Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Papat and welcome to CAG   Find one of my drafts on another thread and adapt it to say :-   I cancelled due to relocation to go to Uni and could not use the gym any more.   I now realise I should have given one month's notice and paid a final month's fee.   I'll pay this if you accept my  offer within 14 days but the offer will be withdrawn if you demand any more.   Put a draft here for checking first if you want.   Send the  letter to Harlands in Haywards Heath and get a free Cert of Posting at the PO
    • Name of the Claimant ?  Hoist Finance UK Holdings 1LI   Date of issue – 11th Nov 2019   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? The Claim is for the sum of £2722 arising from the Defendant's breach of a regulated consumer credit agreement referenced Under no 4929421509954002 The Defendant has failed to remedy the breach in accordance with a Default Notice issued pursuant to ss.87(1) and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant claims the sums due from the Defendant following the legal assignment of the agreement from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd (EX BARCLAYCARD) Written notice of the assignment has been given. The Claimant claims 1.The sum of £2792 2. Costs   What is the total value of the claim? £2977  Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) ? No    Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? Yes, possibly more than once. This claim form has been sent not to my actual address but to a friend's house who lets me use their address for post. I had to do this as I had a lot of post go missing at my own address a few years ago. My address on Clear Score is different and my actual address. I don't know how they got this address.   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? No, I'd never heard of Hoist Finance before Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card bill   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? I genuinely don't know although according to Clear Score it was in 2010   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? I don't know   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/ Equifax /Etc...) ? It's on clear score both as Barclaycard and Hoist. The Barclaycard debt it £0 but the Hoist debt is £2792   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. I assume it's a debt purchaser   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? No, I don't remember receiving a notice of assignment.   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not to my knowledge   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not that I remember   Why did you cease payments? I couldn't afford to pay the minimum and hoped that as the amount wasn't huge they might disappear   What was the date of your last payment? I think it was July 2014 but it might have been May 2015.     Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? Not to my knowledge but it was so long ago I have no idea what the debt is for or how much of it might have been late/missed payment charges.   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No I did not I've never had a claim issued against me before. Due to my profession it is imperative that I do not get a County Court judgement against me.  Please help with what I should do.  Thank you all in advance.
    • @Jase1982   I have been trying to get up to to speed, and struggling   "Unite general secretary Len McCluskeytold the Guardian that Labour had to win over the party’s traditional working-class supporters with by promising to end free movement of workers - migrant Labour from Europe - after Brexit."   Labour declares a completely stark raving mad open door to anyone and everyone   Immigration was and still is THE big issue driving Brexit (but Corbyn is of course a Brexiter)   Corbyn promises a new Scot ref, then doesn't then hums and hars.     So what actually is happening?     Corbyn declares he's in it for all voters - but seems to mean he wants to ostracise most voters (biggest issue driving Brexit) and bring in new voters who might vote for him in gratitude despite not knowing who he is and probably not caring, and hopes some of them might be nurses.   Cluckskey wants to end (EU) free movement or workers? So where is he on the open door policy - (Theres apparently 40-60,000 none Turk ISIS looking for a new home ...)     I cant make any coherent sense of it whatsoever. Bonkers.   correction: Only sense I see is keeping everyone at each others throats to prevent them seeing the real problem - Corbyn and his quite small cabal of left wing loons ‌
    • OK, using the Norgan rule  payments of £100 per month towards the arrears would clear them in the remaining term of the mortgage, but only just - you would need to keep those payments up for 12 years without fail.  However the lender might not be too happy about waiting 12 years and may force your hand by applying for an eviction warrant in which case you'd have to get a hearing before a judge for them to decide.  £200 per month would halve the time it takes to clear arrears.  You have to decide what sum you can afford to maintain for a long period.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 492 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Not sure if this is the correct forum,but it's the only 1 closest to my query, it involves an employee.

 

Last week when England knocked out Colombia,

there were fans congregating in a town center ,

blocking the road,

and 2 buses were blocked in.

 

Several dozen fans were converging on one of the buses which was immediately outside the pub.,

rocking it,

opening the entrance doors via the outside emergency door button.

 

The driver attempted 3 or 4 times to gently shove a few fans off.

