Telegraph UK: CCTV cameras used to provide ‘evidence’ against diners who complained
The Telegraph reports on a disturbing use of surveillance camera footage at an upscale restaurant in the UK. A family was disappointed in its experience at the Manor Restaurant near Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. One of the family sent a letter of complaint to the restaurant and was disturbed by the response she received.
Simon Offen, the catering manager, emailed her to say he disputed her version of events after he had “watched and listened with interest to the video recording of her table”.
Mrs Fletcher was horrified that the meal had been recorded on CCTV cameras, and said her family found it “extremely disturbing” and felt “outrage at the invasion of our privacy”.
In a letter to the National Trust’s director-general, Dame Fiona Reynolds, she asked: “Does the National Trust condone recording, watching and listening to private conversations at customers’ tables in National Trust restaurants?”
Mrs Fletcher, from Great Missenden, near High Wycombe, has demanded to see and listen to the recording, and has questioned the legality of Mr Offen’s actions. [...]
A spokeswoman for the Information Commissioner said that CCTV cameras should only be used if there was a “genuine justification” for them, usually to prevent or detect crime. Recording conversations in a restaurant would be “deeply intrusive”, she said.
The catering manager later backtracked and said that the CCTV recording only had video, not sound of the customers.
It is odd that any restaurant would think it acceptable to use surveillance footage in a dispute about customer service. The National Trust says the system was ”installed as a security measure to monitor the restaurant’s till, not guests at tables,” yet that is exactly what it was used for, at least by this employee.
It is unfortunate that the catering manager escalated the situation to such a point, as his restaurant now has to deal with bad publicity concerning its customer service, food and now privacy-intrusive surveillance. However, it is useful for the restaurant’s customers and the public to now know that the business chooses to use, some would say misuse, its surveillance system in this manner.
Possibly related posts: