Albany Assistance - accident management on behalf of Admiral
Discussion
Apologies, I was referring to a principle but you're absolutely correct. The client comes down the pecking order, that's the principle I was badly conveying - these days, the customer is regarded as a cash cow/revenue stream for the shareholders, owners etc.
Ever t'was the case, and that's fine to an extent (if the service is good), but the situation is even more pronounced now. Either that, or the customer IS the product of course (Facebook, Twitter etc).
Ever t'was the case, and that's fine to an extent (if the service is good), but the situation is even more pronounced now. Either that, or the customer IS the product of course (Facebook, Twitter etc).
Ginge R said:
Apologies, I was referring to a principle but you're absolutely correct. The client comes down the pecking order, that's the principle I was badly conveying - these days, the customer is regarded as a cash cow/revenue stream for the shareholders, owners etc.
Ever t'was the case, and that's fine to an extent (if the service is good), but the situation is even more pronounced now. Either that, or the customer IS the product of course (Facebook, Twitter etc).
Publicly quoted companies are legally required to act in the best interests of their shareholders. I imagine the same requirement likely exists for Mutuals too.Ever t'was the case, and that's fine to an extent (if the service is good), but the situation is even more pronounced now. Either that, or the customer IS the product of course (Facebook, Twitter etc).
I agree, and that's why I said it was fine.
But like I suggested though, it's also only fine to an extent. In addition to company legislation, the various high level principles (also enforceable) conveyed on them by respective regulators, are intended to compel a sense of balance and moderation that many these days, are all too happy to overlook.
However, the problem is that there is so much conflicting 'guidance' bestowed by disparate regulatory and overseeing bodies, is that confusion reigns; we have regulatory diaspora which (frankly) sprung up to insulate those higher up the food chain and to (again, frankly) job create.
Consequently, contradiction and turf wars abound - and the person paying the price is invariably the retail client. I was in touch with my regulator about another matter last week and received contradictory 'definitive' advice from two departments on the same day.
But like I suggested though, it's also only fine to an extent. In addition to company legislation, the various high level principles (also enforceable) conveyed on them by respective regulators, are intended to compel a sense of balance and moderation that many these days, are all too happy to overlook.
However, the problem is that there is so much conflicting 'guidance' bestowed by disparate regulatory and overseeing bodies, is that confusion reigns; we have regulatory diaspora which (frankly) sprung up to insulate those higher up the food chain and to (again, frankly) job create.
Consequently, contradiction and turf wars abound - and the person paying the price is invariably the retail client. I was in touch with my regulator about another matter last week and received contradictory 'definitive' advice from two departments on the same day.
OP - Waitrose have to give you the CCTV - Ginge is absolutely right.
https://www.gov.uk/request-cctv-footage-of-yoursel...
Sheepshanks - screwing the customer is often very much in the interests of shareholders, particularly for a very highly price-sensitive customer base!
https://www.gov.uk/request-cctv-footage-of-yoursel...
Sheepshanks - screwing the customer is often very much in the interests of shareholders, particularly for a very highly price-sensitive customer base!
Loon,
Whenever I see a description of a model of corporate perfection, I'm reminded that it's usually posted/written/tweeted/spouted by someone with a vested interest - invariably, a single issue fanatic. Either that, or someone working for a charity (in themselves, increasingly parasitical) or campaign group who have no concept of commercial reality.
We get drip-fed relentless banal soft soaping, and it's all complete tosh. The bottom line is the bottom line - I have no issues with that, as long as it's done fairly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p010v488
This made for interesting reading yesterday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/re...
Whenever I see a description of a model of corporate perfection, I'm reminded that it's usually posted/written/tweeted/spouted by someone with a vested interest - invariably, a single issue fanatic. Either that, or someone working for a charity (in themselves, increasingly parasitical) or campaign group who have no concept of commercial reality.
We get drip-fed relentless banal soft soaping, and it's all complete tosh. The bottom line is the bottom line - I have no issues with that, as long as it's done fairly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p010v488
This made for interesting reading yesterday.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/re...
walm said:
OP - Waitrose have to give you the CCTV - Ginge is absolutely right.
https://www.gov.uk/request-cctv-footage-of-yoursel...