1 fan actually got onto the roof and was jumping on the roof.

 

A harrowing experience for the several passengers on board,

some of whom were young women.

 

All the time this was happening,

someone was filming the incident.

 

All of a sudden,

the video clip is on Youtube.

 

The driver concerned is angry that this video clip is on youtube ,

uploaded by a local taxi firm.

 

The driver never gave his permission for the video clip to be uploaded or for the drivers face to be shown.

The taxi firm did not ask the bus company if they could upload it either.

 

Not only was it embarrassing for the driver at the time of the incident,

but it was also a shock for him when he saw the video clip on Youtube,

which has gone viral,

and has had over 66,000 hits.

 

The bus driver asked me if there is a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018,

and/or a breach of the GDPR.

 

As I am not clued up much on both,

I cannot give a positive answer

 

So,

any help and advice would be greatly appreciated.

I will print it off and give it to the employee.

Edited by DragonFly1967
Added some spaces and paragraphs :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, to start, I should say that I have also seen the video on youtube.

 

This is not a breach of the DPA and/or the GDPR for many reasons.

 

Although the drivers face can be seen, there is nothing contained in the video (with the exception of his face) that identifies them personally. As the incident took place in public and was filmed in public, there is no right to or expectation of privacy. Anyone can film anyone else in a public place and they do not need the permission of anyone else to do so. Annoying? Sometimes yes, especially when you're just trying to do your job, but it's just one of those things when every man and his dog is carrying around a broadcast quality camera in their pocket I'm afraid.

 

I really can't understand why the bus driver is embarrassed by this incident. It's not like they got off the bus and provided them with a set of steps to help them climb on top. There was nothing that the driver could have done to prevent this from happening apart from mowing down countless idiots that were standing in the road (which, after watching the video, I'm sure was sorely tempting) so they have absolutely nothing at all to be embarrassed about.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds all a bit childish by the driver - what has he got to loose? working legally is he not?


:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the above post by dragonfly is not entirely correct.

 

Whilst it is true there is no expectation of privacy in public places and there is no law prohibiting filming is public,

this means there has been no tort of the invasion of privacy.

 

However the GDPR is another matter entirely.

 

By the person uploading it to YouTube without permission,

and the drivers personal data ie his facial image has been shared,

this is not compliant with the GDPR.

 

It doesn’t matter that you or I may not be able to identify him,

other people might.

 

The only time that it could be shared online without permission is If it’s in the interests of the public and for freedom of the press/expression.

 

I do not see how that would apply in this case and the consent of the driver should have been obtained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sounds all a bit childish by the driver - what has he got to loose? working legally is he not?

 

That is of no relevance. He didn’t consent to his image being posted online and is offended/embarrassed/shocked/whatever else by it being placed online without his consent. Not in the interests of the public or for journalistic reasons either. Clear breach of GDPR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually the above post by dragonfly is not entirely correct. Whilst it is true there is no expectation of privacy in public places and there is no law prohibiting filming is public, this means there has been no tort of the invasion of privacy. However the GDPR is another matter entirely. By the person uploading it to YouTube without permission, and the drivers personal data ie his facial image has been shared, this is not compliant with the GDPR. It doesn’t matter that you or I may not be able to identify him, other people might. The only time that it could be shared online without permission is If it’s in the interests of the public and for freedom of the press/expression. I do not see how that would apply in this case and the consent of the driver should have been obtained.

 

I'd agree with that completely if it was uploaded for a commercial purpose, then I do think the GDPR (at the very least) would apply. But what we're talking about here (basically) is: A member of the public, uploading footage of other members of the public, that was filmed in public, for no commercial gain.

 

I'm just not convinced that there's a breach, or at least, not one that could be proved/actioned.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is this country coming too? nanny state!


:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd agree with that completely if it was uploaded for a commercial purpose, then I do think the GDPR (at the very least) would apply. But what we're talking about here (basically) is: A member of the public, uploading footage of other members of the public, that was filmed in public, for no commercial gain.

 

I'm just not convinced that there's a breach, or at least, not one that could be proved/actioned.

