A Lemon

[caledfwlch]

You are right with regards to them trespassing, however they can film from the street. Im sure I am correct in stating this, they have also have to get a disclaimer signed of the person being filmed to show their faces.

 

Surely filming someone against their will, whilst they are on private property is breaking the laws too though. Its very close to harassment. - being on the street rather than in the garden is a technicality, they are still filming a person on private land against their will, and what about properties that dont have gardens/yards. It is something to look into, especially if we can damage the BBC's ability to make these shows

 

The Police have arguments and claim protections about how its ok, including letting the crews into homes they are raiding, but Bailiffs do not have those protections/rights.

[brassnecked]

Surely filming someone against their will, whilst they are on private property is breaking the laws too though. Its very close to harassment. - being on the street rather than in the garden is a technicality, they are still filming a person on private land against their will, and what about properties that dont have gardens/yards. It is something to look into, especially if we can damage the BBC's ability to make these shows

 

The Police have arguments and claim protections about how its ok, including letting the crews into homes they are raiding, but Bailiffs do not have those protections/rights.

Caled they can film in the street and the bailiff in the garden FROM THE STREET, if the debtor or property occupier asks them to leave the film crew must go if they follow the bailiff into the garden. Also they DO need permission to USE any footage of the debtor from the debtor, or they must obscure their face.

[caledfwlch]

Caled they can film in the street and the bailiff in the garden FROM THE STREET, if the debtor or property occupier asks them to leave the film crew must go if they follow the bailiff into the garden. Also they DO need permission to USE any footage of the debtor from the debtor, or they must obscure their face.

 

The point I am making is, surely without permission its not OK to film a debtor in their doorway, even from the street. I am thinking for example of how ones CCTV must not capture a neighbours garden. We have no right to film private land/people on private land, even if the camera is on public land.

[seanamarts]

When the police film, it is often from a camera on their being.

[seanamarts]

Unfortunately you can film or take pictures any where on public ground, Im sure I am correct in saying that if you plan to make it public and earn money from it then you have to ask permission. However it looks like the paparazzi dont seem to do that and very rarely get stopped.

[caledfwlch]

Unfortunately you can film or take pictures any where on public ground, Im sure I am correct in saying that if you plan to make it public and earn money from it then you have to ask permission. However it looks like the paparazzi dont seem to do that and very rarely get stopped.

 

You are protected to take general footage on public land, but my point is, they are breaking the laws regarding it, because they are not taking general footage but focussing on an individual on private land. When the Police were stopping people for taking pics of private buildings, they were all stood on public land.

 

About 90% of UK Police Camera shows afaik are filmed by private/corporate camera crews.

[seanamarts]

What laws are they breaking?

 

There are some councils that prohibit filming in certain places, but as for breaking laws for filming / taking photo's etc there just isnt any to break.

[seanamarts]

The police were wrong stopping people from taking photo's, unless the council have put in place that certain building cannot be photographed or that they need a special permit, which is hard to see why they would.

[brassnecked]

As a film maker myself, I would always ask permission of people around, and ask if they had objections, and if they had would not film them or wait until they had gone. But basically there is no specific law around this, the police were using anti terror legislation against photographers, to the level of harassing tourists taking pictures of Nelson's Column. The issue on CCTV is actually one of data protection, and is covered by the Information Commissioner, as digital images from a domestic CCTV is data processing under the DPA. However unles the system is in commercial premises, there is a derogation that means you don't have to register as a Data Controller under the ACt, and yes if you put CCTV up on your premises, and if films a bailiff being naughty at the door, tough for him you don't need his permission to post the footage up on YouTube. If you were to rely on it as evidence then YouTube is therlast place you would put it.

 

If the place is a privately owned place like a Shopping Mall, then yes the owner can stop you taking photographs IN the Mall, but not of the Mall from the road outside.

[caledfwlch]

If the place is a privately owned place like a Shopping Mall, then yes the owner can stop you taking photographs IN the Mall, but not of the Mall from the road outside.

 

From what I have seen of the laws regarding photography, that is fine, but it seems to specifically refer to "property" that is I cannot stop you filming my house from public land, but the law does not explicitly state that you can film ME from public land, and its damned close to harassment.

 

On these Bailiff shows, because its filming people on their own private home/land they are potentially breaching their rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to privacy. This would be a difficult fit to stick on someone like you BN, just a chap with a camera, but would fit the BBC or ITV very nicely being organisations. These organisations are attacking our privacy for commercial benefit. A very clever Barrister could probably win a good few cases from disgruntled victims.

[brassnecked]

From what I have seen of the laws regarding photography, that is fine, but it seems to specifically refer to "property" that is I cannot stop you filming my house from public land, but the law does not explicitly state that you can film ME from public land, and its damned close to harassment.

 

On these Bailiff shows, because its filming people on their own private home/land they are potentially breaching their rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, the right to privacy. Problem is this is not fully implemented in UK Law This would be a difficult fit to stick on someone like you BN, just a chap with a camera, but would fit the BBC or ITV very nicely being organisations. These organisations are attacking our privacy for commercial benefit. A very clever Barrister could probably win a good few cases from disgruntled victims.

 

But that is the very reason I advise people to film the bailiff, the bailiff cannot lawfully prevent a debtor filming them on the debtors premises, OR in the street. If a film crew turned up at my place with a bailiff they would find themselves being filmed by me, and I'm sure any objections would look real fine and dandy on YouTube.

[GuidoT]

By way of an update, the bailiff's clearly thought it was all too difficult, so they have decided to invoice me for the visits of £120.00 and given up. No communication from them regarding the outcome, just an invoice.

 

I can understand that you cannot get blood from a stone, but the communication and general way in which they dealt with me was rubbish.

 

I had low expectations of bailiffs generally and the Sheriffs Office did not disappoint.

 

As I have high court judgement, I may as well finish off the job, going to get a statutory demand served and bankrupt him.

[GuidoT]

Presently attempting to serve a statutory on him, proving a bit difficult though, now instructed process servers.

 

Oddly the Sheriffs Office has not even chased for the £120.00 - maybe subsequently they decided they are not entitled to it.

[tomtubby]

Personally, I would have gone for an Oral Examination. Have you considered this?

[GuidoT]

Thanks TT, getting a bit lost in it all.

 

Do not fancy paying £1K of fee to make him bankrupt, questioning is a good alternative given the potential consequences of not attending.

 

I think if I manage to sucessfully serve the stat demand on him, that could be the next step after the 21 days expires.

[tomtubby]

If a debtor does not payonce judgment has been awarded it is very simple to make an application for an Order that thedebtor attends court for questioning. This is a very simple application indeedand is most effective ( and cheap at £40).

The order used to be called a “Requestfor an Oral Examination” and is used once judgment has been awarded and itprovides an “order” that the defendant MUSTappear in court to be questioned by the Judge as to his financial position. The person making the application may also forward questions to the court for the Judge to ask the defendant.

This can be useful indeed in trying to establish whether the defendant has the means to pay.

 

I think that the fee forthis application is £40

 

The application is madeby filing an N316 Form at the County Court. There is plenty of information onGoogle about this.

 

Also, the good part aboutsuch an application is that notification of the date to attend court is notprovided by post to the debtor...it is served upon him personally by a PROCESS SERVER !!!

There are serious consequences available if the defendant does not attend court on the specified date.