SAR dispute

I requested BodCam Footage from a n enforcement company. They have refused as they say I don't appear in the footage. I wasn't home when they attended so my partner dealt with them, presenting them with my documents and with me speaking on loudspeaker with the bailiff and mynpartner, often in 3 way conversation so my voice is recorded and I imagine visuals of my documents appear too as well as verbal identifying information.

The respondent stated that I don't appear in the footage and I am not identifiable. I pushed back that my voice is data. They have refused this still so I have now put in a complaint regarding this using the ICOs template as guidance and I included a reference to what personal data is.

As a result of this, my partner has put in their own DSAR as they appear visually in the footage. We have given permission for both of our 'appearances' to be shared with the other.

My concern is they will refuse my partners SAR as it would disclose my information? I have given permission for this to be shared with my partner. Would it be an own goal for them as they said I am not identifiable in the footage?!

A quick Google states 'You can ask to view any CCTV or body worn video camera footage that you appear in. Under data protection law, you have a right to see any pictures if you are the subject'.

Can anyone provide further guidance on making the request for this footage watertight and irrefutable?

Particularly pressing on
- my voice being recorded on bodycam via phone
- my partner appearing in this footage and the bailiff freely discussing my account with them on my behalf (purely as demonstration of them willingly sharing information with my partner previously!) meaning they can release footage to him as the information was already disclosed to him in person.

did you send them a written DSAR ? if so did you ask for anything specific ?

i would also be interested in their response what they have actually said

a DSAR is data subject access request were you not the subject ?

Image of reply removed due to password inclusion, text is as below -

We have been able to supply you with the following personal data:


· Warrant

· Call Recordings

· Letters


We are not the data controller for mobile phones used by our self-employed enforcement agents; therefore, we would not be able to provide any calls or texts made to or from their personal device. For more information around this please see our privacy notice.


I have located and viewed the footage captured by the enforcement agent’s Body Worn Video camera on the date and time in question. You do not appear within the recording at any point; therefore you are not the data subject and we are unable to release requested footage on this occasion.


The Privacy Team can only assist with matters relating to your personal data; please contact our Customer Care department for all matter's regarding the enforcement agents. The email address to contact them is customercare@marstongroup.co.uk.


The data we have provided may have been redacted to ensure that we are only providing you with your personal data. Any redactions are carried out in accordance with guidance set out within the Information Commissioner’s Office guidelines and current UK data protection legislation.


Your documents will be made available via our secure data sharing portal 'Huddle' , please use the following password to access your data: XXXX


Your DSAR is now complete, and your personal data will be available for 7 days as of today’s date; please let us know if you experience any difficulty accessing your data.


Further information on how we process personal data and our legal bases for doing so can be found on our privacy notice, which is published on our external website Marston Holdings privacy notice - Marston Holdings; this also sets out our Data Privacy Complaints’ procedure and how to contact the Data Privacy Team if you have any questions about your data.


Yours sincerely

They only supplied a copy of a 'Notice of Enforcement' and 'Warrant of Control' (will probably need to be checked over) plus one telephone call after the visit where I called to obtain the bailiffs name!

And finally, my newly lodged complaint regarding lack of compliance with DSAR.

I would imagine that he was acting for and on behalf of Marstons ,as their agent they hold vicarious liability.
Def of Agent= An agent is an individual who is authorized by another person to act on their behalf, entrusted with the responsibility of representing and making decisions for them. Understanding the Role of an Agent An agent plays a pivotal role in various business transactions, acting as a representative for the principal.

I cannot see how they can avoid the issue . He was there as their agent,acting on their behalf ,if not then they must have breached GDPR by passing your details to him.They cannot have it both ways.

Try also demanding his details if they still try claiming they are not liable.
Any footage i would imagine should contain how he introduced himself, eg. i am from Marstons,he must have at some point said that.

daveiron wrote:I would imagine that he was acting for and on behalf of Marstons ,as their agent they hold vicarious liability.
Def of Agent= An agent is an individual who is authorized by another person to act on their behalf, entrusted with the responsibility of representing and making decisions for them. Understanding the Role of an Agent An agent plays a pivotal role in various business transactions, acting as a representative for the principal.

I cannot see how they can avoid the issue . He was there as their agent,acting on their behalf ,if not then they must have breached GDPR by passing your details to him.They cannot have it both ways.

Try also demanding his details if they still try claiming they are not liable.
Any footage i would imagine should contain how he introduced himself,  eg. i am from Marstons,he must have at some point said that.

Thanks, I don't read their responses as their refusal of him acting on their behalf? Have I missed something!?

As i see it,
1. He is acting as their representative and they hold liability. thus the DSAR applies to them.
OR
2. He is acting as a third party ,in which case why have they passed your personal information to a third party ?
Worth asking them which they think it is.

Ah no, when they are referring to a third party, I believe they mean my partner who is in the footage.

In this instance you want to know HIS status ,is he acting as a third party, put aside your partners status for a moment its the bailiffs status we need to ascertain first.

OK, I see. Thankyou

Who was "Liam" calling on his personal mobile? You might be able to make a request to the other party.

The law is very clear here and the mobile phone owner and type is irrelevant and the only relevance is:

Was Liam at work or working at the time the call was made
Why ws Liam working for, or on behalf of?
Does Liam use one mobile telephone for both private and business use?

If Liam was at work or working for, or on behalf of XYZ he is working and his phone becomes a business phone and in unambiguous.

If he is self employed and working for, or on behalf of Marstons it makes Marstons vicariously liable and again is unambiguous.

If his phone was used in both private and business capacities it would be for Liam to prove his phone was NOT being used in a business capacity and this could become theft and/or fraud.

Oh wow assassin by name, assassin by nature! I hadn't realised I could push down that avenue, ultimately when I have the footage I have everything anyway but I'd like to know what messages were sent between Liam and his bailiff mate. The bailiff mate who we suspect he claimed at first was his Supervisor and the same person who then spoke to a bailiff that works at a different company!

Is there any law or legislation that backs up the personal phone in a work capacity becomes a work phone as I anticipate then disputing that and facts will be what helps.

RaspberryBlu wrote:Oh wow assassin by name, assassin by nature! I hadn't realised I could push down that avenue, ultimately when I have the footage I have everything anyway but I'd like to know what messages were sent between Liam and his bailiff mate. The bailiff mate who we suspect he claimed at first was his Supervisor and the same person who then spoke to a bailiff that works at a different company!

Is there any law or legislation that backs up the personal phone in a work capacity becomes a work phone as I anticipate then disputing that and facts will be what helps.

Yes, the law under the guise of an FOI request and if Liam has a work phone you can demand all the telephone records and if he has two phones (which many do) and which phone was he using? if his claimed personal phone for work purposes it becomes a work phone. This opens up the avenue for a civil tort which is a civil wrong and you can demand under CPR 31 the Rules for Disclosure as you now intend persuing a claim against him directly followed by another claim against his employer at the time which was the company he was operating for under vicarious liability.

Amazing thank you. I have already lodged my pre-ICO complaint with the company. Shall I await their response at this point and keep this as part of my next move (which would be straight to ICO I expect?!)

I've received a reply to second request for SAR, they're still being obstructive. I've responded to say they have received written permission from the third party (my husband) to share the BodyWorn footage and also advise that they were only instructed to delete the photo ID had supplied for the DSAR and asked for confirmation that they have not deleted the Body Worn footage. Do I also go back regarding the above point or shall I just go straight to ICO now? I was hoping this would be settled out of court however if they don't supply footage to court then my research says their entire defence would be thrown out. They're just digging themselves into a bigger hole aren't they!? Images pending

Total cobblers, if they employ a contractor they become responsible for that third party contractor and they have not fulfilled their obligations and they are employing their play on words, so to the next stage.

Make a written complaint to the Information Commissioner and make the following points:

They are refusing to provide the information you have / or your nominated person has requested.
They are being deliberately obstructive.
They are vicariously liable for any contractors/sub contractors they employ and cannot limit or mitigate their liability.
They are quoting their policy and their policy only extends to their employees and nobody else and is nerfarious i its intention.