Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

CCTV Advice needed please!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4917 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

Hi all,

I work for a large firm, in the Hospitality industry, i wont give the name or clues as it would be instantly recognizable, and could lead to problems for me.

We have had CCTV installed in the public areas for some time, with the appropriate signage, etc.

because of a suspected number of recent stock thefts, the management have now said they are installing additional cameras in the private staff areas.

These include the staff room, where numerous staff get changed into uniform ( company policy forbids staff from wearing uniform outside of work, so have to get changed)(when confronted about this, management respond by saying that there is a lockable staff toilet to get changed in, (2 toilet cubicles, 1 male and 1 female) but when there is possibly 8-10 staff starting a shift there is no room for us all to get changed, so we have to use the staff room. as company policy also forbids staff from being on site for longer than 20 mins before your shift starts or 20 mins after shift ends, we cant stagger use of toilets either as there can be upwards of 16 staff at a shift change to all get changed either into or out of uniform.

Numerous staff have requested that the new camera be installed in the kitchen area as this is where the stock is being stolen from, but management have disagreed, as those responsible are believed to take stock out of the kitchen to consume in the staff room or the toilet area.

I really need advice about this, as i believe this is an invasion of privacy, yet i understand the need to catch the culprits, installing in the kitchen would to my mind have 2 results, 1, Deterrent,some of the culprits would not be stupid enough to steal on camera knowing the camera is there, 2, capture, those stupid enough to do so would get caught.

I dont understand the need to install a camera in the staff room as this infringes on personal time that we could resonably expect to remain private.

Any advice would be appreciated folks,

Cheers

Cold

Link to post
Share on other sites

The employer is on dodgy ground and you might want to take this up with the ICO. CCTV should never be used in areas where the employee should be able to enjoy a degree of privacy, except where serious crime is suspected and even there, the images should only be used to investigate an incident, and should not be routinely monitored.

 

The ICO has some useful guidelines on their WEBSITE and these may help you to formulate a grievance against the proposed installation and a list of awkward questions to ask your employer about how the CCTV will be used, who will have access to the recordings and in what circumstances, do they propose to provide additional, non-filemed areas in which you may be permitted to change, potential breaches of the Human Rights Act - quite an extensive list.

 

If you don't like the answers, then take it up with the ICO. Seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut!

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

Hello there. I'm very sorry that you and your colleagues are going through this. Sidewinder knows far more than I do, but to me the employer's actions sound completely OTT and privacy is important, as well as dignity etc.

 

My best, HB

Edited by honeybee13
Clairty plus I wish I could type properly.

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Sidewinder but I would stick with the arguments around changing. The argument that a camera infringes on "personal time" is weak, and given the arguments that stock is being stolen and consumed in the staff room is unlikely to impress the ICO. Breaks, per se, are not "personal time" (the employer can set rules about things during breaks, so you are still legally under their control in such periods) and the employer could easily argue that these times when staff are on their premises and on break are the most vulnerable periods. However, the argument about changing is solid - there is an absolute right to privacy for dressing / undressing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like all the affected workers should be complaining to a union so that the union could address the issue with the employer, that way some sort of protection for the individual is achieved. Unless none of you belong to a union of course !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd look at the welfare regs for changing before trying to pursue via the DPA/ICO ;)

 

Google welfare regs changing rooms as i can't link here

 

What facilities do I need to provide for changing and storing clothing?

 

If the work activity requires your employees to change into and wear specialist clothing (overalls, a uniform, thermal clothing etc), then you must provide enough changing rooms for the number of people expected to use them.

Where a changing room is provided it should:

be readily accessible;

contain, or lead directly to, clothing storage and washing facilities;

provide seating;

provide a means for hanging clothes _ a hook or peg may be sufficient;

ensure the privacy of the user.

 

once you ascertain if your employer meets the requirements and also if they are stating people can change in the toilets correctly the cctv argument becomes easier as they can monitor anything apart from "private" areas as stated above.

 

The best way to back them off is via their possibly inappropriate facilities not the cctv argument

 

I would also not consider changing in a toilet cubicle reasonable

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

I work for a large firm, in the Hospitality industry, i wont give the name or clues as it would be instantly recognizable, and could lead to problems for me.

We have had CCTV installed in the public areas for some time, with the appropriate signage, etc.

because of a suspected number of recent stock thefts, the management have now said they are installing additional cameras in the private staff areas.

These include the staff room, where numerous staff get changed into uniform ( company policy forbids staff from wearing uniform outside of work, so have to get changed)(when confronted about this, management respond by saying that there is a lockable staff toilet to get changed in, (2 toilet cubicles, 1 male and 1 female) but when there is possibly 8-10 staff starting a shift there is no room for us all to get changed, so we have to use the staff room. as company policy also forbids staff from being on site for longer than 20 mins before your shift starts or 20 mins after shift ends, we cant stagger use of toilets either as there can be upwards of 16 staff at a shift change to all get changed either into or out of uniform.

Numerous staff have requested that the new camera be installed in the kitchen area as this is where the stock is being stolen from, but management have disagreed, as those responsible are believed to take stock out of the kitchen to consume in the staff room or the toilet area.

I really need advice about this, as i believe this is an invasion of privacy, yet i understand the need to catch the culprits, installing in the kitchen would to my mind have 2 results, 1, Deterrent,some of the culprits would not be stupid enough to steal on camera knowing the camera is there, 2, capture, those stupid enough to do so would get caught.

I dont understand the need to install a camera in the staff room as this infringes on personal time that we could resonably expect to remain private.

Any advice would be appreciated folks,

Cheers

Cold

 

Intimidation from the employer.

Definitely.

 

C'mon guys, employers do have the right to take care of their premises, but all within reasonable precautions.

CCTV in changing rooms, hahaha! not inside of the lockers really? LOL

 

There is a possibility the CCTV can be positioned facing the entrance to the changing rooms. That is the furthest the cameras can go.

Otherwise, I am sure there are some other means to catch the thief.

CCTV in changing rooms is just employer's laziness... to think. Mainly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...