MET Request for insurance evidence during appeal

LoopyLou150

Hi All,

After reading and digesting the wealth of incredibly helpful informtion on these Forums (thanks so much for everyone who monitors this site), I put together an appeal against a parking charge from MET Parking Services near McDonalds at Stansted Airport. The appeal was 9 pages based on the following topics:

1) The notice to keeper arrived more than 14 days after the Date of contravention therefore according to Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 there is no keeper liability
2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge
3) No evidence that random people walking towards McDonalds left the site or included the person who parked the car
4) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself
5) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

I have since received the following letter from MET:

"We note you state that the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention was insured to drive your vehicle. In order for us to consider your appeal fully please can you send us documentation evidencing they were insured.

We have placed your charge notice on hold for a further 14 days to allow you time to send us this evidence. If we do not receive the evidence by the end of the 14 days we will have to reach a decision on your appeal based on the information we hold at that time."

I have not informed them who the driver was. My gut tells me that I should just ignore the letter and let them proceed with what I originally sent them. Would people agree?

Thanks

Le_Kirk

You don't need to tell them who was driving. It is a phishing attempt to get you to name someone so they can pursue them instead of the KEEPER.

Fruitcake

The Keeper has protection under the Protection of Freedoms Act that the Driver does not. Keep it that way.

Don't tell him Pike!

beamerguy

You do realise I hope that you are dealing with idiots

They are well above their station in life to request personal data.
MET are only entitled to the registered keeper info from the DVLA.

They want the details of the driver and you are under no obligation to provide this. They don't know who the driver is and it will stay like that.

This is the scammers trick ..... IGNORE THEM

Mind you, you could swap info, they can provide you with a valid contract they signed with the landowner ???? As pigs will fly with that, so pigs will fly about the driver

The_Deep

If you were to comply with their request, you would be providing the driver's name, you are not reuired to do so. They are trying to con you.
complain to your MP.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem become so widespread that MPs agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Hopefully, this will become law by Easter .

LoopyLou150

Thanks everyone. I will ignore it and hope my appeal is successful.

fisherjim

LoopyLou150 wrote: »

"We note you state that the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention was insured to drive your vehicle. In order for us to consider your appeal fully please can you send us documentation evidencing they were insured.

Who on earth do these lowlife Muppets think they are!

Coupon-mad

We note you state that the driver of the vehicle at the time of the contravention was insured to drive your vehicle. In order for us to consider your appeal fully please can you send us documentation evidencing they were insured.

Report that to the Information Commissioner online ('concerns about the way a company has handled my data') as an excessive and misleading request for data they are not entitled to have.

You will have to explain to the ICO firstly, that the POFA allows a Registered Keeper to appeal a case and that both Parliament, in the readings of the POFA Bill in 2011/12, and Henry Greenslade, the expert Barrister POPLA Lead Adjudicator back when POPLA had legal knowledge and were good, confirmed the fact that a keeper does not have any legal obligation to declare who was driving on private land, and nor can an adverse inference be drawn.

And it is a fact that a parking firm has no excuse whatsoever to write to ask for proof that a driver (who the Keeper has exercised their legal right not to name, as they want to appeal it themselves) is 'insured' is monstrously excessive by this rogue industry. That would involve expecting a keeper to produce a third party's insurance policy and in doing so, show their name and all sorts of data of a person who IS NOT even the 'data subject' that MET are dealing with.

Shocking. This needs knocking on the head by the ICO.