Dpa Question

[arfur mo]

Bit of an odd Need, some opinions please guys .

I have Client who runs a block of flats which has one tennant who tends to be particularly obnoxious by habit, every so often he cause's a ruck with other tennants.

Last week a spat starts, from viewing the clips (which are very clear and yes i did install it) this guy arives home but two women residents are chatting and partially blocking access the underground garage, so he drives around them - no audio so i'd guess some words of their positioning and his driving ability advice were 'offered'.

The women are still their when he leaves again around 20 minutes later to return his loan car, so again he go's to drive around them, one women definately moves to narrow the angle, he stops and you can see an animated conversation, as he then proceeds this woman follows the car off the drive - i assume shouting abuse in a road rage fashion.

The whole thing is repeated when he again returns.

The woman, who is apparently pregnant later complains to her husband, makes an accusation she was actually struck by the cars mirror, unfortunately the 3 camera positions are viewing from the blind side of the car, look as i mght i can't detect any sudden movement you might expect to see frim impact, either from being struck or the woman jumping back, no distress is shown by her on any of the events immediately after, so at worst she might have been gently brushed by the wing mirror.

So now the womans husband, who is very angry wants a copy of the footage, also the Police are involved having received a complaint (and they have the relevant footage).

The clients quandary is -:

1) should he give the complainants a copy?

2) shoukd he advise the driver of the complaint and also offer him a copy?

The client is wary of contraveing the DPA, and subsequently getting sued, i have said there is clear signage informing of the CCTv, it is run by the managing agents for the security and safety of all. Should? either party request it, then it has to be in writing and recorded in the dedicated diary that came with the kit.

With the Police now involved should the client allow both parties to have copies or not?

The whole thing was childish on both 'sides', The husband is aparently very bullish, managing agents words were "he is Russian, i suspect he is actually mafia, gives the impression he knows some very 'tasty' people", so apart from any legal wrangle he is very aware of an intimated indirect threat level to himself.

i suggested to refuse access, saying any footage is for solely for the use by the managing company to record crimes ir vandalism, not to be used in minor disputes. explain in your opinion having viewed the footage there is no evidence shown of any alleged contact.

If they still insist they want the footage then let them get a court order, as that keeps him clear.

Thought i'd just run it through by for experienced opinions.

[matthew.brough]

Seems very simple to me. Anyone recorded in that footage has a right to make a subject access request to get a copy however the footage must only show the person asking for the footage unless consent from other parties is gained if they are identifiable in the footage.

 

The womans husband has no right to ask for anything as he wasn't filmed.

 

I do hope you haven't been pulling of footage Arf without your SIA

[james.wilson]

As above formal request from both parties and fee taken. Then edit video to blank relevant faces.

[matthew.brough]

Easy way to avoid having to blank faces out http://www.lbc.co.uk/tory-who-likened-burqas-to-binbags-kicked-out-86927

[datadiffusion]

Indeed client problem, someone who genuinely feels they were captured must write in with fee, if not seen
sorry thats £10 gone. Your customer did have the right signage?

 

Actually, I thought you were System Q fan Arf, that 'coded' sign thing they do is actually quite a good idea to stop

casual enquires (or inappropriate enquiries direct to you)

[norman]

Easy way to avoid having to blank faces out http://www.lbc.co.uk/tory-who-likened-burqas-to-binbags-kicked-out-86927

Popular round your way.

[matthew.brough]

Popular round your way.

The adjacent town, maybe.

 

Not be much use having CCTV if we all wore the head covers would it?

[norman]

The adjacent town, maybe.

Uh huh.

[arfur mo]

Thanks Matt

Seems very simple to me. Anyone recorded in that footage has a right to make a subject access request to get a copy however the footage must only show the person asking for the footage unless consent from other parties is gained if they are identifiable in the footage.

Only the obnoxiouse driver, the woman resident, her pregnant freind and a child are shown. It would seem i'd have to blank out the 'offenders' and tenant's freinds face, as well as the child?

The womans husband has no right to ask for anything as he wasn't filmed.

i think i'll let the managing agent tell him that, not being to keen on skeeping with the fishes myself .

I do hope you haven't been pulling of footage Arf without your SIA

Signage galore, My clients do their own reviewing of recordings - and their well trained to do so.

I have viewed the 'action' at the site DVR to discuss moving one camera in order to view that particular location closer. Since i posted, i was told is was the friend not the tennant, i have looked again. To me it looks like the handbag was gently brushed by the rear door or quarter as he passed her, she was not personally touched by the mirror as was claimed.

i only ever offer to show how, give tips on how to search, download, and transfer footage to DVD etc. I simply don't have the time to search through footage especially for such minor incidents. I have to go there to PMV and service alarms, door entry etc. no point of me being seen to be taking sides if the footage don't aid one tennants version of events over another.

[arfur mo]

As above formal request from both parties and fee taken. Then edit video to blank relevant faces.

Thanks James, in effect what i advised with exception of blanking others faces. Not required as fortunately only the friend's face is clearly identifiable at the alleged moment of impact, driver's face is hidden in the car, the tenant is facing away from camera, the kid is out of shot.