Customer took photos of me without me permission

[Ren Hoëk]

I don't think there is much we can do about it really. They already film us with CCTV, Ring doorbells etc. Lets not forget that we take a photo of the package on their property as proof of delivery as well.

I actually can understand why some people would do it for collections as we offer no kind of receipt or proof of collection. We just rely on the digital footprint. Which lets face it, can be abit dodgy at times.

If footage of me ended up online then id be miffed. They would certainly start to receive a much diminished service.

[Patmanposts]

I don't think there is much we can do about it really. They already film us with CCTV, Ring doorbells etc. Lets not forget that we take a photo of the package on their property as proof of delivery as well.

I actually can understand why some people would do it for collections as we offer no kind of receipt or proof of collection. We just rely on the digital footprint. Which lets face it, can be abit dodgy at times.

If footage of me ended up online then id be miffed. They would certainly start to receive a much diminished service.

I thought the customer gets an confirmation email that we have collected after we scan?

[yellowbelly]

I thought the customer gets an confirmation email that we have collected after we scan?

Should do, but I suppose they might want a photo of the item's condition as it was picked up. I've had items in a single bin bag (already ripped and refused), not taped up etc. etc. If somebody's sending decent quality stuff well packaged, a photo provides them with a defence against RM if it arrives at the other end in a s**t state.

[priority102]

Hello,

I went to collect a parcel from a customer and after I scanned the label, I looked up and saw her snapping photos of me without my permission. Is this allowed and I can refuse to accept the parcel in the future?

All she needed was confirmation scan from my pda so there was no point of snapping me.

I would have grabbed her phone off her

No you wouldn't have

[TrueBlueTerrier]

I hope it was meant in jest because if a postie really did "grab her phone" they could be in serious trouble: (Also posted with the assistance of AI)

If a postman *did* grab someone's phone because they didn't want to be photographed, they would likely be guilty of several offences in the UK:

1. Assault by Battery / Common Assault:

Definition: This occurs when a person intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another person. "Grabbing" the phone from someone's hand involves direct physical contact and the application of force.
Legal Basis: Common law, covered by Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Severity: Common assault is a summary-only offence, meaning it's dealt with in the Magistrates' Court. The maximum sentence is six months in prison and/or an unlimited fine.

2. Theft:
Definition: Under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, theft is defined as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it.
Application: Even if the postman only intended to grab the phone momentarily to stop the photography and then return it, the act of "appropriating" (taking control of) the phone, even briefly, without the owner's consent, could be argued as theft. The key is the "intention to permanently deprive." If he intended to hold onto it, or even destroy it, that would clearly be theft. If he immediately dropped it or gave it back, it might be argued that the intention to permanently deprive was not present, but the act of taking it without permission is still a significant element.
Severity: The maximum sentence for theft can be up to seven years' custody, depending on the value of the item and other factors.

3. Criminal Damage:
Definition: Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, this involves intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property belonging to another without lawful excuse.
Application: If, in the act of grabbing the phone, the postman accidentally or recklessly damaged it (e.g., it dropped and shattered, or a component broke), they could also be charged with criminal damage.
Severity: Penalties vary based on the value of the damage, from a fine and/or up to three months' imprisonment for damage under £5,000, to up to ten years' imprisonment for more serious damage.

Important Legal Points:

No Right to Prevent Photography in Public: In the UK, there is generally no law preventing someone from taking photographs of others in a public place. There are exceptions for harassment, stalking, or taking indecent images, but simply being photographed in public is not illegal. Therefore, the postman would have no "lawful excuse" for grabbing the phone.

Self-Defence (Not Applicable Here): While a person can use reasonable force in self-defence, preventing someone from taking a photograph is not a situation where self-defence would apply, as photography itself is not a physical threat.

Civil Action: In addition to criminal charges, the person whose phone was grabbed could also pursue a civil claim for trespass to goods (for the interference with their property) and/or assault (for the physical contact).

In summary, a postman who grabbed a phone to prevent being photographed would likely face criminal charges for assault by battery at the very least, and potentially theft and/or criminal damage depending on their subsequent actions with the phone and any damage caused. Their position as a postman (a person in a position of trust) could also be seen as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

[dazer0070]

So we are told not to take a pic of the customers face when receiving an item. Doesn’t it work both ways?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

So we are told not to take a pic of the customers face when receiving an item. Doesn’t it work both ways?

No:

Royal Mail direction not to include customers face is policy. Although it is based on GDPR and privacy laws being that the photo is generally on private property.

Them being able to take photos in public places of postal workers working is the law.

[Hitcher]

Its not worse than RING doorbell recording footage of you so dont see the issue

^This.

[Smoothbackground]

I hope it was meant in jest because if a postie really did "grab her phone" they could be in serious trouble: (Also posted with the assistance of AI)

If a postman *did* grab someone's phone because they didn't want to be photographed, they would likely be guilty of several offences in the UK:

1. Assault by Battery / Common Assault:

Definition: This occurs when a person intentionally or recklessly applies unlawful force to another person. "Grabbing" the phone from someone's hand involves direct physical contact and the application of force.
Legal Basis: Common law, covered by Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Severity: Common assault is a summary-only offence, meaning it's dealt with in the Magistrates' Court. The maximum sentence is six months in prison and/or an unlimited fine.

2. Theft:
Definition: Under Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968, theft is defined as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it.
Application: Even if the postman only intended to grab the phone momentarily to stop the photography and then return it, the act of "appropriating" (taking control of) the phone, even briefly, without the owner's consent, could be argued as theft. The key is the "intention to permanently deprive." If he intended to hold onto it, or even destroy it, that would clearly be theft. If he immediately dropped it or gave it back, it might be argued that the intention to permanently deprive was not present, but the act of taking it without permission is still a significant element.
Severity: The maximum sentence for theft can be up to seven years' custody, depending on the value of the item and other factors.

3. Criminal Damage:
Definition: Under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, this involves intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging property belonging to another without lawful excuse.
Application: If, in the act of grabbing the phone, the postman accidentally or recklessly damaged it (e.g., it dropped and shattered, or a component broke), they could also be charged with criminal damage.
Severity: Penalties vary based on the value of the damage, from a fine and/or up to three months' imprisonment for damage under £5,000, to up to ten years' imprisonment for more serious damage.

Important Legal Points:

No Right to Prevent Photography in Public: In the UK, there is generally no law preventing someone from taking photographs of others in a public place. There are exceptions for harassment, stalking, or taking indecent images, but simply being photographed in public is not illegal. Therefore, the postman would have no "lawful excuse" for grabbing the phone.

Self-Defence (Not Applicable Here): While a person can use reasonable force in self-defence, preventing someone from taking a photograph is not a situation where self-defence would apply, as photography itself is not a physical threat.

Civil Action: In addition to criminal charges, the person whose phone was grabbed could also pursue a civil claim for trespass to goods (for the interference with their property) and/or assault (for the physical contact).

In summary, a postman who grabbed a phone to prevent being photographed would likely face criminal charges for assault by battery at the very least, and potentially theft and/or criminal damage depending on their subsequent actions with the phone and any damage caused. Their position as a postman (a person in a position of trust) could also be seen as an aggravating factor in sentencing.

Just a clarification on the AI summary for point 2 above — sorry to be pedantic. Grabbing a phone from someone’s hand would constitute a use of force. Using force to steal something amounts to an offence of robbery not theft — much more serious. That said, unless there was an evidenced intention on the part of the postie to permanently deprive the customer of their phone, neither offence (theft or robbery) would be made out.

The rest of the AI advice looks good to me.

[LouBarlow]

You live in the most surveilled country in the world. You can’t walk down the street without being caught on one kind of CCTV or another. Talk about mountain out of a molehill.

[NWpostie]

You live in the most surveilled country in the world. You can’t walk down the street without being caught on one kind of CCTV or another. Talk about mountain out of a molehill.

Josef Goebbels said " If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" the biggest lie to catch out the unwary and innocent's.

[Barnacle]

You live in the most surveilled country in the world. You can’t walk down the street without being caught on one kind of CCTV or another. Talk about mountain out of a molehill.

Josef Goebbels said " If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" the biggest lie to catch out the unwary and innocent's.

And we live in a constantly under surveillance country because at the start someone said, ‘What difference does one camera make? Could be useful’.

[Tman]

You live in the most surveilled country in the world. You can’t walk down the street without being caught on one kind of CCTV or another. Talk about mountain out of a molehill.

This old nonsense again? The list is 1) China, 2) US, 3) Germany and the UK on equal fourth with Japan.

[LouBarlow]

You live in the most surveilled country in the world. You can’t walk down the street without being caught on one kind of CCTV or another. Talk about mountain out of a molehill.

This old nonsense again? The list is 1) China, 2) US, 3) Germany and the UK on equal fourth with Japan.

It isn’t nonsense at all. If you take CCTV as the only factor, but then add in Ring cameras and private surveillance along with our massive population density and an average person is getting caught on camera more times in the UK than China, which has many sparsely populated areas compared to us.

[Postie45]

To add. The private property restrictions is to protect the owners of that property only and someone entering such an area is still able to be recorded at the property owners will. However, someone entering someone else's private property may not have the right to film or take photos should the property owner not wish them to.