Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case on this topic that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.   EDIT:  Just to be clear, I am not intending to go against established advice by suggesting that appeals should ALWAYS be made, just my thoughts on the particular case of paying for parking and entering an incorrect VRN. Should this ever happen to me, I will make an appeal at the first stage to avoid any problems that may occur at a later stage. Although, any individual in a similar position should decide for themselves what they think is an appropriate course of action. Also, I continue to be grateful for any advice you give on my own particular case.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

unfair use of cctv footage


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5683 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Does anyone have an opinion on this:

 

I work in a casino, we have cctv coverage for crime prevention and to ensure the gaming is run fairly. It has never been stated by communication or in my contract that cctv is used to monitor staff.

 

However, a "random" check (from a spiteful tip off) has seen me investigated and possibly disciplined for a minor misconduct issue.

 

Is this fair? Or more importantly legal and proper usage of the systems?

 

My entire career could be destroyed by this so all help will be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forum.

 

Although I have no direct knowledge of the gaming industry, I do know that the casino is at the risk of loss as much from staff as it is from punters, both through direct loss and through the collusion of croupiers. You allude to this fact in the policy statement quoted that the use of CCTV is for crime prevention and to ensure that gaming is run fairly. I would take that to means that the crime and unfair activity which the CCTV is used to deter is possible on both sides. If an activity has been witnessed on the recording which contravenes an employees disciplinary code then this would be an unfortunate consequence of that, but would nevertheless be reasonable for the employer to take action commensurate with what has been seen. I don't think for one minute that an employee may understand and agree to being recorded on camera but that only certain types of misdemeanour caught on tape will result in disciplinary action. I know this is not what you want to hear and I am sorry.

 

Before we can give an absolute opinion though it would be neccessary to know the nature of the 'offence' so to speak. At the end of the day, you may only expect to be dismissed if whatever you were doing constituted Gross Misconduct. A more minor misdemeanour should result in nothing more than a warning unless it is a specific term of your contract that this would be considered GM. Also, what exactly does the company policy say about the use of CCTV - either in a company handbook, or on signs around the building? Has anybody else been disciplined for doing what you have done and what was the sanction?

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for your reply. really the allegation against me is quite trivial in my (and other more senior peoples) mind.

 

i was not paying close enough attention whilst watching the casino. it was 5am, there were few customers (and i had delegated someone to supervise anyhow).

 

i understand your view on usage of cctv footage, but as i said it can only be used for crime prevention (i certainly did not commit a crime by any stretch of the imagination); to ensure gaming is run openly and fairly (certainly not debatable) and retrospectively in the case of gross misconduct. my offence is (very) minor misconduct so i believe the footage should not be used.

 

my concerns are why it has been used. i have learnt that someone told tales (there is no possible reason to view footage of a casino with 5 customers at 5am); and also the way the issue has been escalated into a matter that can (as seems designed to) ruin my career.

 

my punishment can range from a verbal warning (i am completely clean diciplinary wise) to dismissal, hence my concerns with such a range.

 

thanks again for your opinions

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Sidewinder says, I can't see why there would be any reason for your employer not to look at the cctv footage. I think you should perhaps concentrate more on giving a good reason why, it would appear, you weren't doing your job rather than looking at why they can't use evidence which appears to have caught you out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for your reply. really the allegation against me is quite trivial in my (and other more senior peoples) mind.

 

i was not paying close enough attention whilst watching the casino. it was 5am, there were few customers (and i had delegated someone to supervise anyhow).

 

i understand your view on usage of cctv footage, but as i said it can only be used for crime prevention (i certainly did not commit a crime by any stretch of the imagination); to ensure gaming is run openly and fairly (certainly not debatable) and retrospectively in the case of gross misconduct. my offence is (very) minor misconduct so i believe the footage should not be used.

 

my concerns are why it has been used. i have learnt that someone told tales (there is no possible reason to view footage of a casino with 5 customers at 5am); and also the way the issue has been escalated into a matter that can (as seems designed to) ruin my career.

 

my punishment can range from a verbal warning (i am completely clean diciplinary wise) to dismissal, hence my concerns with such a range.

 

thanks again for your opinions

 

You would be perfectly within your rights to suggest to your employer that you believe that an attempt has been made to discredit you, but I fear that to challenge the purpose of using CCTV and its role in catching you out runs a huge risk of being called a troublemaker, or worse, having something to hide. Whilst it may be true that their data collection policy statement regarding the use of CCTV could and should be more comprehensive, that would be an argument for the Information Commissioner about data protection rather than with your employer and their disciplinary procedures. An employer in investigating an allegation of misconduct would be entitled (I believe) to use whatever means are at their disposal to prove or disprove the allegation. What does matter and is crucial in the interests of a fair disciplinary policy is that the procedure is carried out correctly. To that end, you should have written details of the allegation together with the evidence on which they have based the decision to insigate the disciplinary procedure. You must be invited to attend a disciplinary hearing and warned what the possible sanction may be should they decide that disciplinary action is warranted and you must be given the right to have a work colleague or Union rep present. Following the hearing, you must be given the findings in writing, and a right of appeal if you wish to do so.

 

Once again, I have no knowledge of your employer, or the industry in which you work, but provided that the disciplinary procedure is carried out correctly, and any sanction is in line with company policy and action taken for similar misdemeanours with other staff, I do not believe that you can argue that their means of gathering evidence is inadmissible.

 

What exactly have you been investigated for and are they using the words Gross Misconduct (dereliction of duty, disregard for security etc)? You may in those circumstances argue that this was not the case due to having delegated that aspect of the job (providing that you had the authority to do so) and that this is nothing more than a minor misdemeanour (as supported by other, senior, staff) and an episode from which you have learned a valuable lesson. This may minimise any sanction to a warning and you could request that this remain on file for as short a time as possible considering your previously unblemished record.

 

Just a suggestion :)

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...