MET Parking can ignore Protection of Freedoms Act?

D_P_Dance

Yes, but they want some evidence and proof

They may want it but does the law require that you provide it?  Have you complained to your MPre

Umkomaas

If that was the very first letter from MET, then it is not PoFA-compliant. Just a final check on that from me, was the vehicle a hire, lease, company or courtesy car?

nosferatu1001

Just give the name and address of the driver. You don't need to prove it. 

Half_way

Give them the name and address of the driver.

 As for PoFA they can ignore it if they want to - parking companies did this before PoFA, and as you've discovered they still can ignore PoFA today.

 A couple of questions before you tie yourself up in more knots, or shoot yourself in the foot:

 1: Do you know where the vehicle was parked? the postcode points to an area with several locations, was this Mc Donald's?

2: do you have a smartphone? ( not vital but may be of some use )

To Met parking ref Parking charge #XXXX

I am the registered keeper of a ( make model) with the number plate XXXX XXXXX and you have issued myself with a parking charge notice whilst the vehicle was at that site.

 I was not the driver on that day, the drivers can be contacted here NAME, ADDRESS

 As i have now informed you of the name and address of the driver you no longer have just cause to continue to process my personal data to the effect of pursuing the speculative parking charge notice.

 Failure to do so may result in legal actions being pursued against both yourselves and the principal of the site in accordance to the General data protection regulations.

I trust that i have your understanding on this, and look forward to hearing that you have acted accordingly.

vvolkov

Umkomaas said:

If that was the very first letter from MET, then it is not PoFA-compliant. Just a final check on that from me, was the vehicle a hire, lease, company or courtesy car?

No, this is still my car and Im the keeper of the car. No lease or anything. But it was used by different driver. Also this is the latest later Ive got from 3rd company about this charge. 
1) Letters from MET
2) Letters from Debt Recovery PLUS
3) CST LAW - latest 

Umkomaas

vvolkov said:

Umkomaas said:

If that was the very first letter from MET, then it is not PoFA-compliant. Just a final check on that from me, was the vehicle a hire, lease, company or courtesy car?

No, this is still my car and Im the keeper of the car. No lease or anything. But it was used by different driver. Also this is the latest later Ive got from 3rd company about this charge. 
1) Letters from MET
2) Letters from Debt Recovery PLUS
3) CST LAW - latest 

CST Law utter BS. DRP have no locus to commence any legal proceedings. MET do, but MET don't (do court at this time of writing). 

Write to MET to identify the driver, but don't expect them to roll over and transfer liability without a long fight. You're going to have to be determined, resilient and assertive to achieve that goal. 

Half_way

As above write to MET parking, once you have done this that should be it.

You will have :

Transferred liability, or in other words informed them as to who was driving

Provided them (MET) with a serviceable address of the driver

Told them that they must update their records as you were not the driver and they now no longer have just cause to process your data as such

Redx

This topic is like groundhog Day , dealt with last week with a link to a news article , read the thread and the link

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6225246/can-the-rk-still-name-the-driver-after-a-lost-popla-appeal/p1

The background PCN , appeal etc is not relevant , but the analysis of POFA and naming the driver is highly relevant