Unauthorised photography within my home and sharing of the photographs

[Changerofthename1]

I found out that a contractor has taken photographs of the inside of my home that I did not authorise, one of them has got my child in the corner I’m fucking furious about. Obviously it’s gone from one employees phone to another and then it’s been forwarded onto who is thinks is me but actually I’m using an email address that isn’t the one that he would have on my contract if that makes sense so I think he’s on thin ice with that.

This can’t be legal surely ?

Both of those examples are related to using the images for advertising though. Different scenario.

That’s not covering this, the company is only using the photo taken by contractors to show why the work was unable to be done to the op. Potentially to a judge, but that’s more unlikely than pigs flying.

@Changerofthename1 OK to answer the question in your OP very simply:

Yes, it's legal.

If you are unhappy that your toddler is in the photograph, or indeed that the photos of your daughters that you have on your wall appear in the photograph, then get in touch with them and asked that those details are removed/cropped/blurred in the contractor's photograph and that the original with those details is deleted.

It's really that simple.

You can get legal advice if you want but you'll just be paying for what I've told you for free here.

You chose to put a photo of your daughters on display where builders coming to the house could see it. I don't think you're in a position to complain about that, especially given that a photo of a photo in a room is going to come out tiny and on your own admission isn't immediately visible.

The builders came to the house and gave a quote which they obviously thought was at an appropriate figure. Then when they turned up they saw something which made them believe that they had underquoted, and they are saying that is your fault and took photos to prove their case. Why do they say it was your fault? Was it something they could not have seen when they originally quoted?

It does seem to me that this is relevant because it is the reason they took the photos and why, if this should get to court, will be why they seek to show the photos to the court to prove their case.

Oh OP. Why did you have to go ad over egg the pudding so soon? A minute ago it was one lousy pic with your kid accidentally in the corner. 😂

So you chose to put a photo on the wall of your house in general display that you feel may be of interest to paedophiles? Why would you do that?

This is starting to remind me of a thread where someone’s in law said they’d report them for having a photo of their kid in the bath on the fridge. Was that poster a troll?

Are there sharks in the photo too?

😂

Out of interest OP what are you actually going to do

Er, no. Now you're forgetting what you've said. How embarrassing.

Directly at the beginning of the thread, you said the work was in the lounge, hallway and kitchen. Then you said it was work at the back of the house.

I pointed this out already. And quoted where you had said the work was being done in the kitchen, lounge and hallway. I mean I can find it again if you like?

Now you're accusing another poster who's spotted the same inconsistency of being unhinged for not reading the thread. Except they have. You said exactly what they are quoting you to have said. Seems you've forgotten you own story you were going with. Scored a bit of an own goal there, haven't you...

OP: this thing happened that I don't want to tell you, I think it's illegal, I'm going to go batshit on them. Am I in the right?

MN: that doesn't sound illegal can you give us a bit more detail

OP: wahhhhhh, noooooo, it's not relevant, you're all horrible.

I think that's an accurate summary of the thread?

Pretty accurate.

Did anyone get to the bottom of the email address that's hers but they didn't know it was hers, or did I miss that ?

Not that I've seen!

No, it veered off into children in <clutches pearls> wetsuits!!!

@Changerofthename1 I would also be annoyed at this too, but apart from being cross, I don't think there is anything you can do other to voice your complaint to them. Are they happy to return your money?

I think the crux of it was that it was an email address she had given them (she gave them two, so perhaps one personal, one work?), but thought she had a major point because she'd only physically written one of the emails on the contract, and they'd emailed her on the other one. Heinous.

She didn't accidentally get sent anything. They emailed her on an address she gave them. It just happened she put a different email on her written contract.

OP be honest, you weren’t expecting these responses were you!?

So that would suggest you know OP that you're in the wrong, thars why you're selective with the facts.

I think this is right and what she was aiming for is because she gave a different email in the contract her argument over the picture was going to be that anyone could have gained access to her inbox and therefore the picture(s).

unless this was sent to a company email with a shared mailbox I don’t see how anyone could have access to OPs personal emails so would be a bit ridiculous of her to suggest that… but going by the rest of the posts 🤔

I would love to be the judge in this case. OP is so sure of all her "Gotcha's!!" and won't listen to anyone who is pointing out she is going to get laughed out of court, using the justification that it's because we don't know details of the work.

Entirely missing the point that everything we do have details of (the things she thinks she can make a case with), is utter nonsense that a judge would laugh at. It''s kind of irrelevant whether it's an extension or a carpet being fitted. You can't use "my daughters in wetsuits are in a picture which is in the corner of a room adjacent to where a photo was taken" for absolutely anything.

And frankly, OP is tripping over her story now, so...

Will we be able to follow the court case online? I am definitely logging in for this one.

To be fair, if it was the case that the contractors had pulled out solely because they had messed up their quote, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on in terms of keeping OP's money.

However, that still leaves an awful lot of questions. They had inspected initially in order to quote, how come they didn't notice whatever the problem was that made the job so much bigger? Why and how did taking photos provide them with evidence that they think proved them to be in the right? They can't conceivably think that their mistake would mean that OP has broken the contract, so why do they say she has?