GDPR. CASE LAW FOR NON CONSENT

user1977

NW6NW6 said:

Case Law: TLT v Home Office, Damages of £39,500 for asylum seeker spreadsheet blunder – Aidan Wills – Inforrm's Blog

You really think that your situation compares to that of 1500 asylum seekers having their sensitive personal data published (leading to genuine fears about the repercussions from the regimes from which they were trying to escape)?

Sandtree

user1977 said:

NW6NW6 said:

Case Law: TLT v Home Office, Damages of £39,500 for asylum seeker spreadsheet blunder – Aidan Wills – Inforrm's Blog

You really think that your situation compares to that of 1500 asylum seekers having their sensitive personal data published (leading to genuine fears about the repercussions from the regimes from which they were trying to escape)?

Fully agree that there is no comparison but the judge would have considered the case of the 6 claimants in the action and not the other 1,494. We dont have punitive damages in the UK so the fact there were others not involved in the case would be irrelevant. 

The ICO would consider any appropriate fine for the breach where the scale would be factored.

The OP will probably find some case law where photos have been added to products with defamatory messaging but again thats a different kettle of fish. The obvious thing to check is any privacy notices that are in their premises as I'd be highly surprised if they don't have CCTV and so would have a notice. I've seen several recently in hotels etc (bored whilst in the queue) which state they reserve the right to use any images in promotional materials etc. 

NW6NW6

They claim they have media disclaimers , whatever they are but have not evidenced these

pinkshoes

NW6NW6 said:

I am not  a predator like the parking companies. I am a very private person and this has distressed me, I do voluntary work for old people and this brochure could be seen as an endorsement for them.

They claim to have my consent but have refused to engage with me on this matter

So what you're saying is that an employee sneaked up while you were there and took a photo of you?

And you're absolutely sure there was no sign upon entrance advising you that photos might be taken?

Your claim is not GDPR and nothing like the two things you have listed. A photo in a brochure vs 100s of people having their name, age, nationality and asylum details released?!?!

You cannot claim for past distress. Only from when you requested the photo was removed and the time it took to remove it. Have people recognised you in this photo and contacted you because of it? 

If you make this claim you could end up £1000s out of pocket paying their expenses.

MattMattMattUK

NW6NW6 said:

I am not  a predator like the parking companies. I am a very private person and this has distressed me, I do voluntary work for old people and this brochure could be seen as an endorsement for them.

They claim to have my consent but have refused to engage with me on this matter

They can claim to have your consent, but in reality it makes no difference. This is nothing to do with GDPR, within the UK a model release is not required either. You are not entitled to compensation, none of the links you have posted are of any relevance.

All it seems is that you are money grabbing as firstly you have no moral right to any compensation, but even more so you have no legal right to any. 

SpiderLegs

Sounds like a clear breach to me.
compensation I would estimate at somewhere between 0 and £4.50.

powerful_Rogue

@NW6NW6 , I am claiming £1000 a year because........

It's what you put on your claim form. We're hardly going to be able to assist much more then the advice you have been given if you don't answer.

sheramber

Why are you asking for case law  that you can quote , then quoting cases you  consider apply to your claim?
 

Aylesbury_Duck

If it's the principle that's important, then an apology, an immediate correction and a gesture such as a donation to the care home's charitable fund (as your nominated charity) would be a reasonable outcome.  A request to the company along those lines would be difficult to refuse.

If you're just looking to trouser £5,000 for yourself, then I'm afraid it's clearly nothing to do with principles or privacy.

SpiderLegs

Personally speaking I wouldn’t feel comfortable attempting to extract 5 grand from an organisation that was there to care for the elderly in their final years. Especially if a relative had been under their care and I (presumably) had no complaints about that care.
And especially given the current challenges in funding social care.
And especially for something as innocuous as having a photo taken.

In fact I would be completely embarrassed to even consider such a thing. 

Perhaps I am just out of touch with reality and I should adopt a more mercenary approach to wealth acquisition instead.