CCtV cameras

[devonwoody]

http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/news/ ... ticle.html

I had reason to want to see CCTV cameras earlier this year when my car was scratched in a car park and driver had left scene, I was now allowed to see camera or allowed to be given any information and the police would not comment because they are not allowed to investigate either,.

What is the use to the public of these camera?

 

[Harbo]

To prevent Crime? :roll:

Years ago I had my wallet stolen from my jacket which was hanging in my office situated on the 4th floor of a supposedly secure building - accessed by swipe card?
The thieves managed to get £5k from my cards before they were stopped.
The entrances and exits were covered by CCTV but on acquiring of "Security" was told that the quality was so poor (24 cameras recorded on one screen) that individuals could not be identified.
Again what is the point -certainly did not act as a deterrent??
The individuals were later caught on a Halford's camera (trying to buy mobile phone top-ups) and their car reg. noted.
Police informed but no action taken!

Monies later refunded by my bank (after a hassle) and wallet now carried in my front trouser pocket!

Rod

 

[Gary]

the police would not comment because they are not allowed to investigate either

Public or private carpark?

If it was a public carpark then the road traffic act applies. so why couldn't the police investigate?

 

[devonwoody]

No it was Marks & Spencer car park, and I was told they are refused observation.

 

[Gary]

I see now.

They couldn't be pineappled to investigate it.

If the carpark is a public place you have a right to an investigation. (At least until they remove the lower level stuff.) Therefore grounds to make a complaint as this was not done.

 

[seanybaby]

I don't see why you can't use the data protection act to get a copy of all the footage they have on your car while it was parked.

 

[stage1v8]

I don't see why you can't use the data protection act to get a copy of all the footage they have on your car while it was parked.

Its not your personal information so they have no legal obligation to provide you with it.

J

 

[Pvt_Ryan]

A driver knocked my motorbike over in a carpark and drove off. The 360o camera was "faceing the wrong way".. pineapples

 

[seanybaby]

I don't see why you can't use the data protection act to get a copy of all the footage they have on your car while it was parked.

Its not your personal information so they have no legal obligation to provide you with it.

J

I did just a quick google search:

All live footage recorded by a CCTV camera is considered under the Data Protection Act as processing personal data and therefore Data Subjects have a right to request all footage and images where they are featured.

 

[RogerS]

http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/news/163-17-500-compensation-payout-unlawful-arrest/article-2723716-detail/article.html

I had reason to want to see CCTV cameras earlier this year when my car was scratched in a car park and driver had left scene, I was now allowed to see camera or allowed to be given any information and the police would not comment because they are not allowed to investigate either,.

What is the use to the public of these camera?

That information that they gave you is 100% unadulterated bull*sh*t.

It is quite clearly laid down here whether disclosure can be made, for what reasons and to whom. Your own situation is given as an example and it is quite clear that M&S could provide you with access. Saying that they can't because it contravenes the Data processing Act is rubbish and typical of the knee-jerk reactions that organisations take.....probably also reading the Daily Mail to understand their Health and Safety obligations.

 

[stage1v8]

I don't see why you can't use the data protection act to get a copy of all the footage they have on your car while it was parked.

Its not your personal information so they have no legal obligation to provide you with it.

J

I did just a quick google search:

All live footage recorded by a CCTV camera is considered under the Data Protection Act as processing personal data and therefore Data Subjects have a right to request all footage and images where they are featured.

But not if your not in it. The data protection act covers personal information about living individuals. Footage of your car isnt personal and they have to consider who else is in the footage as they have rights as well under the act.

Unfortunatley if no offical authorities are investigating damage to a car then an individual is unlikely to get a copy of any footage.

The data protection act is very miss understood. Companies will often quote it as a reason for not giving information out when there is nothing to say they cant. On the flip side people will often assume that it means they can have access to any information they want.

Its a complex issue at times and keeps me busy at work.

 

[RogerS]

......
The data protection act is very miss understood. Companies will often quote it as a reason for not giving information out when there is nothing to say they cant. ........

Spot on! This from the link I gave..

'Safety' is the operative word in that example. As you say many (most?) companies use the Data Protection Act as a reason to give a blanket 'No'. Hopefully armed with the above information DW could go back to M&S and be a bit more forceful if he was so minded. :wink:

 

[stage1v8]

Hopefully armed with the above information DW could go back to M&S and be a bit more forceful if he was so minded.

It would be nice to think they would consider it but unfortunatley the same document says:

Judgements about disclosure should be made by the organisation operating the CCTV system.
They have discretion to refuse any request for information unless there is an overriding legal
obligation such as a court order or information access rights

Dont you just love UK legislation .

J

 

[RogerS]

I take your point but at least with the document DW would be in a stronger position to argue his case. Agreed M&S in this instance still has to exercise discretion. My point being (which I think you also agree with) is that companies automatically go into 'No' when they have no mandated reason to by virtue of the DPA.

 

[stage1v8]

My point being (which I think you also agree with) is that companies automatically go into 'No' when they have no mandated reason to by virtue of the DPA.

Yes I do. I have a very long list of examples of the DPA being used as an excuse for laziness.

 

[wobblycogs]

I'm sure some of it is laziness but I don't think all of it is. You have to remember that if a company releases data it shouldn't under the DPA they face huge potential consequences through both fines and bad press. Combine that with fact that if they released this footage they get essentially no payback I can fully understand their position of just denying every request.

The stupidity of it is that all the information you could ever want to know about someone is already available anyway it's just held off shore where the DPA has no power.

Having said that we were faced with almost exactly the same problem as DW a couple of years ago. I took LOML out for lunch on her birthday and someone hit our car in the car park and drove off (£2k of damage). The garden centre that owned the car park couldn't have been more helpful though. We had parked up one end of the car park and they told us they didn't have cameras up that end but they went though the footage anyway in case they could catch a glimpse of the git but to no avail. A strawberry seller saw the incident and tried to take down the number plate but must have misread it.

 

[RogerS]

Slightly OT but there is a new online database (well, new to me!) www.askmid.co.uk that lets you check (for a small fee) if a vehicle is on their database (ie insured).

OK...it won't have details if insurance has only just been taken out but could be useful if you are involved in an accident and maybe have a suspicion that the other party is not insured. Might give you the opportunity to get the old bill involved at the scene. You'd need a good mobile phone/connection naturally! And guts to hang onto the other driver if they turn out not to be insured :wink:

 

[nanscombe]

If M&S can't (won't) give you the info it's a pity you couldn't just sue them for the cost of repair.

It's in their car park and I wonder if the "Cars are parked at the owner's risk" idea could be reasonably enforced since those camera are probably there for safety reasons.

I wonder if their rules would change?

 

[Gary]

And guts to hang onto the other driver if they turn out not to be insured :wink:

You may find yourself up for assault if you tried.

 

[devonwoody]

And guts to hang onto the other driver if they turn out not to be insured :wink:

You may find yourself up for assault if you tried.

Gary, thats where the law should be changed, more citizens arrests I say.