Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Refusal of dashcam request by rental company
FightBack Forums > Discussion > The Flame Pit
Woodsonsteve
Hi all, recently I was stopped by police regarding dangerous driving as I swerved to stop myself colliding with a driver who came flying out of nowhere. So I mounted the curb very minimally and an officer stopped me took my details and said something will be coming in the post regarding dangerous driving.

I have a car rental which is fitted with the hire companies dash cam. I have requested the footage so I can have this prepared to send to the police / courts however the rental company replied saying “as per GDPR we cannot provide you with this footage only the police” I then got my lawyer to request it as he is in a position of authority and they replied with the same answer.

Any thoughts if I can actually get this footage ?
TMC Towcester
Pretty sure you can - press harder!

Assuming it only relates to you (your driving) and matters in public view, I suspect some admin noddy is trotting out a bog-standard answer. Assuming you're taking the matter to a court hearing, the latter can demand it if you ask.
Newbie David
Whilst all the discussions are ongoing, it would be worth contacting the data controller of the hire company explaining what happened and ask them if they could ensure that either the dashcam is removed from the vehicle for now or if the footage in question can be copied from the camera and securely stored as you want to ensure that it doesn't get overwritten before you can get your hands on it.
The Slithy Tove
QUOTE (Woodsonsteve @ Sat, 4 Dec 2021 - 11:25) *
the rental company replied saying “as per GDPR we cannot provide you with this footage
That's the lazy response, and along with things like "anti-terrorism", "child protection" or "'elf'n'safety" is simply a term used in an attempt to shut down debate/do nothing.

Just whose personally identifiable information are they afraid of exposing if they allow you access to the footage. No one's, of course. And since it was shot in a public place (the road), no one has any right to privacy anyway.

In short, they're talking rubbish and must be challenged.
cp8759
Have you made a formal subject access request under GDPR?

If no, then do it now. If yes, show us their response.
Newbie David
QUOTE (The Slithy Tove @ Sat, 4 Dec 2021 - 13:53) *
QUOTE (Woodsonsteve @ Sat, 4 Dec 2021 - 11:25) *
the rental company replied saying “as per GDPR we cannot provide you with this footage
That's the lazy response, and along with things like "anti-terrorism", "child protection" or "'elf'n'safety" is simply a term used in an attempt to shut down debate/do nothing.

Just whose personally identifiable information are they afraid of exposing if they allow you access to the footage. No one's, of course. And since it was shot in a public place (the road), no one has any right to privacy anyway.

In short, they're talking rubbish and must be challenged.


Not really.
Number plates of privately owned vehicles are likely to be personal data (that's according to the ICO) and even though the footage was taken in a public place, companies are still bound by the requirements of the GDPR's. A private individual can freely view and release dashcam footage if they recorded it but companies cannot.
cp8759
QUOTE (Newbie David @ Sat, 4 Dec 2021 - 20:06) *
Not really.
Number plates of privately owned vehicles are likely to be personal data (that's according to the ICO) and even though the footage was taken in a public place, companies are still bound by the requirements of the GDPR's. A private individual can freely view and release dashcam footage if they recorded it but companies cannot.

They can still release a redacted video.

There is also the nuclear option of a witness summons, but I'd try the SAR route first.
Newbie David
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 4 Dec 2021 - 20:52) *
QUOTE (Newbie David @ Sat, 4 Dec 2021 - 20:06) *
Not really.
Number plates of privately owned vehicles are likely to be personal data (that's according to the ICO) and even though the footage was taken in a public place, companies are still bound by the requirements of the GDPR's. A private individual can freely view and release dashcam footage if they recorded it but companies cannot.

They can still release a redacted video.

There is also the nuclear option of a witness summons, but I'd try the SAR route first.


I fully agree that there's no reason why they can't release a redacted video but my comment was simply a reply to the post that was incorrect in stating that there would be no identifiable information in the footage and as it was recorded in public, there would no right to privacy for those recorded.
Both of those points wouldn't matter if the recordings were made by a private individual who was not bound by the GDPR's but as the dashcam belongs to a business, they are required to comply with the relevant legislation.
notmeatloaf
Quite possibly the video has already been overwritten and they have just sent you a standard "fobbing off" response. Some dashcams have collision detection but if there was no actual collision quite possibly even that wouldn't have been triggered.

Although to be honest as the other driver clearly didn't "come out of nowhere" then the dashcam footage may not help your case. A physical object appearing out of nowhere suggests either quantum motoring or poor observation.
DancingDad
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 5 Dec 2021 - 01:11) *
...........
Although to be honest as the other driver clearly didn't "come out of nowhere" then the dashcam footage may not help your case. A physical object appearing out of nowhere suggests either quantum motoring or poor observation.

Hmmmm
A bit judgmental IMO being as we have few details.
For instance, someone pops out from behind parked trucks or comes round a blind bend on the wrong side would "come out of nowhere" from the driver's view.
cp8759
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 5 Dec 2021 - 10:55) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 5 Dec 2021 - 01:11) *
...........
Although to be honest as the other driver clearly didn't "come out of nowhere" then the dashcam footage may not help your case. A physical object appearing out of nowhere suggests either quantum motoring or poor observation.

Hmmmm
A bit judgmental IMO being as we have few details.
For instance, someone pops out from behind parked trucks or comes round a blind bend on the wrong side would "come out of nowhere" from the driver's view.

Indeed, there's been a few pursuits documents on TV where a fleeing motorist has gone the wrong way round a roundabout at high speed. I don't think anyone would blame a driver going the correct way round the roundabout if he said the fleeing vehicle had come out of nowhere.
TryOut
The data protection act and GDPR do not say "Thou shall not supply data!"

