McDonalds Charging £125 for Parking "too long"

[joshwa]

People who buy food from a Drive through, and then spend more than 45 minutes in the car park, are being charged £125 for the priveledge...

McParking row as slow eaters given heavy fines | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited

Personally I think this is rediculous! And have complained here:
https://www.mcdonalds.co.uk/asp/cont...lenquiries.asp

[HSK]

Hmm but come on, 45 mins sitting in a maccie dee's car park, it's a lil suspect. :-P

[Rishi]

What about if you have a Citreon Saxo with LED washer jets and a Burberry cap?

[kalniel]

Then you're expecting to be paid for hanging around in a car park aren't you?

[adam1976]

Well its one way to line thier pockets thats for sure.

[wazi]

southall broadway middx mcd's is one of the worst if u park and dont go into the restaruant they clamp ya !!!!!!

[MadduckUK]

is it a customer only car park?

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Hmm but come on, 45 mins sitting in a maccie dee's car park, it's a lil suspect. :-P

imo they should charge double.

[Allen]

It's free parking for their customers only, that is people who want to go through the drive through, park up and eat, and then drive on. Why would anyone need to spend more than 45 mins at a McDonalds? If they're there longer than even half an hour then they're parking there for the free parking and going off elsewhere shopping or something (like what happens in Staines a lot if anyone knows it).

Yeah £125 is excessive, but it's their car park and they're probably trying to stop people abusing it because it's free. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

And don't give me that "slow eater" nonsence, a slow eater can eat a 3 course meal in 45 mins, let alone a quick McD's "meal"!

[Saracen]

This is an incredibly heavy-handed approach, but I agree with Allen. The reason McD's do this is because there are a number of people 'abusing' certain car parks. This was on the radio a few weeks ago, and in that case, it was a McDs just outside Gatwick airport. The problem was that some, and I stress 'some' customers were using it as a waiting zone. They'd buy a cup of coffee and then sit there for a couple of hours, waiting for a plane's arrival time, because even short-stay parking in the airport is expensive. So they wait just outside, get a phone call from the incoming traveller, then drive straight to the pickup point outside arrivals.

In circumstances like that, I can understand McDs attitude. Not only does such usage block a parking space, but it blocks a table too, and McDs are supposed to be a fast-food joint, not a free waiting area.

However, once you hand over car park control to a third-party enforcement company, you're begging for controversy, IMHO. The radio show concerned sent a reporter (incognito) to that same car park, and that reporter confirmed that while there were notices displayed (along with countless advertising posters), they were NOT given a leaflet explaining the situation on ordering, as McDs head office had claimed EVERY customer was. And, after all, you can hardly be blamed for missing a poster on the wall when McDs have a habit of slapping posters over most of their walls and windows.

I can sympathise with McDs intentions, but IMHO they are going about this very, VERY poorly.

[Pyrii]

It's over the top, but eh, this is the society we live in, where corps will find ways to steal more and more money fromt he public and we continue to go further into debt.

Sometimes you can feel proud of our society, with the advances in technology, but money's always onvolved and that's when anything good about human society, instantly turns into something bad and horrifying, just like everything else.

[badass]

When you enter a correctly signed car park, the driver enters a private contract with the parking enforcement company that can be enforced by our court system.
However, the registered keeper has no responsibility for the fine unless they are one and the same.
The registered keeper is under no legal obligation to provide the details of the driver, and it is not reasonable to assume the registered keeper is the driver without further supporting evidence.
If the registered keeper recieves a letter from one of these enforcement companies, they are well within their rights to refuse to name the driver as they have no contract in any form with the enforcement company and there is no law requiring them to name the driver in a situation like this (on private land)
Should the registered keeper also be the driver, they are also under no obligation to reveal this information either.

In practice, ignoring the letters seems to work best, however should anyone wish to try this out, I suggest they get proper legal advice first.

[Blitzen]

Its not alot different anywhere else tbh.
Parking anywhere, even legally, can still get you clamp or fined. It all depends on the scruples of the enforcer on the day.

I got clamped in a Disabled Parking space when i took my 3 year old daughter to the doctors.
She is disabled, has a bluebadge, and the area i parked in states that we can park there free of charge for up to 3 hours) if displaying a blue badge.
It was clearly displayed and i still got humped.

When i rang the number to get the clamp taken off, the fella turned up and said i had to pay there and then, and if not my car would be towed away.
I promptly called my uncle with a van full of tools and proceeded to try and get it off myself. The enforcer then said he would call the police.
Which HE DID!
The policewoman arrived, saw my badge (which the enforcer stated i put in AFTERWARDS) and told him to take it off.

(I would live to bump into him in the pub believe me!)

[Lucio]

I think the thing that is the main issue with these parking fines is that it goes against the criminal standard of "Innocent until proven guilty" aspect.

The company who operates the carparks shouldn't have extra charges for providing photographic evidence and definately shouldn't have "early payment" discounts that are waived if you dispute the evidence!

Ignorance of the charges is a little more dubious, after all it doesn't apply in court (check out the missing canoeist case), because you have to prove you weren't given an oppertunity to find out about the charges. If they definately had posters & signs up, then whilst Saracen's point about McDonalds already having tonnes of posters around is valid (like hiding information in the fine print of a contract), it doesn't guarentee an exception.

[Saracen]

I think the thing that is the main issue with these parking fines is that it goes against the criminal standard of "Innocent until proven guilty" aspect.

As far as I'm aware, there's nothing criminal about any of this, though, so that standard wouldn't apply.

It's a civil matter, between the driver and the enforcement company, because by going onto private property you're entering into a contract with McDs, and this enforcement is part of that. However, it's an area in which there are substantial legal questions. These "fines" are essentially no more than invoices, with the enforcement company arguing that you've entered into a contract, and therefore owe a debt. If you don't pay it, they have the option to pursue you in a civil court, just as anyone does over non-payment of debt. Whether they'd win or not is another matter entirely, as are the charges they heap on, and even perhaps whether some of their tactics in terms of threats of action may be intimidating, and perhaps even be criminal.

There are certainly people that will argue that the way to deal with this is to dispute the debt, in writing, with the enforcement company and tell them to either take you to court or to stop pestering you. If these are "bailiffs" that are actually private debt collectors, they do NOT have the rights that court-appointed bailiffs do for collection of actual parking fines, and can (as I understand it) actually do little more than take you to court for civil debt.

Furthermore, as I understand it, if you have disputed the debt and given them notice to stop persecuting you, there's little they can do other than either give up or take court action, and there are certainly fairly firm controls on what actions they can take.