 

Think you approaching it from incorrect angle. It's not whether it's processed for commercial purposes in order to breach gdpr, rather if it's not purely for domestic or household purpose then it's a breach of gdpr. CJEU ruling in reynes. And number of UK CoA rulings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what is this country coming too? nanny state!

 

In terms of data protection it's not.

Other things yes.

 

The problem is the whole scale theft and misuse of our private data from the Russian criminal online gangs and statesponsored misuse of data by Russia and North Korea,

to Cambridge analytica and Facebook all the way to the DVLA selling our personal data to corrupt parking companies.

That's why the gdpr is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very difficult to find anything that discusses public use (rather than media/journalism use) of cameras for photography/videoing in public. There's lots of information for professional photographers/videographers, journalists (employed & independent) and just about everyone else who uses something with a lens for commercial purposes. But when it comes to Joe Bloggs filming something and uploading it, Google is bereft of anything even remotely meaningful.

 

I think I might email the ICO about this and get a definitive take on it (getting an answer should only take a decade or two) :lol:


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of this driver in any event,

it was a local taxi firm that uploaded the image.

 

In order to be compliant with GDPR they would have been required to give the driver a privacy notice

ie if the event was recorded by their cctv then the required signs would have been necessary,

 

if they had of handed the cctv to the police so that action could be taken against the hooligans vandalising the bus then that would have a lawful reason,

but just posting the video online without consent is definitely a breach of GDPR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the taxi firm were sending a message out to the public.....

."Don;t get the bus, get a taxi"...…

 

I too believe there is a breach of GDPR,

but wanted to be absolutely certain,

 

which is why i have posted on here for expert(hopefully) advice.......

 

I am aware that the bus company are seeking tp pursue the assailant on the roof of the bus for damage to the roof of the 1 year old bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what I looked up on Wikipedia.....

 

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679 is a regulation in EU law on data protection and privacy for all individuals within the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA).

 

It also addresses the export of personal data outside the EU and EEA areas.

The GDPR aims primarily to give control to citizens and residents over their personal data and to simplify the regulatory environment for international business by unifying the regulation within the EU.[1]

 

Superseding the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC,

the regulation contains provisions and requirements pertaining to the processing of personally identifiable information of individuals (formally called data subjects in the GDPR) inside the European Union,

 

and applies to all enterprises,

regardless of location,

that are doing business with the European Economic Area.

 

Business processes that handle personal data must be built with data protection by design and by default,

meaning that personal data must be stored using pseudonymization or full anonymization,

and use the highest-possible privacy settings by default,

 

so that the data is not available publicly without explicit,

informed consent,

and cannot be used to identify a subject without additional information stored separately.

 

No personal data may be processed unless it is done under a lawful basis specified by the regulation,

or if the data controller or processor has received an unambiguous and individualized affirmation of consent from the data subject.

 

The data subject has the right to revoke this consent at any time.

 

Clearly a breach of GDPR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no breach of anything

 

the person that took the video was standing on public land ….the events were viewed from public land...

 

there are no laws whatsoever that prevent such actions . nor the uploading of the video anywhere...


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry DX but you are incorrect.

They had no right to post the video online.

 

It was not posted for journalistic reasons or for reasons in the public interest and the driver was clearly the focus of the video together with the person damaging the bus.

 

As in my earlier post if they had of just provided the video to the police or to the bus company then that would not of breached the GDPR, but putting it online has.

 

The video of the perp would probably not have breached the GDPR as they could claim to have posted it in order to try identify him but they should have blurred out the drivers face or got his consent.

Edited by dx100uk
quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please tell us which Article of the GDPR has been breached as there are over 99 Articles in the GDPR this may help to clarifiy your position.

 

I have to also agree there has been no breach of the GDPR.


How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been 2 breaches of the GDPR.

1. Art 12 and Art 13 have been breached by the taxi firm as they have not provided the requisite notification to the bus driver as required by the GDPR

2. The images of the driver on the video, is the personal data of the driver - this cannot be disputed. In order to process(use, transfer, store, delete, etc) personal data then there are only 6 lawful basis and the controller/processor MUST be able to show that the processing is lawful under one of these(Article 6) - they are:

1. consent

2. contract

3. legal obligation

4. vital interests of the data subject

5. task in public interest

6. legitimate purposes of the data controller which are not overridden by the rights and freedoms of the data subject

 

The taxi firm cannot rely on any of these for posting the personal data of the driver on the Internet and so they unlawfully processed the data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify steveod are you saying that if a private individual takes a photo in a public place in which the faces of other people are recognisable and posts it on a public website it's a breach of GDPR unless they get the consent of everyone whose face appears in it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not exactly.

