The timestamps (18:59:46–18:59:59) prove that the “survey” was finalised and photographed at the end of the shift, not at the time of the alleged contravention. The listed 17:54 “check” is uncorroborated and likely inserted after the fact.
The McDonald’s staff signature is redacted, no contemporaneous observation, and no proof that the driver was not inside the restaurant.
Therefore, MET’s “survey” is manufactured administrative paperwork, not evidence.
It fails to establish that a breach occurred, who committed it, or that the vehicle was even present at the alleged check time.
I would also question why this is most likely illegal and certainly unacceptable:
1. Privacy law: Toilets are the most private places in any venue. Checking who is inside amounts to monitoring. Under UK GDPR, any monitoring must be necessary and proportionate. Enforcing a private parking rule in a free car park is not a good enough reason. It fails the necessity and proportionality tests.
2. Fairness and notice: No normal customer expects that a company might look for them in the toilets to enforce a parking term. There is no fair warning or transparent notice that such checks could happen.
3. Safeguarding: Toilets are used by children and vulnerable adults. “Checking” who is inside risks harassment and raises obvious safeguarding red flags.
4. Responsibility: If McDonald’s staff assist, McDonald’s can be responsible for what their agent does. A reputable brand should not endorse toilet checks to chase £100 invoices.
Why the rule itself is nonsense in contract terms:
1. Only the driver contracts. Passengers (called “occupants”) never agreed to any parking terms, so they cannot breach them.
2. The keeper can only be pursued for the driver’s actions if the operator’s paperwork is fully compliant. You cannot fine the keeper because a passenger walked somewhere.
3. Proof is missing. A photo of a parked car and a tick-box “survey” does not prove the driver left the site, nor that the car was still there when the “check” happened.
4. No clear boundary. Signs saying “remain on the premises” do not define where the premises start or end, or warn where crossing a line becomes a £100 event. If you cannot tell where the rule bites, it is not a fair or enforceable term.
Safeguarding example that shows how intrusive this is:Imagine a vulnerable child is an occupant of the vehicle. The parent allows the child to use the toilet. A stranger employed by the parking company decides to “check” the toilets to see if the driver is on the premises. The parent has no idea who this person is, what training they have, or whether they are safe to be around children. For all the parent knows, the person could be someone with a concerning background. The idea that an unknown adult is searching the toilets at McDonald’s for “occupants” so they can issue a £100 invoice is exactly the sort of behaviour privacy and safeguarding rules are meant to prevent. Ordinary people would find this shocking.
I would send the following formal complaint to McDonalds and I would definitely contact the media to expose this clear breach of privacy:
Subject: Formal Complaint – Intrusive and Unlawful Conduct by MET Parking Services Acting as McDonald’s Agent
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am making a formal complaint regarding an extremely disturbing practice carried out by your appointed parking contractor, MET Parking Services Ltd (“MET”), at your Leytonstone branch.
I am in possession of a copy of MET’s so-called “Driver & Vehicle Site Presence Survey”, produced as evidence in response to a parking appeal. The document openly records that MET’s operative and McDonald’s staff “checked male/female/disabled toilets” in order to determine whether a vehicle’s occupants had “left the premises”.
This raises grave concerns about (a) the lawfulness of these actions, (b) breaches of privacy and decency, and (c) McDonald’s complicity in authorising such practices.
1. Unlawful and intrusive conduct
No private parking contractor has any lawful authority or legitimate purpose to enter or monitor customer toilets to verify the presence of a vehicle’s occupants. Toilets are among the most private areas of any premises and are subject to heightened privacy expectations and safeguarding considerations. Entering or checking toilets to look for members of the public constitutes a serious intrusion into private life, contrary to Article 8 ECHR and the principles of the UK GDPR.
2. Vicarious liability and agency
McDonald’s, as the principal, is fully responsible for the conduct of its agent MET Parking Services when acting on its behalf. If McDonald’s staff have assisted MET operatives in performing these intrusive “checks”, that involvement amounts to corporate endorsement of potentially unlawful behaviour.
3. Breach of decency and safeguarding duties
Any practice involving the inspection of restrooms, especially those accessible to children and vulnerable adults, poses a serious safeguarding risk. Consider, for example, that the “occupant” of a vehicle might be a child. The idea that an unknown adult — possibly an unvetted contractor — could be entering or inspecting toilets to determine whether a child or their parent is “still on the premises” is appalling. No parent would consent to a stranger checking toilets while their child was inside. Such conduct risks violating basic safeguarding principles and public trust.
4. Illogical and misleading enforcement
Furthermore, the parking company’s policy of penalising “occupants leaving the premises” is fundamentally flawed. Only a driver can enter into a parking contract, and “occupants” (passengers) have no contractual obligations. Attempting to enforce penalties against a keeper or driver on the basis of a passenger’s movements is both irrational and legally unsound.
5. Intention to refer to regulatory and media bodies
I am now considering referring this matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Health and Safety Executive, and the relevant local authority safeguarding board. I also reserve the right to highlight this publicly through the press and social media, as the public has a right to know if McDonald’s condones or enables such intrusive monitoring of its customers.
Required action
I require written confirmation within 14 days of:
1. What McDonald’s policy is on restroom monitoring or involvement in MET Parking’s so-called “presence checks”;
2. Whether McDonald’s authorises, trains, or permits its staff to assist MET operatives in checking toilets or any other private area; and
3. What action will now be taken to ensure this practice ceases immediately across all franchised and company-owned sites.
If I do not receive a substantive response, I will escalate this complaint formally to your Data Protection Officer and the ICO.
Yours faithfully,
[Full Name]
[Address / contact details]
