The UK and Us have launched counter-offensive strikes against the Houthi rebels, Papua New Guinea declares a state of emergency and the heat arrives for summer.
An Auckland woman will likely be $400 out of pocket due to a “pathetic” legal catch that prevents supermarkets from sharing CCTV footage if someone’s car has been damaged in the parking lot.
Kelly Hamilton, of Glenfield, said she parked in the Countdown Hauraki Corner carpark about 9.30am on November 20.
Hamilton does merchandising at the supermarket so is there about twice a week. About 10.30am she came out to get something from her car and noticed her boot had been dented.
Kelly Hamilton came out to her car to find a dent in the boot.
She tried to speak to a manager to see if they could show her the CCTV footage from the carpark so she could tell her insurance company who was responsible for the damage, and have her excess fee waived.
“That doesn’t happen at all, apparently,” she said. “From then on they just gave me the runaround.”
Hamilton said it was “just the wrong time of the year” for something like this to happen, with plenty of bills to pay at the end of the school year and in the lead-up to Christmas.
It was hard “having to be laden with the [insurance] excess without it even being my fault ... $400 is a lot of money for some people.”
The supermarket management told Hamilton they could not provide her with the footage, but could give it to police if an officer requested it. She then asked police to request it, but was told that police do not investigate carpark incidents and that too much paperwork was required when they were already too busy with other jobs.
She then tried to ask her insurance company to seek the footage, but did not receive any response from her insurance company.
The Herald contacted Countdown about the incident and was told CCTV footage of a customer or staff member was classified as “personal information” for the purposes of the Privacy Act 2020.
Kelly Hamilton will have to pay the $400 excess despite the damage not being her fault.
Privacy Principle 11 in the act “limits the disclosure of personal information”, a Woolworths spokesperson said in an email response.
“In our Privacy Policy, we set out how we collect CCTV footage and what we use it for. In accordance with our Privacy Policy, we use CCTV for security, theft prevention and safety purposes and we will only disclose footage to law enforcement where we consider a crime or offence has occurred or where required by law. That does not include the sharing of footage with an individual or their insurance company for civil disputes.”
The spokesperson said they did not receive an information request form from police in relation to this incident.
They said a customer would be entitled under the act to request a copy of the footage if it contained personal information relating to themselves, and each of these requests would be considered on an individual basis.
“One of the key things we need to take into account with CCTV footage is that it often also includes footage of other customers or team members, which is their personal information and we need to make sure we don’t breach their privacy.”
Kelly Hamilton felt the reasoning not to give her the footage was 'a bit pathetic'.
The spokesperson said Hamilton would only be entitled to footage if she was in it at the time. As the damage occurred while she was not present, she would not be entitled to the footage of the damage occurring.
While the Privacy Act is vague on what the definition of “personal information” is, a spokeperson for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner said if someone is identifiable in CCTV footage, it is considered personal information. It can then only be shared if one of the exceptions in the act applies
They said Countdown could “potentially” be in breach of the act if they provided the footage.
“I will depend on what information is in the footage, and what they believed the information was being shared for ... If there is no reasonable belief one of the exceptions applies, then it would likely be a breach of principle 11.”
Hamilton felt the reasoning was “a bit pathetic”.
“The bit I want to see is probably 15 seconds, if that.” She also thought it was unlikely to show the actual person involved, just their vehicle, unless the damage was caused by a trolley.
“I have run out of time and energy to just carry on fighting,” she said.
“I just feel defeated.”
Melissa Nightingale is a Wellington-based reporter who covers crime, justice and news in the capital. She joined the Herald in 2016 and has worked as a journalist for 10 years.