 

the court cases have ruled where the focus of the images appear to be on a person or number of people then the consent of those people would be required.

 

people that are in the background and not the focus of the picture and so probably not entirely recognisable do not need to give consent.

 

However, consent may also not actually be required as a legitimate reason could be used, for example, at a racing event if i take a picture of a racing car speeding past and the people on the other side of the track show in the picture then

a)because they not the focus of the picture and

b)because there is a legitimate reason for the picture and that people attending such an event would expect people to take photos or videos, then that would be lawful.

 

on the other hand,

me taking a picture of someone picking their nose whilst sitting in their car and posting it all over facebook or youtube would breach the GDPR as no consent and no legitimate reason for posting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steveod you are wrong

dont make things up

 

There are no laws whatsoever if filmed from a public space

 

There is no expectation of privacy of anyone.


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the BBC I was informed they are obliged to get permissions to film using individuals i.e. direct at individuals (consent) but actual actions filming etc then film but edit if necessary as so not to break human rights = very difficult at times to differentiate = every situation will be different subject to events at the time.


:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steveod you are wrong

dont make things up

 

There are no laws whatsoever if filmed from a public space

 

There is no expectation of privacy of anyone.

 

So you are a Data Protection specialist?

Have you reviewed the case law?

 

It doesn’t make any difference whether filmed in public, in private, from a private premises to a public premises or vice versa.

ALL personal data processing is subject to the GDPR laws.

 

I recommend you go view the ICO guidelines on cctv, body worn cameras and drones as these are used for filming in public places and as you will plainly see are subject to GDPR as well. And read the Reynes judgement from CJEU as well as the Lindquist cjeu judgement.

 

there is also a couple of uk cases I can show you where it was ruled uploading personal data to a website was in breach of data protection act.

 

It’s not the filming that’s the issue. It’s the posting online without consent or legitimate reason that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go for it steve but waste your own money not someone elses.

go see a solicitor and pay for a consultation on that mobile phone footage eh!

 

theres is no claim under GDPR anywhere,

it was filmed in a public place from a public place

end of.

 

I dont need to know anything about silly ifs and buts or CJEU rubbish either..

it wasn't a drone...it wasn't a body worn camera...it wasn't a CCTV system..[all do have some limitations]

 

 

it was a pers hand held device

 

just know someone who is very high up in the UK equiv of the USA 1st amendment auditors ….

 

as I said stop making things up...there is NO BREACH of anything...


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know someone that is very high up.

That really doesn’t mean anything.

 

You know a lot and help many posters but that doesn’t make everyone else wrong.

 

It doesn’t make any difference how the footage was obtained, handheld mobile, cctv, drone, body camera, satellite.

 

issue was the posting of the drivers image on the internet, who had done nothing criminal, without his consent and without legitimate reason and causing him distress.

 

I don’t need to consult a solicitor I have plenty of data protection experience as my job.

 

Please show me where in the GDPR or the DPA 2018 it excludes the processing from the obligations of lawful basis of processing of personal data when the personal data has been obtained in a public place. There is no such exclusion or exemption.

 

And it’s no use just rubbishing the cjeu, those rulings are binding and show that recordings or images of people obtained in a public area are personal data and can only be processed without consent where the data subject has committed a crime or for the legitimate reason of freedom of expression.

 

you believe whatever you want, that’s your right.

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary quote removed...spacing added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

show you...just go look at the 100's of videos from the UK groups on youtube already from public land...

MOD, USAF, Prisons, etc etc ...none have ever successfully prosecuted anyone using a hand held device..despite all their wonderful and farcical reasons they state in the videos the activists must turn off their cameras and delete the footage.

 

as for me, 35yrs being responsible for data protection in one of the biggest establishments of its kind in the UK

 

….'for the legitimate reason of freedom of expression'...you are getting there.


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...