they still told me that they cannot do anything if i OVERSTAYED. Unbelievable, they once again tell me about overstaying while my message was not about that, the PCN was not about that and nothing was about that. 

At this point, I believe this is not about if they can do anything or not but if they can just properly read emails...

Anyway, I'm sending the MET appeal , although rejection is expected on that one and hopefully will get a better outcome from POPLA.

Whilst this is disappointing, I would write back to the CEO, and CC in the customer service person. 

A few updates on this case.

I didn't do the social network stuff but still emailed the new CEO who replaced the new one and still got the same response. At that point, I gave up this route.

I received a response from my appeal to MET and as usual, they rejected it. But what is amazing with those guys is that they attached the survey they made on that day and they claimed no one was there for the car. But the occupants were asked on that day which car they had and they gave the registration but the parking guy just put "N" for the column about driver's presence.

This is really crazy, basically whether they do a survey or not, whether you tell them which one is your car or not, they just mark everyone as not present!???

Anyway, I'm sending the POPLA soon, will update here but will remain in line with what others sent on the forum I guess, focusing on boundaries not specified, evidence that all the occupants left, landowner approval, etc.

Coupon-mad

eldn said:

By the way, although this is not a central point (yet), just in case they pull out a CCTV footage or anything like, I notice that McDonald's use different type of signage depending on the place.

The one at my branch is like this one (but 90 minute instead of 60min) but without the bottom part which says "Parking Enforcement in Operation".

Basically, the only part where it mentions any CCTV in use is the text at the end of the top panel, which is written in extremely small characters that can't be read with naked eyes when standing below the signage. And there is also the tiny yellow triangle at the end.

Is that legal? Shouldn't it be very visible that CCTV is in use like the bottom part on the photo below? If that bottom part is not present, I feel they are doing on purpose to put it in such small characters.

Some other signage used by McDo more clearly mentions the CCTV at the top of the panel with an icon of a camera but on mine, it's like below without any clearly readable text:

eldn said:

Emailing the CEO didn't work, the email was forwarded to a customer service guy and what's amazing is that, they confirmed they received my email from the CEO office, so I was confident they would provide at least a smart answer but instead, they still told me that they cannot do anything if i OVERSTAYED. Unbelievable, they once again tell me about overstaying while my message was not about that, the PCN was not about that and nothing was about that. 

At this point, I believe this is not about if they can do anything or not but if they can just properly read emails...

Anyway, I'm sending the MET appeal , although rejection is expected on that one and hopefully will get a better outcome from POPLA.

paulstevens64 said:

Whilst this is disappointing, I would write back to the CEO, and CC in the customer service person. 

A few updates on this case.

I didn't do the social network stuff but still emailed the new CEO who replaced the new one and still got the same response. At that point, I gave up this route.

I received a response from my appeal to MET and as usual, they rejected it. But what is amazing with those guys is that they attached the survey they made on that day and they claimed no one was there for the car. But the occupants were asked on that day which car they had and they gave the registration but the parking guy just put "N" for the column about driver's presence.

This is really crazy, basically whether they do a survey or not, whether you tell them which one is your car or not, they just mark everyone as not present!???

Anyway, I'm sending the POPLA soon, will update here but will remain in line with what others sent on the forum I guess, focusing on boundaries not specified, evidence that all the occupants left, landowner approval, etc.

Are you saying the MET employee asked the occupants of this car for their numberplate, which they gave him, then he LIED in order to issue a certain number of PCNs?

eldn

Apologies for the delay, been going through a lot recently.

I checked with the branch itself and they said the report was from a different time than when one occupant was asked about the vehicle. Basically they asked around 11:45 or so, the occupant gave the reg ID but they claim that they asked again around 12:00 and no one was there (it's not true as the occupant was outside but still within what we can imagine were the "premises"). Anyway, they said they do many checks during the "survey period"...

All this doesn't matter, I'm sending to POPLA soon based on similar appeals I can find online. Will post it here for reference so I can keep track of this case which may go, in a few years, to court claim, etc. Hope it can also help others as you helped me so far.

Coupon-mad

eldn said:

Apologies for the delay, been going through a lot recently.

I checked with the branch itself and they said the report was from a different time than when one occupant was asked about the vehicle. Basically they asked around 11:45 or so, the occupant gave the reg ID but they claim that they asked again around 12:00 and no one was there (it's not true as the occupant was outside but still within what we can imagine were the "premises"). Anyway, they said they do many checks during the "survey period".

Utter codswallop (from them, not you) and the staff in the branch wouldn't know!

Surely THEY don't do the so called survey or have access to number-plates (personal data) from it?!

eldn

Coupon-mad said:

eldn said:

Apologies for the delay, been going through a lot recently.

I checked with the branch itself and they said the report was from a different time than when one occupant was asked about the vehicle. Basically they asked around 11:45 or so, the occupant gave the reg ID but they claim that they asked again around 12:00 and no one was there (it's not true as the occupant was outside but still within what we can imagine were the "premises"). Anyway, they said they do many checks during the "survey period".

Utter codswallop (from them, not you) and the staff in the branch wouldn't know!

Surely THEY don't do the so called survey or have access to number-plates (personal data) from it?!

They didn't do anything serious...

Victory, POPLA just sent me that MET has withdrawn my appeal, only 2 days after I submitted my POPLA appeal, that was fast for them to give up!

I sent the usual POPLA template but also used some information from MET appeal rejection letter against them! They wrote in their rejection that they did their survey "in the restaurant". I used that to show POPLA that they didn't check the entire premises since the parking area should also be part of the premises but they said they only checked "in the restaurant". Using their own rejection letter against them!

Also used MET own photos of the signage to show it couldn't be read clearly. I didn't retake a clearer photo to include it, just used their own photos against them again.

In the end I had nothing special to do, this forum had all the info needed and just used MET own information against them. 

Easy win. Thank you everyone who helped and who wrote the NEWBIE thread!

Ralph-y

well done ! .... now  let Mcs know that they have lost customers as you your friends and family will go else where to places that don't harass customers 

patient_dream

WELL DONE ....... 
McDONALDS has no idea what customer service is ?  It's a poorly run company just like the supermarkets

At least the parking company had it rammed up their backside

Le_Kirk

eldn said:

Victory, POPLA just sent me that MET has withdrawn my appeal, only 2 days after I submitted my POPLA appeal, that was fast for them to give up!

I sent the usual POPLA template but also used some information from MET appeal rejection letter against them! They wrote in their rejection that they did their survey "in the restaurant". I used that to show POPLA that they didn't check the entire premises since the parking area should also be part of the premises but they said they only checked "in the restaurant". Using their own rejection letter against them!

Also used MET own photos of the signage to show it couldn't be read clearly. I didn't retake a clearer photo to include it, just used their own photos against them again.

Well done, it is always good when posters use the PPC's own information against them!