Refused CCTV footage of myself.

[Deleted User]

peachyprice wrote: »

Everyone is entitled to footage of themselves, and only themselves.

I think Gavin already answered the OP back at post #8, there is no requirement for her to keep the footage so all she has to say is she has deleted it and there's an end to it.

A Subject Access Request (SAR) only requires the recipient to provide information which has been kept.

Any complaint to the ICO is therefore unlikely to lead to the person concerned suddenly complying with the request.

Gavin83

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I think Gavin already answered the OP back at post #8, there is no requirement for her to keep the footage so all she has to say is she has deleted it and there's an end to it.

I did answer this post quite clearly but the OP appears to be one of those who ignores the answers they don't like and only acknowledge those they do. Speaking to the ICO is a waste of time but it's the OP's time to waste so if they wish to chase it so be it.

Nothing regarding the CCTV mentioned here sounds like harassment and therefore even if they do obtain the footage with them included it proves zilch. They are perfectly entitled to film as they are. The floodlight is another matter, they can't have it shining into neighbours windows so I think this angle is worth pursuing. The OP won't get the CCTV removed though and I'm still unclear as to why they have an issue with it.

We're also only getting one side of the story here. The OP clearly feels harassed but potentially so does the neighbour. It could be the pub is more noisy than the OP accepts or there's other disturbances. Maybe the licencing hours have changed which has caused more resentment. It could be that the neighbour feels the bar devalues her property (which it probably does) although if the bar was there before she bought she's taking the mick a bit coming from this angle.

I'm curious, what happened 2 years ago that triggered this issue or was that when she bought the house?

It sounds like more than anything, as in most neighbour disputes it's a failure to communicate properly that's lead to this resentment. Still, if your clean then you've nothing to worry about.

forgotmyname

All they need to say is the recording is on a 24hour loop, its overwritten every 24 hours.

Can they keep the £10 if they have spent time going through 24hours of recordings and not found a single frame? Or do they need to supply something to keep the £10?

unholyangel

Gavin83 wrote: »

We're also only getting one side of the story here. The OP clearly feels harassed but potentially so does the neighbour. It could be the pub is more noisy than the OP accepts or there's other disturbances. Maybe the licencing hours have changed which has caused more resentment. It could be that the neighbour feels the bar devalues her property (which it probably does) although if the bar was there before she bought she's taking the mick a bit coming from this angle.

From what OP has said, she owns the property but doesn't live there (OP said she rents it out and that she has access to the cctv from her home that is miles away). So unlikely to be directly affected by any noise or change in opening hours.

If she's not registered with the ICO then she shouldn't be processing data - regardless of whats happening at the pub.

[Deleted User]

forgotmyname wrote: »

Can they keep the £10 if they have spent time going through 24hours of recordings and not found a single frame? Or do they need to supply something to keep the £10?

A nil return on a SAR does not entitle the person making the request to a refund. The fee is for the search, not the actual result. Most big firms returning no results will also refund the fee, but it's not an automatic entitlement.

To be honest, the whole idea of sending a SAR in these circumstances is a debacle.

It's also definitely not a Consumer Rights issue.

z1a

Skivey wrote: »

Most of your next statement is very slanderous. I don't even need to give you the satisfaction of a reply on that.





Kind regards

Matt

"Libellous"

steampowered

On the face of it, the Op is legally entitled to get a copy of the 'personal data' held by the CCTV owner through a subject access request.

It does not matter what purpose the Op is requesting the data for. The Op is perfectly entitled to make a subject access request, even if the purpose of making that request is to get the information for a harassment claim.

I cannot any that any of the exemptions in the Data Protection Act 1998 would allow the CCTV owner to avoid handing over the data. The CCTV owner would however be entitled to blur out the faces of individuals other than the Op, if she wanted to do that.

If the CCTV owner fails to comply with the subject access request, the Op is entitled to apply to court for an order that she hands over the CCTV footage.

The Op could also apply to court for compensation caused due to the CCTV owner's failure to hand over the footage, subject to certain limits.

In reality, would you want to apply to court over something like this? Unlikely.

[Deleted User]

steampowered wrote: »

If the CCTV owner fails to comply with the subject access request, the Op is entitled to apply to court for an order that she hands over the CCTV footage.

Not if the CCTV owner simply states that the footage has been deleted. I can't see Police time being used to seize the CCTV footage and the owner could easily delete the footage at any time (if it even still exists).

Basically the OP is on a hiding to nothing.

hollydays

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Not if the CCTV owner simply states that the footage has been deleted. I can't see Police time being used to seize the CCTV footage and the owner could easily delete the footage at any time (if it even still exists).

Basically the OP is on a hiding to nothing.

And this is exactly what even large companies do sometimes to avoid handing over footage.