Printfriendly

Saturday 15 March 2014

Are MET Parking W*****s? McDonalds charge elderly diabetic for having medical emergency.

The Prankster learned of an elderly motorist who suffers from diabetes and was forced to remain at a McDonalds while his blood sugar levels stabilised. This took him some time, and he was duly issued with a parking charge by MET Parking. Having been informed of his long-term disability, the Equalities Act 2010 applies and MET Parking were obliged to show reasonable allowance for his condition. In this case, this reasonable allowance would be to allow him extra time until his medical emergency passed. Instead, MET Parking supersized his McTicket, doubling it to £100 for not paying within 14 days.

The register keeper has appealed on his behalf, and the Prankster has printed her appeal in full.

The Prankster has had to redact small areas of the appeal to preserve confidentiality. However he believes that the gist of the appeal is still clear.


After reviewing the appeal, MET parking decided that they were not W.A.N.K.E.R.S and decided to reject the representations. The keeper therefore appealed to POPLA.

POPLA agreed that MET Parking were W.A.N.K.E.R.S. and upheld the appeal; amusingly the fact that Met Parking claimed the motorist left before he arrived was not the reason the appeal was upheld. The appeal was upheld on the grounds the charge was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The case was decided some time ago, but POPLA forgot to inform the motorist for over 3 months.

The UK CEO of McDonalds, Jill McDonald, is keen to hear of any instances where parking enforcers are failing to respect the law, and especially where they are issuing charges in breach of the Equalities Act 2010. She can be contacted at the following address.

Jill McDonald
Chief Executive Officer
jill.mcdonald@uk.mcd.com

McDonalds Restaurants Ltd.
11 - 59 High Road
East Finchley
London,
N2 8AW

It is best to mark the envelope 'Private and Confidential' to ensure her attention.

Happy Parking

The Parking Prankster
Posted by at

8 comments:

  1. Kev15 March 2014 at 13:34

    What a bunch of W.A.N.K.E.R.S.....

    I can't believe they sent that!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown15 March 2014 at 14:00

      But you can really, can't you, Kev?
      Don't we all?

      Delete
    2. Kev15 March 2014 at 14:02

      Oops, I thought that was the RESPONSE!

      Ah, in which case, I retract my previous comment and applaud the creativity of the writer :D

      Delete
    3. Unknown17 March 2014 at 13:46

      This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Unknown18 March 2014 at 09:10

      Thanks Kev. I wrote it. I've just composed another letter, this time to McDonalds demanding an apology and compensation for the stress they caused by not intervening in this case.

      Delete
  2. The Dude16 March 2014 at 05:43

    My dad always said it would make me go blind, I wonder if that's why I have problems reading the terms and conditions on PE signs?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unknown18 March 2014 at 12:44

    By the way, Prankster, the statement about Ms Jill McDonald being "keen to hear of any instances where parking enforcers are failing to respect the law, and especially where they are issuing charges in breach of the Equalities Act 2010" is not strictly true. I did send her a letter about my father's plight and she passed the letter to a Customer Services clerk who didn't give a toss.

    ReplyDelete
  4. James24 March 2014 at 04:11

    I received a 'fine' claiming I had stayed from morning until later afternoon in a McDonalds car park. I had actually visited the same place twice for about 30mins each time. I wrote to MET and suggested they check their records but they still claim I only visited once for the whole duration.

    I can get proof but it will be a hassle and I will need to ask clients to help me, which I will do if necessary. But I'm minded to let them issue court proceedings before bothering.

    Any advice?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)