nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Taking pictures of a person in an apartment lobby.

Petrol Head_Pilot

My partner lives in an apartment block and has a small Female Jack Russell. The dog is registered, insured and up to date with injections etc. My partner owns the apartment and the management company who manages the block is aware of the dog and have no issues as long as the dog is not let run wild or go to the toilet in communal areas.

Last week my partner came back from the park and entered the lift area which is only accessible by a pin controlled door, a man was standing there with his wife waiting on the lift and whilst waiting my partner noticed he took a picture of her and the dog and the man didn't look too happy about the dog being there. She didn't recognise him so he is either a new resident or a visitor. A few days later she got a phone call from the management company to say that a complaint was made about the dog being in the apartment block however, as no rules were both broken the complaint was closed.

(We take it he is a new resident due to the complaint)

So my partners question is what legal rights to privacy does she have in the lobby / lift area of her apartment in regards to photography?

Thanks

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Mrs OBumble

Petrol Head_Pilot wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.

The person who took the photo was a resident and not a member of management nor does he have any connections or interests in the company / complex bar being a resident.

My partner see's it this way, if you are standing at a bus stop or walking down the street or in a park etc and somebody walks up and directly takes a photograph of you, is that ok? I highly doubt this would be acceptable to anyone!

This happened in an apartment complex with access via key pad only. If it were on the street then my partner may never have known her picture was taken however, she assumed that whilst standing in her apartment complex should would have privacy rights and not be in a position where someone blatantly takes a picture of her.

I don't want this to get too complicated but surely in your own apartment complex you should be able to go about your day with being photographed?

If you are standing at a bus stop, you should assume you are photographed by ever bus , many bicycles and some cars that are going past, as well as some build security cameras.

Petrol Head_Pilot

Thanks for the replies.

The person who took the photo was a resident and not a member of management nor does he have any connections or interests in the company / complex bar being a resident.

My partner see's it this way, if you are standing at a bus stop or walking down the street or in a park etc and somebody walks up and directly takes a photograph of you, is that ok? I highly doubt this would be acceptable to anyone!

This happened in an apartment complex with access via key pad only. If it were on the street then my partner may never have known her picture was taken however, she assumed that whilst standing in her apartment complex should would have privacy rights and not be in a position where someone blatantly takes a picture of her.

I don't want this to get too complicated but surely in your own apartment complex you should be able to go about your day with being photographed?

[Deleted User]

It sounds rather like the place where I live, where pets are fully accepted part of living in the apartments, and indeed dog litter bins are provided. It's one of the few apartment estates in Dublin which is pet friendly, and it is why I bought my apartment here as I enjoy the presence of pets. It is possible that new purchasers simply did not research enough to realise that this is the ethos of the place, as it was designed with full family living in mind. New people need to come to accept that if the wanted a pet free zone they would need to have ascertained that wherever they chose to purchase or live has house rules that state that pets are prohibited. The house rules in my place are such that a well-managed pet is acceptable.

Lenar3556

Pkiernan wrote: »

Yawn.

What if he was another tenant?

Indeed you will probably find the referred to ‘management company’ is more likely a management agent rather than an OMC.

Pkiernan

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What interest or standing would any random visitor to the complex have in making such a complaint?
He was making a complaint in his capacity as a member of the management company and a leaseholder. AS such he was carrying out the business of the management company in seeking to have compliance with house rules. What private reason could he have for this behaviour?

Yawn.

What if he was another tenant?

Pkiernan

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What interest or standing would any random visitor to the complex have in making such a complaint?
He was making a complaint in his capacity as a member of the management company and a leaseholder. AS such he was carrying out the business of the management company in seeking to have compliance with house rules. What private reason could he have for this behaviour?

Yawn.

What if he was another tenant?

Claw Hammer

Lenar3556 wrote: »

He may or may not have been. Regardless, he was not acting as an agent of management company when he took the photograph.

What interest or standing would any random visitor to the complex have in making such a complaint?
He was making a complaint in his capacity as a member of the management company and a leaseholder. AS such he was carrying out the business of the management company in seeking to have compliance with house rules. What private reason could he have for this behaviour?

Lenar3556

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It wasn't a member of the public who took the photograph. It was a member of the management company.

He may or may not have been. Regardless, he was not acting as an agent of management company when he took the photograph.

GerardKeating

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It wasn't a member of the public who took the photograph. It was a member of the management company.

Not according to the OP, they said it might be a new resident of the complex.

Lenar3556

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Where is the complainant going to appeal to? The MC know who the subject of the complaint is. How does a photograph assist in any way whatsoever in the future?

He would likely appeal internally, he could take a legal action, there could arise a question of harassment in the future. One would hope not, but don’t destroy the complaint prematurely!

[Deleted User]

Claw Hammer wrote: »

It wasn't a member of the public who took the photograph. It was a member of the management company.

Where do you see that?

Claw Hammer

Dav010 wrote: »

That is really interesting, how is a member of the public taking a photograph subject to GDPR? I could see how that might apply to the MC storing CCTV, but a member of the public?

It wasn't a member of the public who took the photograph. It was a member of the management company.

[Deleted User]

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A photograph is personal data. It was taken and used to establish the identity of the person who had the dog. Its purpose is now spent as the person who had the dog has been identified. there is now no reason for anyone to retain the photograph. The person who took the photograph no longer needs it and neither does the management company. As such it should not be retained by either of them. There can't be any assumption that someone will persist with complaints and in any case how could having a photograph on file help in any way?

That is really interesting, how is a member of the public taking a photograph subject to GDPR? I could see how that might apply to the MC storing CCTV, but a member of the public?