They give regulation to the protection of data and how it may be used in justified circumstances. The OP's circumstance seems to be one that would justify the supply of the data.
T.T.D
A strong request for data under subject access Request, reminding the company of their obligations under GDPR and escalating your request to their data protection officer because clearly the chap or lady responding to you is clueless.

Ask them secure the data on the dates of your usage for the purposes of court proceedings further down the line.
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 5 Dec 2021 - 10:55) *
Hmmmm
A bit judgmental IMO being as we have few details.
For instance, someone pops out from behind parked trucks or comes round a blind bend on the wrong side would "come out of nowhere" from the driver's view.

I was going with the plain English interpretation that the driver didn't see where the third party came from.

Obviously if you are hit by an oncoming vehicle on the wrong side of the road it may be surprising but they very likely didn't come from nowhere.

As I was once hit from behind on a 20mph, wide road (doing the speed limit) from a driver who claimed I "came out of nowhere" I'm aware that "nowhere" can include a wide variety of places. In my case I suspect "nowhere" was "not on the screen of my phone whilst I check Facebook".
bama
Director liability has made many companies introduce a somewhat draconian GDPR policy. i.e always deny it so the boss can't get clobbered. No matter the facts, the merits or the law.
Greek God
I understand the purpose of GDPR but in its current form I don't believe it to be fit for purpose.
I cant find the thread but our car was hit by another in a Sainsbury carpark. Witnessed by 2 people willing to give statements and who photographed the offender and her vehicle. They spoke to us on return to our car to tell us what happened - circa 1500£ damage.
Police refused to take any action on DWDCA, failure to stop, failure to leave details and failure to report despite 2 EW and photo evidence. All leads were terminated with unable - GDPR.
The only legit way was DVLA with a V888
Incident was 19 Sep and I have just had my 6th refusal to release through a catalogue of obfuscation, pedantry and pettyfogging.
The Last was because I specifically did not state the phrase " The information I receive will not be passed to any third party "
They are quite happy to reveal info to any dodgy parking or enforcement outfit but not to a legitimate citizen with no other option. Ho wis anybody supposed to sue for policy excess and future policy increases let alone 1500 quid if only third party insurance??
Police wont release, garage wont release, neither ins company will release....... now the DVLA making it as difficult as possible.
cp8759
QUOTE (Greek God @ Mon, 13 Dec 2021 - 18:52) *
I understand the purpose of GDPR but in its current form I don't believe it to be fit for purpose.
I cant find the thread but our car was hit by another in a Sainsbury carpark. Witnessed by 2 people willing to give statements and who photographed the offender and her vehicle. They spoke to us on return to our car to tell us what happened - circa 1500£ damage.
Police refused to take any action on DWDCA, failure to stop, failure to leave details and failure to report despite 2 EW and photo evidence. All leads were terminated with unable - GDPR.
The only legit way was DVLA with a V888
Incident was 19 Sep and I have just had my 6th refusal to release through a catalogue of obfuscation, pedantry and pettyfogging.
The Last was because I specifically did not state the phrase " The information I receive will not be passed to any third party "
They are quite happy to reveal info to any dodgy parking or enforcement outfit but not to a legitimate citizen with no other option. Ho wis anybody supposed to sue for policy excess and future policy increases let alone 1500 quid if only third party insurance??
Police wont release, garage wont release, neither ins company will release....... now the DVLA making it as difficult as possible.

Don't really see the issue here, you can do an askmid lookup here https://www.askmid.com/askmidenquiry.aspx and once you have that you can claim from the insurance company?
Greek God
QUOTE
Don't really see the issue here

Which is what we did, however; their insurance deals with my insurance so details are only known by the respective Ins Companies. My insurance has a £350 excess and the policy has increased by £37 for the current year despite being a no fault claim. The only way to claim this back is by Small Claims - for which you need a name to issue....
mickR
issue a claim against the 3rd party ins co for uninsured losses let them either deal with it or pass on to their client.
cp8759
QUOTE (Greek God @ Tue, 14 Dec 2021 - 17:11) *
QUOTE
Don't really see the issue here

Which is what we did, however; their insurance deals with my insurance so details are only known by the respective Ins Companies. My insurance has a £350 excess and the policy has increased by £37 for the current year despite being a no fault claim. The only way to claim this back is by Small Claims - for which you need a name to issue....

So issue against the 3rd party insurance company, you have a direct cause of action against them under regulation 3 of The European Communities (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2002 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/30...gulation/3/made

Applying the "but for" test, you could reasonably claim both your excess and your increase in premiums (because but for the accident, you wouldn't have to pay either).
mickR
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 15 Dec 2021 - 16:19) *
QUOTE (Greek God @ Tue, 14 Dec 2021 - 17:11) *
QUOTE
Don't really see the issue here

Which is what we did, however; their insurance deals with my insurance so details are only known by the respective Ins Companies. My insurance has a £350 excess and the policy has increased by £37 for the current year despite being a no fault claim. The only way to claim this back is by Small Claims - for which you need a name to issue....

So issue against the 3rd party insurance company, you have a direct cause of action against them under regulation 3 of The European Communities (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2002 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/30...gulation/3/made

Applying the "but for" test, you could reasonably claim both your excess and your increase in premiums (because but for the accident, you wouldn't have to pay either).


better put that my previous post
notmeatloaf
QUOTE (Greek God @ Mon, 13 Dec 2021 - 18:52) *
I understand the purpose of GDPR but in its current form I don't believe it to be fit for purpose.

Yet there are plenty of reasons why CCTV should be treated as sensitive data. You need it for an insurance claim, an abusive partner says the same but is checking whether their wife parks and walks towards the police station.

Might be just me but I prefer where and when I go to be sensitive personal data . Especially if I've gone for a swift pint on the way home rather than "working late". In that sense it seems GDPR is working as intended.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.