Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
    • OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through. Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless. I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 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
      • 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 5678 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...