Recreated source · email

Email to PDPC officer — access request clarification

Faithful, verbatim recreation of the original email; the sender's name, email addresses and phone number have been removed.

From:: The complainant
Date:: 10 May 2024
To:: Info (PDPC)
Subject:: RE: [Log No: DP-2405-C2318] Supplementary Information — Knight Frank Property & Facilities Management Pte Ltd

Dear Mr. Ahmad Syakir,

Thank you for your response dated 7 May 2024. I appreciate your assessment, but I would like to address a key aspect of my request to ensure there is a clear understanding of my intentions and the factual basis of my access request.

1. Clarification of Intent: My request for CCTV footage is for personal use, specifically to support an insurance claim related to the accident on April 16, 2024. This footage is for personal understanding of what happened (I suffered a concussion) and essential for substantiating my claim with my insurance provider.

2. Basis of My Request: Importantly, my request is not based on speculation or an unfounded search for information. A security guard at The Scotts Tower had initially described the contents of the footage to me, confirming that it captured the incident involving my vehicle and a taxi. This confirmation is what prompted me to seek the footage, as it is directly relevant to my claim. I am not seeking this information to engage in a fishing expedition but rather to access specific evidence that has been verbally confirmed to exist. This approach is intended to save costs for both parties and protect the confidentiality of the security guard’s communication.

3. Legal Grounds for Request: The management now is claiming that there is no video, a claim that I know is not the truth given that the security guard told me about the accident from the start til end, denying access to my personal data. I understand the limitations under section 21 of the PDPA and appreciate that it is not intended for discovery purposes in civil proceedings. However, given the direct relevance of the footage to my legitimate personal and insurance-related needs, I seek guidance on how to proceed under the appropriate provisions of the PDPA or any other applicable framework.

4. Request for Further Dialogue: I kindly request that we reconsider the access request or discuss alternative legal grounds that would allow me to obtain the footage. If additional information or specific conditions are required to facilitate this process, please let me know, and I am prepared to comply with those requirements. I am committed to resolving this matter efficiently and in accordance with the applicable legal standards. Your assistance and understanding in providing access to the footage for the purpose outlined above would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and hope we can discuss this further in person or by phone, as I believe my request and the supporting evidence may have been misunderstood.

Best regards, the complainant

From: Info (PDPC) <[email removed]> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 5:32 PM To: [email removed] Subject: [Log No: DP-2405-C2318] Supplementary Information | Knight Frank Property & Facilities Management Pte Ltd

Dear the Complainant

1. Reference is made to our initial email and your subsequent emails, all dated 7 May 2024.

2. We have made a careful further assessment of your Access Review complaint against Knight Frank Property & Facilities Management Pte Ltd (“KFPFM”) and we regret that we are unable to assist you on the matter. If your intent in seeking access to the recorded footage was to:

a. verify whether the road accident you had been involved had been captured on KFPFM’s CCTVs; and/or

b. to clear your name due to your prior arrest by the Police,

then an access request made under section 21 of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (“PDPA”) is not the appropriate channel. It is a common misconception that section 21 of the PDPA is an alternative to discovery processes in civil proceedings in Court. This is not the case. Please consider informing the Investigation Officer on the possible existence on the CCTV footage which captures the incident or seek legal advice on your options under civil law.

3. As there are no indications of a breach of the PDPA in this matter, we will not be looking into your complaint further and we will not be responding to further correspondence on this matter, unless there is new or other information indicating otherwise.

4. For more information on the PDPA, please refer to the guidelines on our website.

Regards

Ahmad Syakir (Mr) Manager Consumer Services | Personal Data Protection Commission T. (65) 6377 3131 | DID. (65) 6989 5693 | F. (65) 6577 3888 | [t.me/pdpcsg]

Notice: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential or legally privileged information. Any unauthorised use, retention, reproduction, or disclosure is prohibited and may attract civil and criminal penalties. If this email has been sent to you in error, please delete it and notify us immediately.

From: [email removed] <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 4:30 PM To: Info (PDPC) <[email removed]> Subject: RE: [Log No: DP-2405-C2318] Supplementary Information | Knight Frank Property & Facilities Management Pte Ltd

Dear Mr. Ahmad Syakir,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to provide additional context and evidence related to my previous request for CCTV footage from the incident on April 16, 2024. My aim is to clarify the circumstances under which I have come to understand the events of that day, substantiating the existence and availability of the relevant footage.