Sheepshanks - screwing the customer is often very much in the interests of shareholders, particularly for a very highly price-sensitive customer base!
They can refuse if disclosure would also disclose another person's personal data and it is too difficult for them to redact those data.https://www.gov.uk/request-cctv-footage-of-yoursel...
Sheepshanks - screwing the customer is often very much in the interests of shareholders, particularly for a very highly price-sensitive customer base!
marshalla said:
walm said:
OP - Waitrose have to give you the CCTV - Ginge is absolutely right.
https://www.gov.uk/request-cctv-footage-of-yoursel...
Sheepshanks - screwing the customer is often very much in the interests of shareholders, particularly for a very highly price-sensitive customer base!
They can refuse if disclosure would also disclose another person's personal data and it is too difficult for them to redact those data.https://www.gov.uk/request-cctv-footage-of-yoursel...
Sheepshanks - screwing the customer is often very much in the interests of shareholders, particularly for a very highly price-sensitive customer base!
They CAN edit it to protect others' identities but I don't think an inability to do that gets them out of the obligation to provide the images of you.
walm said:
I don't think so.
They CAN edit it to protect others' identities but I don't think an inability to do that gets them out of the obligation to provide the images of you.
. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/sectio... 7.4They CAN edit it to protect others' identities but I don't think an inability to do that gets them out of the obligation to provide the images of you.
DPA said:
(4)Where a data controller cannot comply with the request without disclosing information relating to another individual who can be identified from that information, he is not obliged to comply with the request unless—
(a)the other individual has consented to the disclosure of the information to the person making the request, or
(b)it is reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the request without the consent of the other individual.
See also 5.2.2 in https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documen...(a)the other individual has consented to the disclosure of the information to the person making the request, or
(b)it is reasonable in all the circumstances to comply with the request without the consent of the other individual.
Edited by marshalla on Friday 12th June 15:30
4(b) sounds as clear as mud there!!
I just hadn't heard of anyone refusing CCTV on those grounds I guess.
CCTV is released all the time and often from places with zero redacting skills.
e.g. bus cameras.
In this case Waitrose just sound like they don't know the rules (and I admit clearly I don't know them 100%).
But suggesting they would release it to a random third party like Admiral if they asked but NOT to the individual in the actual images is absurd and against every principle of data protection!
I just hadn't heard of anyone refusing CCTV on those grounds I guess.
CCTV is released all the time and often from places with zero redacting skills.
e.g. bus cameras.
In this case Waitrose just sound like they don't know the rules (and I admit clearly I don't know them 100%).
But suggesting they would release it to a random third party like Admiral if they asked but NOT to the individual in the actual images is absurd and against every principle of data protection!
marshalla said:
See also 5.2.2 in https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/documen...
Link says, "When disclosing surveillance images of individuals, particularly when responding to subject access requests, you need to consider whether the identifying features of any of the other individuals in the image need to be obscured. In most cases the privacy intrusion to third party individuals will be minimal and obscuring images will not be required."My bold.
walm said:
4(b) sounds as clear as mud there!!
I just hadn't heard of anyone refusing CCTV on those grounds I guess.
CCTV is released all the time and often from places with zero redacting skills.
e.g. bus cameras.
In this case Waitrose just sound like they don't know the rules (and I admit clearly I don't know them 100%).
But suggesting they would release it to a random third party like Admiral if they asked but NOT to the individual in the actual images is absurd and against every principle of data protection!
The ICO's guidance is pretty vague too - talking about assessing risk and making sure that there is an internal procedure. Sounds like Waitrose are playing it safe and taking the view that the insurance company are less likely to exact VFSR* than the OP.I just hadn't heard of anyone refusing CCTV on those grounds I guess.
CCTV is released all the time and often from places with zero redacting skills.
e.g. bus cameras.
In this case Waitrose just sound like they don't know the rules (and I admit clearly I don't know them 100%).
But suggesting they would release it to a random third party like Admiral if they asked but NOT to the individual in the actual images is absurd and against every principle of data protection!
* Vigilante Frozen Sausage Revenge
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff