www.thesun.co.uk/news/16403626/man-faces-payout-ring-doorbell-harassment/
Basically a bloke with a Ring doorbell is sued and found liable for harassment of neighbours for having a Ring doorbell and other CCTV.
Some interesting points in other sources saying he broke data protection laws also which I didn’t think applied to private individuals holding data but only to organisations/businesses.
Just wait for shops, councils and other authorities to be sued if this succeeds.
|
>> Basically a bloke with a Ring doorbell is sued and found liable for harassment of
>> neighbours for having a Ring doorbell and other CCTV.
>>
>> Some interesting points in other sources saying he broke data protection laws also which I
>> didn’t think applied to private individuals holding data but only to organisations/businesses.
>>
>> Just wait for shops, councils and other authorities to be sued if this succeeds.
I think the £100k bit is massively speculative. Simply cannot see how the claimant has suffered a loss at much more than 1% of that sum. Looks as though the County Court have found as a fact that the operator failed to comply with the law. Assessment of damages will presumably follow.
There is an exemption for domestic CCTV provided that surveillance only covers the user's own property. Once it extends beyond there then there are requirements regarding notice, subject access etc. The ICO website is a useful primer:
ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv-systems-guidance-for-people-using-cctv/
Neighbour over the road has CCTV cameras at eaves level covering his own property and a general view of the turning bell at the end of the cul de sac. Signs explain that CCTV is present an quote his house number and mobile for further details.
The advent of Ring bells and similar has led to a massive explosion in CCTV surveillance and one wonders how many users are aware of, never mind compliant with, the relevant law.
Provided shops, councils etc have complied with the law then claims are on a hiding to nothing.
We've had on placed over the office door to augment the entry phone and for evidence of occasions where people have attempted unlawful entry. We had several hundred pounds worth of damage done by somebody who would not accept we'd no face to face advice service due to the pandemic and tried to kick the door in.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 13 Oct 21 at 10:53
|
>> We had several hundred pounds worth of damage done by somebody who would not accept >>we'd no face to face advice service due to the pandemic and tried to kick the door in.
>>
Did you advise him that there was no advice?
|
It’s an interesting point, since I thought CCTV systems needed signs warning people they were in use. I guess a doorbell camera than can only see who’s at the door would be fine, but that the way these were angled (and many I suspect) meant that they captured a far wider area, including public property and indeed other people’s private property. There’s a domestic purposes exemption in the legislation I think, but it would (should?) be hard to argue that filming someone else property was covered by that.
Edited to add, beaten to it by Bromp’s far more comprehensive reply :)
Last edited by: PeterS on Wed 13 Oct 21 at 10:53
|
The Sun article posted by Zippy has a link to the Daily Mail which provides a reasonably dispassionate account:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10085561/A-victory-privacy-Woman-100k-damages-neighbours-doorbell-cameras.html
|
|
Though reference the compensation, as she felt she had to move house, and actually did move house, I can see it might be appropriate for it to be a pretty significant sum, certainly more than a few £k as she can prove an actual loss has been suffered (legal costs, removals, stamp duty etc etc)
|
I'd missed the point about her being 'forced' to move which would elevate damages way beyond the trespass created by the surveillance itself.
The Mail report suggests that the defendant's behaviour was pretty egregious including long range audio and not being truthful about which cameras were dummies etc.
There will be another hearing in November to assess damages.
|
|
Nothing at all to do with having a Ring doorbell but makes a nice bit of clickbait.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 13 Oct 21 at 13:27
|
>> Nothing at all to do with having a Ring doorbell but makes a nice bit
>> of clickbait.
Quite correct. And very irritating.
|
Interesting, as I've just ordered CCTV and a video doorbell.
Having seen the article with the picture of the defendant's and the plaintiff's houses, it's not obvious how he could have spied on her.
|
>> Having seen the article with the picture of the defendant's and the plaintiff's houses, it's not obvious how he could have spied on her.
>>
What the devices could pick up in terms of sound and vision is the most important thing. I wonder if he offered to show her when she complained.
|
|
Maybe, as a Doctor, she was worried about being caught out and could have returned to work to see her patients face to face again, rather than continue hiding behind a screen having Zoom consultations ;)
|
England has ~10% less whole time equivalent GPs than 5 years ago.
Must be the easy workload making them leave.
|
|
The ability to achieve a decent pension pot in quick time probably impacts.
|
|
I think most people can manage that when 35% of their gross earnings go into a "pot".
|
>> I think most people can manage that when 35% of their gross earnings go into
>> a "pot".
>>
That’s includes the employers contribution though doesn’t it? Even so, most people can’t because they’re not in DB schemes, which are valued for LTA purposes at 20 x accrued pension. We’d need a fund roughly twice the size calculated by the DB rules to be in with a chance of getting an equivalent pension, and we can’t because the LTA is just under £1.1m
|
>>That's includes the employers contribution though doesn't it?
Correct - gross payments to practice are designed to include that.
LTA is 20x Pension plus whatever lump sum you get when you take the pension - mine is nominally around 90% of LTA at not-quite 50yrs old, but when I take it at 50 it will be an actuarily reduced pension and more like 60-65% LTA will have been used.
This leaves me a good chunk to play with to stuff a SIPP until around age 55 without crashing the LTA.
I'm now at a point in life that I value my time* more than stuff or things.
*WTF am I doing on this forum :-)
|
>>
>> *WTF am I doing on this forum :-)
>>
...passing time before your next Zoom consultation comes on screen?.... ;-)
|
>> LTA is 20x Pension plus whatever lump sum you get when you take the pension
>> - mine is nominally around 90% of LTA at not-quite 50yrs old, but when I
>> take it at 50 it will be an actuarily reduced pension and more like 60-65%
>> LTA will have been used.
Do you have special rules? Minimum age for getting money from pension for most of us is bascially 55.
I have a feeling of deja vu, again...I might have asked you this before.
|
>>Do you have special rules? Minimum age for getting money from pension for most of us is bascially 55.
The "1995" pension scheme had a notional retirement age of 60, but with voluntary access to reduced pension at minimum age of 50.
The latest "2015" rules have a notional retirement age the same as national retirement age (67 at present) and the ability to take a reduced pension from around 55.
As I have said previously, my old man was pretty much badly declining from his early 70s, a basket case by 75 and died in a home age 79.
Working into my mid-to-late 60s has no attraction for me.
|
>> >>Do you have special rules? Minimum age for getting money from pension for most of
>> us is bascially 55.
>>
Who can access their private pension before 55 now? Not many in the public sector I would thought, as of today.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Thu 14 Oct 21 at 18:01
|
>> Maybe, as a Doctor, she was worried about being caught out and could have returned
>> to work to see her patients face to face again, rather than continue hiding behind
>> a screen having Zoom consultations ;)
Just watch out for the government stirring sentiment against doctors for the problems arising due to under resourcing. They have form in finding scapegoats.
|
>> Just watch out for the government stirring sentiment against doctors for the problems arising due
>> to under resourcing. They have form in finding scapegoats.
Exactly what Javid is doing now by focusing on face to face appointments and attempting to direct surgeries to abandon distancing to facilitate that.
A more measured approach would recognise that the advent of IT, smart phones etc etc meant that the traditional appointment is no longer the norm. My surgery has done telephone triage and prescribing for what must be well over 10 years.
The pandemic will have advanced the move to IT/video etc calls by several years. That is an opportunity not a threat.
Sure, if a patient NEEDS a F2F appointment they should have one but F2F shouldn't be treated as some sort of standard because it plays well with the Tories older demographic.
|
>>Exactly what Javid is doing now by focusing on face to face appointments
The conflationary dogwhistle is "A&E waiting times are the longest ever, it's because GPs aren't seeing patients FTF"
The reality is A&E waiting times are the longest ever because A&E have nowhere to send ill patients because the hospitals are FUBAR.
|
>> >>Exactly what Javid is doing now by focusing on face to face appointments
>>
>> The conflationary dogwhistle is "A&E waiting times are the longest ever, it's because GPs aren't
>> seeing patients FTF"
>>
>> The reality is A&E waiting times are the longest ever because A&E have nowhere to
>> send ill patients because the hospitals are FUBAR.
>>
Miss Z reports that people are leaving illnesses too long and coming in with really serious problems which would have been far easier to treat had they sought help earlier.
It's down to a many thing, yes wards are full, GPs are busy etc. etc.
Violence towards hospital staff has increased. Recently Miss Z had to stamp on a patient's relatives foot and punch him as he was grabbing on to her (very inappropriately) and pulling her back and wouldn't let go because she had left his relative to deal with a crash alarm elsewhere on the ward. She had said his relative was in no danger and someone else needed urgent care etc.
A consultant and other staff witnessed and congratulated her for restraint. The relative was escorted away by security staff and later arrested.
Last edited by: zippy on Thu 14 Oct 21 at 20:30
|
|
Only problem is people like F2F appointments, of course they could tell people you've going to have to get used to it. But i suspect that won't be popular, most likely with pensioners so no/few politicians of any party will say it.
|
>>Sure, if a patient NEEDS a F2F appointment they should have one but F2F shouldn't be treated as some sort of standard because it plays well with the Tories older demographic
Some people see a GP as somewhere to get medical treatment and would like it as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Some people are seeking comfort and reassurance.
Not an impossible situation unless F2F appointments are seen as some kind of status - which strangely they seem to be.
|
Not an impossible situation unless F2F appointments are seen as some kind of status -
>> which strangely they seem to be.
Status in going to see a Dr? I'm not sure I follow.
|
>>Status in going to see a Dr? I'm not sure I follow.
I have listened to conversations here where the person with the F2F appointment seems to be almost gloating about it and equally the one with the Zoom call (or whatever) seems to feel hard done by.
Neither seem to be particularly motivated by the efficiency and appropriateness of their individual treatment.
|
>> I have listened to conversations here where the person with the F2F appointment seems to
>> be almost gloating about it and equally the one with the Zoom call (or whatever)
>> seems to feel hard done by.
You seem to have unique ears then, I have heard or read nothing of the sort.
>> Neither seem to be particularly motivated by the efficiency and appropriateness of their individual treatment.
Not seen this either. Wish I was blessed with your ability to see something in nothing.
|
>>Wish I was blessed with your ability to see something in nothing.
Firstly, why on earth would I make such a thing up? And secondly, do you only concede the existence of something when you have personally seen or heard it?
In which case the concept of good looking and intelligent men is probably entirely beyond you.
This is what happens when the family marries down.
|
>> >>Wish I was blessed with your ability to see something in nothing.
>>
>> Firstly, why on earth would I make such a thing up? And secondly, do you
>> only concede the existence of something when you have personally seen or heard it?
when you are the source? yes indeed its vital
>> In which case the concept of good looking and intelligent men is probably entirely beyond
>> you.
>>
>> This is what happens when the family marries down.
There was a desperate need to widen the gene pool to achieve that requirement. Specially ones with hair.
|
>>There was a desperate need to widen the gene pool to achieve that requirement. Specially ones with hair.
One would have hoped for more contribution than an unruly mop. Especially when it dragged the family IQ down so far.
|
>> >>Status in going to see a Dr? I'm not sure I follow.
>>
Surely it should be clinical need. I had a case of eczema recently. There was no way I would go to a lurgy ridden surgery for that when a zoom call or a photo of the patch of skin would do.
My time is precious as well and a round trip to the surgery would be 30 minutes, plus 5 to find a parking space, plus 10 minutes waiting - Zoom / telephone is much more efficient.
If it were something more serious, say a lump, or other more worrying condition then a trip to see the doctor in person would be more appropriate.
If the doctor can see "x" more patients in a day because of the use of new technologies and working practices, then this has got to be a good thing!?
|
>> >> Just watch out for the government stirring sentiment against doctors for the problems arising
>> due
>> >> to under resourcing. They have form in finding scapegoats.
>>
>> Exactly what Javid is doing now by focusing on face to face appointments and attempting
>> to direct surgeries to abandon distancing to facilitate that.
I also think they are already working on making the EU the bad guys in the NI debacle. I hope they are just posturing with the Article 16 threat. If they do that it will probably win them the next election just before it completely wrecks the economy.
It's true that I utterly despise party in government, but so far they have actually been much more incompetent and bent than even I expected.
|
Currently doing about 60:40 telephone:FTF appointments. Maybe 15% of telephone appointments subsequently convert to a FTF one so overall the balance is close to 50:50.
I suspect the 'new normal' will be ~40% phone, 60% FTF once the dust settles. Much of what I do doesn't need any FTF component, and many patients find telephone calls useful (especially working patients).
Do I like telephone appointments? Not particularly.
However, I have spent the past 20 years ensuring my practice has a good supply of very good doctors to ensure a satisfying workload balance for us, and delivery of a high standard of patient care, rather than chasing a monster income (8 partners working approx. 6 WTE for over 8000 patients, plus ancillary staff)
Many patients do have good reason to be peeved at the service they receive elsewhere (or don't receive) from their surgeries. In some cases a longstanding failure of practices to recruit is a significant factor.
Practice income (and thus partner earnings) has nothing to do with the number of doctors working in the practice.
If my practice had, say 4 WTE GPs it would still bring in the same total amount of money with a much bigger chunk to each partner - would it provide as good a service? Of course not. Would the partners each be working 50% harder - nope.
|
Telephone appointments work fine for me. I get a same day (usually within 3 hours of contacting the surgery) phone consultation, with a fact to face follow up later that day if needed.
You need to be able to articulate your issues well tho, and back them up. Good symptom description and progression, and how it relates to your known history, temperature, Blood pressure if you think it will be needed, even in my case the result of a urinalysis strip.
You need to manage the NHS to your own needs, if you sit back and assume it will magically work for you it wont.
|
>> Telephone appointments work fine for me. I get a same day (usually within 3 hours
>> of contacting the surgery) phone consultation, with a fact to face follow up later that
>> day if needed.
>>
>>
I find that's how it works for me, save for the 3 hours thing - I have called at 9:00AM approx and got a call back at 19:00 approx. Not a problem for me as they are clearly triaging.
|
As in other parts of the economy (retail, office, schools etc) we should have learned something from the Covid experience.
GPs and patients now know zoom and telephone can be made to work some of the time.
For some getting to and from a surgery is difficult. For others the need may be a quick routine fix reliably solved over the phone. Fixing the problem without leaping in the car is "green" Default to a F2F (doctor or nurse) may be the outcome.
Parts of the NHS react to changes in another. If folk can't get a GP appointment they may go to A&E where a wait (possibly a few hours) guarantees attention. There are similar stresses related to social care/hospitals.
Lessons learned must be embedded in future actions. A simplistic analogy - reverting to the past would be like to going back to the horse and cart because of the fuel delivery problems.
|
Some of you guys are lucky...
My practise now has no elective appointments... none... don't exist.. all are emergency only so you have to be on the phone at 8am and then you have about 10 mins to try and get through, otherwise repeat at 2pm, no good if you start work at 7am.
All online appointments have been cancelled, no way of communication.. nothing.
Started being like this before Covid, they used to be part of a GP collective so at least you could see someone but they were out of area and had no idea who you were, now even that's gone.
|
I haven't been near-nor-by a GP for 30 years, I'm not bragging, 69 is 69, knolmean.
Back then I could get a same-day or next-day appointment no trouble at all.
I was registered with a GP in Battle Rd. St Leonard's O/S. He wouldn't take a blood sample from me so I could send it orf to some vitamin/mineral level scam.
I registered with another one just the road, a Doctor Ahmed, who I became friends with and sorted out his tropical fish tank in the waiting room.
How times have changed!! - an not for the good either. I'll just have to keep working on that time machine.
Anyway ... the reason why Elton John always looks so miserable, is because of that dead hamster on his head.
~Steven Allen :o)
|
>> I haven't been near-nor-by a VET for 30 years,
Corrected for you ;)
|
>> I haven't been near-nor-by a VET for 30 years,
My 2 dogs never go to the vets either, apart from their initial jabs. They are both quite Alfie.
My sister in Somerset has spent £1000's on her 2nd hand mini Snoutzer.
She's spent loads on private dental treatment too - she's got more teeth left than me strangly enough.
|
>>she's got more teeth left than me strangly enough.
EEE bah gum.
|
>> All online appointments have been cancelled, no way of communication.. nothing.
>>
>> Started being like this before Covid, they used to be part of a GP collective
>> so at least you could see someone but they were out of area and had
>> no idea who you were, now even that's gone.
My wife's previous practise had something similar, but it was just an answerphone service for quite a while. You rang up in the morning left a message and then someone got back to you at some point.
|
Yumans, in general, don't like change. Even the ones who do tend to like it on their own terms.
It irks me a bit that I might not be able to get a face-to-face appointment if I wanted one, but I can also recall having been annoyed pre-pandemic that I had to go through the process of getting an appointment, waiting a fortnight, and physically going to the surgery for a simple change to my prescription.
Making better use of telephone / video calls is sensible.
Today I was sent a telephone appointment for my annual cardiology review, in January. Same as last year when I forgot it was a telephone job and went to the hospital. I was standing about 20 feet from the consultant when he rang me. Very embarrassing.
|
A friend has pointed out that the Judge's written decision is, unusually for a County Court case, available on line:
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Fairhurst-v-Woodard-Judgment-1.pdf?
Not had time to read it in full yet.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 14 Oct 21 at 22:10
|
>> Not had time to read it in full yet.
Having read in detail the Judge found Ring Camera man not a credible witness. Others might think him obsessive.
While being a helpful reminder of the rules about surveillance outside if one's own property I think the idea that suing every Ring bell owner is going to win a jackpot is nonsense on stilts.
Like most neighbour disputes, one may be more credible than the other but the truth is they deserve each other.
|
According to The Sun, Amazon have reduced the price of the Ring Doorbell after one of their customers was fined for invasion of privacy.
Or it could just be coincidental, and The Sun are just making up headlines for the sake of it.
www.thesun.co.uk/tech/16417287/ring-doorbell-camera-court-case-price-cheap-buy-deal/
They need to brush up on their maths though. "If you opt for the latter, you'll pay £49 instead of £69 – a £60 saving.
|
Ring up £100,000 - Bromptonaut
