Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Skivey
    • By Skivey 4th Mar 18, 6:02 PM
    • 57Posts
    • 9Thanks
    Skivey
    Refused CCTV footage of myself.
    • #1
    • 4th Mar 18, 6:02 PM
    Refused CCTV footage of myself. 4th Mar 18 at 6:02 PM
    I own a bar and the lady who rents out the flats opposite us have conveniently put up 2 cameras which point directly into my door. I had the police come around to check but she has since said it's for her own property protection.

    I know she watches it religiously, she has access from her home3 miles away. She has reported us for noise a few times, but as she lives 3 miles away we are still baffled. Her residents come to our bar and we are always careful with noise making sure someone is outside keeping noise levels to a minimum. She has previously avoided any meetings made between us and the police.

    We had our first incident in 4 years, someone got into the verbal in the door and ended up getting knocked out at the front door. I was stood right next to the person who threw the punch. We have been given a name but cannot 100% prove who it was as I tended to the guy knocked out and the person who threw the punch ran away.

    I formally requested footage of myself at the door giving a description of myself and the times I wanted. I enclosed 10 pounds. 2 weeks later I have received a letter saying basically "the police aren't pressing charges so you don't need the footage". I didn't even mention the incident in my request for footage.

    I am the chairman for our local pubwatch and therefore an incident in my bar needs to be dealt with appropriately. However I'm not asking for footage of the incident I just want the footage of myself. I'll even be ok if they blurred the faces out.

    As far as I'm aware she has a legal obligation to give me footage of myself as requested within 40 days. I'm unsure where to go from here?

    Any ideas?
Page 2
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 5th Mar 18, 12:21 PM
    • 4,284 Posts
    • 4,330 Thanks
    DoaM
    The reason the OP wants the footage (of themself) is that it'll prove that the neighbour is spying on the OP's property, and so help with the harassment claim. The "incident" is just a by-product and convenient excuse for requesting the footage.

    (That's how I read things).
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 5th Mar 18, 12:46 PM
    • 20,133 Posts
    • 11,085 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude

    Everyone is entitled to footage of themselves, and only themselves.
    Originally posted by peachyprice
    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
    • By Gavin83 5th Mar 18, 1:53 PM
    • 5,118 Posts
    • 8,323 Thanks
    Gavin83
    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.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    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
    • By forgotmyname 5th Mar 18, 2:52 PM
    • 26,936 Posts
    • 10,842 Thanks
    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?
    Punctuation, Spelling and Grammar will be used sparingly. Due to rising costs of inflation.

    My contribution to MSE. Other contributions will only be used if they cost me nothing.

    Due to me being a tight git.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 5th Mar 18, 5:23 PM
    • 12,286 Posts
    • 9,615 Thanks
    unholyangel
    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.
    Originally posted by Gavin83
    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.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 5th Mar 18, 6:19 PM
    • 20,133 Posts
    • 11,085 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    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?
    Originally posted by forgotmyname
    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
    • By z1a 5th Mar 18, 7:07 PM
    • 1,253 Posts
    • 1,193 Thanks
    z1a




    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
    Originally posted by Skivey

    "Libellous"
    • steampowered
    • By steampowered 5th Mar 18, 8:27 PM
    • 2,488 Posts
    • 2,407 Thanks
    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.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 5th Mar 18, 10:04 PM
    • 20,133 Posts
    • 11,085 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    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.
    Originally posted by steampowered
    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
    • By hollydays 6th Mar 18, 9:11 AM
    • 16,013 Posts
    • 12,064 Thanks
    hollydays
    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.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    And this is exactly what even large companies do sometimes to avoid handing over footage.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,243Posts Today

8,500Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin