Car park hit ‘n’ run - CCTV, Data protection, Police etc

[anonymous-user]

Sister in law’s car has been crashed into, in the car park of a business. The car then drove off.The car park is private land and owned by the business.

There were no witnesses, but the business owners say the accident was caught on their CCTV, crystal clear, showing who the driver was (another customer) and the number plate.

The damage is extensive, probably £1500-2000.

The business owners are saying they cannot show my SIL the video footage or give her the identity of the driver or reg of the car because of data protection.

The police say they will not attend or review the CCTV because the incident happened on private land, and is therefore nothing to do with them.

Apart from just claim on her insurance and suck it up, any suggestions?

Is it legally correct that the business owner cannot provide any details due to data protection?

Thanks

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 10th September 09:15

[GasEngineer]

What difference does the incident happening on private land make to the police?

Surely by definition all burglaries are on private land. Many other offences must be also committed on private land.

[qwerty360]

Data protection has exemptions for public interest.

Identifying the vehicle involved in a hit and run is almost certainly public interest.


I suspect forcing them to produce the footage would require a court, but it isn't the case that they can't supply it under data protection laws


(If there was then why do they have CCTV? Almost certainly the justification for processing (i.e. recording and saving the footage) the personal information is crime prevention...)


Best solution is probably request the footage in writing (quickly to ensure it isn't deleted) and pass the issue on to your insurer; They probably now have processes for dealing with this (read, a standard solicitors letter pointing out that it isn't the case that they can't supply the footage and do they really want to have to deal with the court system if the solicitor has to do it via court processes...). Plus a lot of people are happier to supply it to solicitors/insurers because the solicitor/insurer is an organisation who also has to have processes to comply with data protection (i.e. they are far less likely to be held liable if something unrelated on the footage is made public...)

[BlueJazz]

The information commissioners office explains that it can.

Have a look at the video on module 5, 4:48 onwards.

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/posters-stick...

The police can do it and the lawful basis is explained. You might want to remind them of it.

[Cudd Wudd]

If so minded to pursue, refer to 5(3) of SCHEDULE 2, Exemptions etc from the GDPR…

(3)The listed GDPR provisions do not apply to personal data where disclosure of the data—
(a)is necessary for the purpose of, or in connection with, legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings),
(b)is necessary for the purpose of obtaining legal advice, or
(c)is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights,
to the extent that the application of those provisions would prevent the controller from making the disclosure.

Details here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/sched...

[FunkyGibbon]

BlueJazz said:

The police can do it and the lawful basis is explained. You might want to remind them of it.

Driving offences on private land are usually a civil matter only, not criminal. Hence why the police said no.

OP's insurance should be able to assist in making a civil claim.

[Automaton]

FunkyGibbon said:

Driving offences on private land are usually a civil matter only, not criminal. Hence why the police said no.

OP's insurance should be able to assist in making a civil claim.

Does this mean if I'm doing donuts in Tesco's car park they can't touch me?

[Dingu]

Automaton said:

FunkyGibbon said:

Driving offences on private land are usually a civil matter only, not criminal. Hence why the police said no.

OP's insurance should be able to assist in making a civil claim.

Does this mean if I'm doing donuts in Tesco's car park they can't touch me?

As you point out Funky Gibbon isn’t strictly correct.

Driving offences can be committed anywhere the public have access broadly speaking.

[FunkyGibbon]

Automaton said:

Does this mean if I'm doing donuts in Tesco's car park they can't touch me?

No as that is private land with access to the public. As opposed to private land that is not. Note access a business premises as a business person is not the same as open to the public.

Edited to add: You may be OK in Bookers or Costco car parks

Edited by FunkyGibbon on Saturday 10th September 14:00

[FunkyGibbon]

Dingu said:

As you point out Funky Gibbon isn’t strictly correct.

Driving offences can be committed anywhere the public have access broadly speaking.

I agree - hence my mostly, and added caveat.

But the definition of public access can be quite obscure, not non-sensical at times.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2017-07-13/d...

[clockworks]

This "private land" thing is real. My car was hit in the car park of a care home. I was visiting my aunt, and saw it happen through her patio door.
I ran outside, but the driver just drove off.

I spoke to the care home manager, who told me the driver's name - it was their self-employed gardener.

I went to the local police station, and they weren't interested "because private land".
Not really sure why a care home car park should be treated differently to a supermarket car park?

Took nearly a year for the other driver's insurer to settle and cough up my excess.

[anonymous-user]

clockworks said:

This "private land" thing is real. My car was hit in the car park of a care home. I was visiting my aunt, and saw it happen through her patio door.
I ran outside, but the driver just drove off.

I spoke to the care home manager, who told me the driver's name - it was their self-employed gardener.

I went to the local police station, and they weren't interested "because private land".
Not really sure why a care home car park should be treated differently to a supermarket car park?

Took nearly a year for the other driver's insurer to settle and cough up my excess.

Does the law obliging drivers to exchange details specifically exclude private land then?!

[clockworks]

Southerner said:

Does the law obliging drivers to exchange details specifically exclude private land then?!

Common sense would suggest not, but in practice driving off seems to not be a criminal offence, so who knows?

[jimwilli]

This happened to me earlier in year. I complained about the way the call was handled by the police and someone did come back to me explaining the call handler would be spoken to about the way they handled the call. It was very poor and unprofessional. However I think it's their policy to not get involved unless someone hurt. Insurance can contact the cctv holder and get other vehicles details but they won't pass to you directly

[jimwilli]

Just to add for a laugh when I couldn't believe they wouldn't do anything the call handler asked me what I expected the police to do. I said call up the security team, ask if the incident was caught on cctv and if so get the other cars details. She basically laughed at me and said that's not going to happen. She actually thought it was crazy I suggest such a thing. Some of the things the police seem happy to spend their budget on or investigating is crazy when actually they lose the goodwill of the average Joe by letting this stuff slide.

[Cat]

clockworks said:

Southerner said:

Does the law obliging drivers to exchange details specifically exclude private land then?!

Common sense would suggest not, but in practice driving off seems to not be a criminal offence, so who knows?

The duty to stop and exchange details only applies to accidents which occur on a road or other public place.

What is or isn't a public place for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act is not always straightforward or obvious and there is a large amount of case law that has built up over the years.

If the care home car park mentioned is only used by staff, residents, visitors and other people having business at the care home then there is a good chance it will not be considered a public place for the purposes of the RTA.

Cat

[Bustedmattress]

Lord Marylebone said:

Sister in law’s car has been crashed into, in the car park of a business. The car then drove off.The car park is private land and owned by the business.

There were no witnesses, but the business owners say the accident was caught on their CCTV, crystal clear, showing who the driver was (another customer) and the number plate.

The damage is extensive, probably £1500-2000.

The business owners are saying they cannot show my SIL the video footage or give her the identity of the driver or reg of the car because of data protection.

The police say they will not attend or review the CCTV because the incident happened on private land, and is therefore nothing to do with them.

Apart from just claim on her insurance and suck it up, any suggestions?

Is it legally correct that the business owner cannot provide any details due to data protection?

Thanks

Edited by Lord Marylebone on Saturday 10th September 09:15

This happened to my wife - her car was hit whilst she was working at a hospital. We had the same initial experience as you - we were not allowed to view the video. The staff at the hospital knew who the driver was - a relative of a patient - but couldn’t say because of patient confidentiality.

We contacted the police and they came and viewed the tape. Armed with the regn number they simply contacted the driver who I think (from what the copper told) promptly st herself. From memory it was a police matter because she had failed to report the accident. I am a lawyer by trade, but haven’t done criminal work for a long time, however from what I can remember this would seem absolutely right to me. I remember the police man saying, when we spoke, that when our car was hit, it was so hard it jumped forward on the video. There was therefore no way, he concluded that the driver didn’t know she had hit (our beautiful classic Mini) and failed to report.

She (the driver paid in full) but not before she had rung me to explain how she didn’t know she had hit our car, and would be drive off etc etc, none of which I believed.

Good luck with this OP but if I were you I would not accept the brush off you have had from the police. If there is evidence on video of the accident their position is simply not right.

[Mr Squarekins]

So if I shoot someone on my land, the police not interested under this 'private land' idea?

Aren't the majority of crimes conducted on private land?

[carreauchompeur]

Enough of the whataboutery!

[Red9zero]

Could be worse. Our neighbours car was badly damaged in full view of our cctv, with the culprit easily identified. We supplied a copy of the video to the Police as requested at the time, which was over three months ago. Since then we have had a new camera and the sd card has been formatted numerous times. So imagine my surprise when I get a call from the Police asking if I still had the video as they had lost their copy and the case would collapse without it. You couldn't make it up ....