Son`s account been fraudulently used

pmduk

dalesrider wrote: »

blossomhill.
Contrary to what people think the only people who can request CCTV is the police.
Which is why the Op's son needs to report this to them. But most only hold CCTV for a max of 30 days. So speedy action is needed.
Some stores will let you look at CCTV if the situation is explained. But is not something they will do often.

You're saying that the Information Commissioner is wrong then?

Taken from http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_the_public/topic_specific_guides/cctv.aspx

When can CCTV images be disclosed?
You have the right to see CCTV images of you and to ask for a copy of them. The organisation must provide them within 40 calendar days of your request, and you may be asked to pay a fee of up to £10 (this is the maximum charge, set by Parliament). This is called a Subject Access Request. You will need to provide details to help the operator to establish your identity as the person in the pictures, and to help them find the images on their system.

CCTV operators are not allowed to disclose images of identifiable people to the media - or to put them on the internet - for entertainment. Images released to the media to help identify a person are usually disclosed by the police.
An organisation may need to disclose CCTV images for legal reasons - for example, crime detection. Once they have given the images to another organisation, then that organisation must adhere to the Data Protection Act in their handling of the images.

dalesrider

pmduk.

Not saying anyone is worng.

Just people's perceptions that a bank will run off to request CCTV.

Police can simply turn up and request it. For a bank to do it is a lot more work and cost.
Sure if its something involving thousands, they may delve a lot deeper.
But you average case like this one...

magpiecottage

There is no discretion about whether or not a DSAR must be complied with.

magpiecottage

dalesrider wrote: »

Remember if it goes to FOS and Barclays had proof of the son doing the transaction and won the case. Then they could prosecute for defrauding the bank.

They would need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. That is a very tall order.

dalesrider wrote: »

I am neither.

But why do you stoop to personal insults?

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.

It is all well and good you continue to keep quoting regulations BCOBS 5.1.11R(1) ( 5 times in this thread...) We heard you 1st time....

Yes but not everybody seems to have listened.

They do not help the OP at all. As WE are not do not have the full facts. We do not know what evidence Barclays have to back up their case.

Nor, it seems does the OP, who is therefore entitled to assume that they cannot prove their assertion.

Yes. Let it go to FOS. But don't build people's hope up that they will win.

Its not as clear cut as that.

You are aware that before going to FOS. You have to follow Barclays complaint procedure

That illustrates my point about the difference between hearing and listening (or in this case seeing and reading). 11:06 a.m. 06-09-2012