Car damaged in staff car park

Yorkie1

jbainbridge wrote: »

You have to question why CCTV exists because it seems that in most cases no one will check it for you - quoting data protection etc.

Two points about data protection here:

- data protection relates to personal data. Yes, I know, that looks like the bleedin' obvious, but the CCTV in itself doesn't contain personal data - it doesn't store someone's name, address, bank details, etc. You are looking for the VRM of the car involved, presumably, which you can then put into MID to obtain the insurance (owner?) details. So the company would not be breaching data protection.

- even if there was a data protection issue, there is an exemption to enable disclosure for the purpose of legal proceedings.

It's the usual story of the DPA being used when the person doesn't have a firm grasp of what it does, and does not, cover.

SamDude

Even though the image may not clearly show the VRM, the individual getting in/out of the car along with the make/model and perhaps car colour would be a good starting point.

All cars have permits and Security would be able to look up the staff member and narrow down to the person if there are a few matches.

That's my wishful thinking, anyway...

Money_maker

Would it have damaged their door? Is it worth a trundle around the car park one lunchtime? Are there any paint flakes left on your paintwork?

SamDude

Money_maker wrote: »

Would it have damaged their door? Is it worth a trundle around the car park one lunchtime? Are there any paint flakes left on your paintwork?

There are no paint flakes on the dent. If the other person hit the edge of their door, then it wouldn't be conclusive either way if I inspect 200ish cars on any given day (I've got a few rough edges caused by brushes with bushes and other bits).

SamDude

Update:
The local Security/Incident Manager has been very helpful in escalating the incident.
A security vetted official will be visiting my workplace next week to view the CCTV footage as no one else is authorised to view the footage.

If there is evidence captured, the other person will be identified and the matter escalated.
If there is no evidence (e.g. inconclusive that the other person caused it), then I've exhausted my options and have to live with it.

InsideInsurance

SamDude wrote: »

Someone asked what would happen if it was a director's car?
Don't be silly, they have their own car park :rotfl:

They drive their own cars?!?!?!

Yorkie1 wrote: »

Two points about data protection here:

- data protection relates to personal data. Yes, I know, that looks like the bleedin' obvious, but the CCTV in itself doesn't contain personal data - it doesn't store someone's name, address, bank details, etc. You are looking for the VRM of the car involved, presumably, which you can then put into MID to obtain the insurance (owner?) details. So the company would not be breaching data protection.

- even if there was a data protection issue, there is an exemption to enable disclosure for the purpose of legal proceedings.

It's the usual story of the DPA being used when the person doesn't have a firm grasp of what it does, and does not, cover.

Look at the ICO website, it has several advice papers on the DPA and CCTV and does say that for a SAR request for CCTV footage that you must consider the privacy of the others captured in the video. Indeed if it wasnt personal data then it wouldnt be covered by the DPA or a SAR

On the basis that the ICO is the governing body of the DPA I would suspect that their grasp is reasonable enough that their warnings should be heeded.

As always to illustrate a point a more extreme version of events is used. If the CCTV footage was of the reception of an abortion or STI clinic then clearly freely sharing it with whoever asked for a copy could cause significant issue to those captured in it.

Even civil legal action doesnt force the release of the material, the ICO's advice is to balance the need for justice of the case against the privacy of the others that are in the film that have nothing to do with the case. A court order could be made for its release but then the judge will have weighed up these facts for themselves and this absolves the owner of the CCTV from any possible issues from the other persons captured.

SamDude

I understand your point and I have read up on the ICO guidance.

However, I don't work in a sensitive business and the only individuals being filmed are staff members using a private staff car park.
The view of the Security/Incident Manager is that the employer is disappointed in the other person for not "living the company values" by leaving a note or owning up. They may have their own disciplinary case against the staff member if the evidence is found.

The security vetted officer will be the only person looking at the footage for evidence, if nothing of relevance is found then nobody else will be allowed to view the footage.

InsideInsurance

SamDude wrote: »

I understand your point and I have read up on the ICO guidance.

However, I don't work in a sensitive business and the only individuals being filmed are staff members using a private staff car park.

My point was being made to the other poster rather than yourself.

As you say, the sensitivity of the data does need to be factored in when balancing the right to privacy against the right of disclosure so. Staff in a staff carpark in an run of the mill company is unlikely to be an issue but there can always be curved balls eg if the film captures two colleagues getting amorous.

In my claims days we had an argument with a petrol station about wanting to get footage and their argument was of it potentially showing that people were where they shouldnt have been or buying flowers for the wrong person etc and it reminded me of a call I had when I worked for a supermarkets reward team and had a call from the account holder saying there was a problem with her card as all her points had gone. Account holder so no DPA issues and so said that the points had been spent by the secondary card on flowers at X store on Y date. There was a pause, she mumbled "but he was working in germany that week" and the phone went dead as she screamed "What the !"£"!!£$$ were you doing in X when you said you were in Germany?" :rotfl:

System

SamDude wrote: »

They may have their own disciplinary case against the staff member if the evidence is found.

The employer obviously likes to live dangerously from the sound of that. I hope that they have deep pockets if they try that line.