Car Insurance claims

Christopher7

Guys, is CCTV coverage covered by Data Protection Act? I wouldn't have thought it was.

666diablo

I think in my instance, the insurers did not apply for the footage, due to the third party being a Bus Company.
This initself was the reason why my claim was handled as per procedure.
With no regard for fault, where the claimant does not have absolute and unquestionable proof.
The fact that this proof was a phone call or letter away, is not of concern to my insurers.
They were led in my case, by their financial concerns.
The fact that it was settled on a 50/50 basis with a cheque for half my excess made out to me and the same amount was made out to my insurers.
This is not my understanding of how a 50/50 claim is settled between insurance companies, unless a pre-determined process is used in such cases as mine.
The claimant is then given the run around for as long as possible, to the extent where the claimant looses interest.
I was told the attachments could not be opened, or the e-mail was not recieved, or their system was down or the letter must be lost in the post etc etc.
The cheque was sent to my insurers some three years after the claim in my 5 year fight.

If I stopped traffic on a major road outside a train station and Bus garage. If the driver had not removed his badge and not threatened me, all I had to do was take a picture of the front of his bus contacting the rear of my car, in different lanes. I could have saved myself alot of heartache.

Do not count on anyone!

FlameCloud

vaio wrote: »

I think that's sort of the OPs complaint in a nutshell....insurance claims handlers & their legal advisers don't know the law so the fact that someone at the council wrongly states that it will cost ££££££ to have it edited doesn't get challenged and the policy holder is deprived of evidence

Yet you believe you do.

Without knowing the exact details its hard to say. Dpa and compliance with it is a fast moving area of law. From memory the judgement in durrant vs Fsa suggests that general, non zoom able CCTV images were not personal data, although I am not certain is this position hasn't changed since.

In any event, if the driver isn't visible and the vrn unreadable how can you prove it's you in the car.

vaio

FlameCloud wrote: »

......From memory the judgement in durrant vs Fsa suggests that general, non zoom able CCTV images were not personal data, although I am not certain is this position hasn't changed since........

Yep, it looks like it was leaning that way, general scenes didn't come under DPA. Following Durrant the Information Commissioner issued new guidance which included

.....if only a general scene is recorded without any incident occurring and with no focus on any particular individual’s activities, these images are not covered by the DPA....

to my mind the implication there is that if there IS an incident happening or a particular individual is focused on then it does come under DPA.

In any event I think Durrant went to Europe which I guess resulted in the much more unequivocal current guidance....

"9.2 Subject access requests

Individuals whose images are recorded have a right to view the images of themselves and, unless they agree otherwise, to be provided with a copy of the images. This must be provided within 40 calendar days of receiving a request. You may charge a fee of up to £10 (this is the current statutory maximum set by Parliament). Those who request access must provide you with details which allow you to identify them as the subject of the images and also to locate the images on your system......"

FlameCloud wrote: »

......In any event, if the driver isn't visible and the vrn unreadable how can you prove it's you in the car.

For the purposes of the OP's case I'd have thought that images of a blue Vectra being hit by a Bus at about a given time on a given street would be enough proof of identity given that the guidance mentions that a description of the clothing being worn by an individual is sufficient

666diablo

Following the accident both the driver and myself had exited our vehicles.