Claw Hammer

Lenar3556 wrote: »

I think that is too broad an interpretation. The photographer took this photo in circumstances where the subject would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and he did so in a personal capacity. He is under no obligation to dispose of it and he doesn’t need to justify a purpose for retention.

The management company would be a little different in so far as they are an organisation to which data protection regulations apply and as you have pointed out the photograph together with the complaint contains personal data. That said, I would consider it disproportionate to delete or redact the whole thing immediately following a decision being reached. The complainant may wish to appeal the decision, or there could be further matters arising if he is aggrieved by the outcome, which may necessitate referral to this complaint.

I would think it appropriate that the MC would retain this in accordance with their data protection / retention policy - 12 months from the date of decision would seem reasonable assuming no further matters arising.

Where is the complainant going to appeal to? The MC know who the subject of the complaint is. How does a photograph assist in any way whatsoever in the future?

Lenar3556

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A photograph is personal data. It was taken and used to establish the identity of the person who had the dog. Its purpose is now spent as the person who had the dog has been identified. there is now no reason for anyone to retain the photograph. The person who took the photograph no longer needs it and neither does the management company. As such it should not be retained by either of them. There can't be any assumption that someone will persist with complaints and in any case how could having a photograph on file help in any way?

I think that is too broad an interpretation. The photographer took this photo in circumstances where the subject would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and he did so in a personal capacity. He is under no obligation to dispose of it and he doesn’t need to justify a purpose for retention.

The management company would be a little different in so far as they are an organisation to which data protection regulations apply and as you have pointed out the photograph together with the complaint contains personal data. That said, I would consider it disproportionate to delete or redact the whole thing immediately following a decision being reached. The complainant may wish to appeal the decision, or there could be further matters arising if he is aggrieved by the outcome, which may necessitate referral to this complaint.

I would think it appropriate that the MC would retain this in accordance with their data protection / retention policy - 12 months from the date of decision would seem reasonable assuming no further matters arising.

KaneToad

sparksfly wrote: »

The question had nothing to do with the complaints procedure or whether it worked or not. It questioned the right to privacy.

I know. That's why I wrote the first line in my response. This is a discussion board, no?

Claw Hammer

Lenar3556 wrote: »

I don’t see why the person who took it would now be under any obligation to delete it? Or how the person photographed could seek to enforce same.

Or indeed in the case of the managment company, subject to complying with their own policies in relation to the investigation and documentation of complaints.

One would hope that the complaint was made in good faith, and the matter is now resolved, but if the complainant were not satisfied and tended to persist with more photography, further complaints etc. It may, for a number of reasons be helpful to have this one on file.

A photograph is personal data. It was taken and used to establish the identity of the person who had the dog. Its purpose is now spent as the person who had the dog has been identified. there is now no reason for anyone to retain the photograph. The person who took the photograph no longer needs it and neither does the management company. As such it should not be retained by either of them. There can't be any assumption that someone will persist with complaints and in any case how could having a photograph on file help in any way?

893bet

Make sure the dog is kept on the leash. He will be trying to find a situation where the dog is “out of control”.

sparksfly

KaneToad wrote: »

Can't answer your question. But I would advise you let the situation go. The complaint was made. No case to answer. Matter closed. Your partner "wins".

The complaints procedure worked properly.

The question had nothing to do with the complaints procedure or whether it worked or not. It questioned the right to privacy.

Lenar3556

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The public areas of an apartment block are not places where one would expect privacy, so the same rules would apply if he was photographed walking on the street. The only remaining issue concerns the photograph. The person who took it should delete it and should not retain a copy. Likewise if it was given to the management company they should not retain it or a copy.
A person who is allowed keep a dog in an apartment is lucky. Most management companies don't allow it.

I don’t see why the person who took it would now be under any obligation to delete it? Or how the person photographed could seek to enforce same.

Or indeed in the case of the managment company, subject to complying with their own policies in relation to the investigation and documentation of complaints.

One would hope that the complaint was made in good faith, and the matter is now resolved, but if the complainant were not satisfied and tended to persist with more photography, further complaints etc. It may, for a number of reasons be helpful to have this one on file.

Claw Hammer

The public areas of an apartment block are not places where one would expect privacy, so the same rules would apply if he was photographed walking on the street. The only remaining issue concerns the photograph. The person who took it should delete it and should not retain a copy. Likewise if it was given to the management company they should not retain it or a copy.
A person who is allowed keep a dog in an apartment is lucky. Most management companies don't allow it.

KaneToad

Petrol Head_Pilot wrote: »

My partner lives in an apartment block and has a small Female Jack Russell. The dog is registered, insured and up to date with injections etc. My partner owns the apartment and the management company who manages the block is aware of the dog and have no issues as long as the dog is not let run wild or go to the toilet in communal areas.

Last week my partner came back from the park and entered the lift area which is only accessible by a pin controlled door, a man was standing there with his wife waiting on the lift and whilst waiting my partner noticed he took a picture of her and the dog and the man didn't look too happy about the dog being there. She didn't recognise him so he is either a new resident or a visitor. A few days later she got a phone call from the management company to say that a complaint was made about the dog being in the apartment block however, as no rules were both broken the complaint was closed.

(We take it he is a new resident due to the complaint)

So my partners question is what legal rights to privacy does she have in the lobby / lift area of her apartment in regards to photography?

Thanks

Can't answer your question. But I would advise you let the situation go. The complaint was made. No case to answer. Matter closed. Your partner "wins".

The complaints procedure worked properly.