1. Initial Verification with Security (April 16, 2024, around 2 pm): Upon discreetly speaking with a security guard at The Scotts Tower, I was verbally informed that the CCTV had captured the incident. Specifically, the guard confirmed seeing footage of a taxi swerving into my lane, leading to the collision. At that time, I had no other information about the accident, nor do I have any recollection of it due to a head concussion, as documented in my medical report from NUH. My investigating officer, alongside correspondences from my lawyer, can verify these facts. Thus my screenshots of my conversation is proof that I got this information somewhere (and I assert it is from TST) 2. Formal Request to Management (April 17, 2024, around 2 pm): Armed with a police report, I formally approached the management to request access to the footage (Seng Lum Printing Police Report.JPG). During this interaction, a member of the management team, Sophia, initially directed a colleague to verify the footage but then refrained from further assistance, citing PDPA privacy concerns, without denying the footage’s existence. Notably, the operational status of the CCTV system appeared functional as observed in the reflection of the screens against the wall and confirmed by Sophia’s assurance that they maintain footage for a significant duration. I am including screenshots of WhatsApp messages where I discussed these developments with my lawyer (see attached: Lawyer 1.JPG).

3. Significant of discovery of second video source: It was only after the security guard from TST described the footage to me that I had any understanding of the events from April 16. The next piece of footage I obtained was from a different condominium on April 17, which provided additional insights into the incident.

a. If I am lying about TST security guard telling me about the accident, I will not have any other avenues to understand what happened as the next source of information is on 17 April.

I am attaching the police report I made on the morning of 17 April to seek access from TST management.

I trust this detailed account helps clarify the situation and underscores the importance of my request. I look forward to your cooperation and a favorable response.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best regards, the complainant

From: [email removed] <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 2:12 PM To: 'Info (PDPC)' <[email removed]> Subject: RE: [Log No: DP-2405-C2318] Supplementary Information | Knight Frank Property & Facilities Management Pte Ltd

Dear Mr. Ahmad Syakir,

To substantiate my claim, I have some detailed accounts from WhatsApp messages communicated to my friends immediately after discovering the CCTV footage on 16 April 2024. These messages provide real-time reactions and confirmations from security personnel at the site regarding the existence and contents of the footage.

Additionally, I have identified the specific locations of CCTV cameras that would logically capture the area where the accident occurred, based on the physical layout of the premises and the direction of my travel during the incident.

I am prepared to formalize my statements through an affidavit detailing the interaction and the specific assertions made by the security personnel about the CCTV footage if this will further strengthen my case under the PDPA guidelines.

Could you please advise if the combination of detailed WhatsApp messages, the potential affidavit, and the information about the CCTV camera locations constitute a statement of firm grounds as required by the PDPA? These efforts aim to go beyond mere suspicion, supported by contemporaneous digital communications, potential legal affirmation, and physical evidence of monitoring capabilities.

Your guidance on whether these documented efforts meet the threshold required to compel disclosure of the footage or at least confirm its existence under PDPA guidelines would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response to determine the appropriate next steps.

Best regards, the complainant [phone removed]

From: [email removed] <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 12:48 PM To: 'Info (PDPC)' <[email removed]> Subject: RE: [Log No: DP-2405-C2318] Supplementary Information | Knight Frank Property & Facilities Management Pte Ltd

Dear Mr. Ahmad Syakir,

Thank you for your response and guidance regarding my request under the Personal Data Protection Act 2012. I would like to clarify an important aspect of my request for the CCTV footage related to the accident on 13APR2024.

Clarification of Request: I am not seeking access to the personal data of other individuals captured in the footage. My request is solely focused on understanding the sequence of events leading up to my accident, which occurred in a public area under direct CCTV coverage. I am fully agreeable to any footage provided has the identities of all other individuals masked or otherwise redacted to protect their privacy. This adjustment should adequately address any concerns regarding the privacy of other individuals captured in the footage while allowing me to access my personal data as per the PDPA guidelines. Purpose of Initial Viewing: At this juncture, I am not requesting a copy of the video. My goal is to view the CCTV footage in a supervised setting at The Scotts Tower to assess its relevance and utility concerning my accident. This preliminary step is essential to determine whether I should proceed with a formal request for the footage. I am perplexed by Knight Frank's reluctance to facilitate this reasonable request, especially since such cooperation would be in the spirit of public service and promote cost efficiency. This supervised viewing would allow me to confirm the footage's applicability to my case without necessitating further legal action at this stage.

Substantial Grounds for Belief in Footage Existence: As previously mentioned, my belief in the existence of relevant CCTV footage is based on:

1. Direct Confirmation: My belief in the existence of the CCTV footage is supported by direct interactions with security personnel at The Scotts Tower. One of the guards, a female whose name I recall, and another, a male of Chinese descent wearing spectacles, whom I can recognize but whose name I've forgotten, both confirmed they had viewed and could describe the footage capturing the incident. While I am prepared to identify these individuals if absolutely necessary, I am hesitant to expose them to potential unjust retribution from the organization.

2. Accident Location: Visual evidence that the location of my accident is within the CCTV coverage area, as presented in the documents I have submitted.

May I have a call with you and understand does the above fall under PDPA?

Best regards, the complainant [phone removed]

From: Info (PDPC) <[email removed]> Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 11:44 AM To: [email removed] Subject: [Log No: DP-2405-C2318] Supplementary Information | Knight Frank Property & Facilities Management Pte Ltd

Dear the Complainant

1. Reference is made to your complaint dated 4 May 2024. We have also taken note of your emails and telephone call to our hotline on 6 May 2024 for our present reply.

2. Please note that section 21 of the Personal Data Protection Act 2012 (the “PDPA”) governs access requests by individuals to their personal data in the possession or under the control of an organisation. The access under section 21 of the PDPA is to the individual’s own personal data and not to the personal data of other individuals. It follows that an organisation may decline to provide recorded images of other individuals even if the consent of the other individuals in question need not be obtained for disclosure. The dispensation of consent under, for example, the publicly available exception, does not equate to a requirement on an organisation under the PDPA to disclose personal data in the form of recorded images of individuals. To compel disclosure of the recorded images of other individuals, alternative channels would have to be explored, including discovery proceedings under civil law. Unless you are seeking only access to your own personal data in footage recorded by the organisation, with all other information redacted, the Access Obligation under the PDPA will not meet your purposes.

3. Further, an organisation need not meet an access request unless it has in its possession or under its control the personal data of the requesting individual. Where an individual alleges that the organisation in fact has his or her personal data in its possession or under its control, firm grounds to support such a belief must be stated in the complaint. Without statement of such firm grounds, which must go beyond suspicion, we are not empowered to assist in an access request.

4. For more information on the PDPA, please refer to the guidelines on our website. Do contact us if we could be of further assistance to you.

Regards

Ahmad Syakir (Mr) Manager Consumer Services | Personal Data Protection Commission T. (65) 6377 3131 | DID. (65) 6989 5693 | F. (65) 6577 3888 | [t.me/pdpcsg]

-----Original Message----- From: [email removed] <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 6:59 PM To: Info (PDPC) <[email removed]> Subject: RE: DP-2405-C2318 Supplementary Information

Dear Officer,

I am attaching the latest email from Boon Yong citing the wrong clause (privacy of others) to deny my request again, and my replies to it.

Without my consent, she reached out to the Investigating officer (for another matter) while my request is for personal understanding of what happened (memory loss due to concussion) and insurance claims against the taxi driver.

Regards, the complainant -----Original Message----- From: [email removed] <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 5:18 PM To: [email removed] Subject: RE: DP-2405-C2318 Supplementary Information

Dear Officer,

I am attaching the CCTV locations of TST and the accident location. The accident happened right in front of the CCTVs.

Regards, the complainant

-----Original Message----- From: [email removed] <[email removed]> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 2:56 PM To: [email removed] Subject: DP-2405-C2318 Supplementary Information

Dear Officer,

I am writing to urgently express my request for the CCTV Footage of my traffic accident from THE SCOTTS TOWER management agent. I suffered brain injuries as the taxi cut into my lane, and I do not have a clear video of my accident, saved for another grainy footage from another condo. The incident happened on 13 April 2024 around 5:04 am

I attached the letter here for your preview.

Regards, the complainant [phone removed]

-----Original Message----- From: [email removed] <[email removed]> Sent: Saturday, May 4, 2024 12:54 AM To: [email removed] Subject: Case ID: DP-2405-C2318 - Acknowledgement Email

Dear the Complainant,

Thank you for writing to the Personal Data Protection Commission ("PDPC").

Your complaint has been assigned with Case ID 'DP-2405-C2318'. In the meantime, our officers may contact you for further clarification, if necessary.

Should you have any queries, please e-mail us at [email removed] by quoting the above Case ID. Please visit our website www.pdpc.gov.sg for information on the PDPC and the Personal Data Protection Act 2012.

Consumer Services Personal Data Protection Commission

NOTE: This is a computer-generated message to acknowledge your complaint. Please do not respond to this e-mail.