Bailiff enforcement CCTV and Body Worn Cameras

[E Munch]

Well I'm pleased to see we all seem to be in agreement that there is a real problem with requiring EAs to film everything they do on every case. It is like the situation a while back when many people including judges and the LGO said bailiffs could easily ring up the DVLA to check ownership of vehicles. I hope you will all respond accordingly when such inaccurate simplistic suggestions are made.

 

 

BA/MM. Equipment is not defined so a dictionary definition would suffice and the same for the word "any." I don't think a judge could decide Sch 12, 27(4) would not cover a BWV camera because of the use of the word any. It'll cover everything from a pen to fill out the forms through clamps, sack trucks, forklift trucks to huge cranes and low-loaders to remove large items. 27(5) does not affect 27(4) just allows the equipment to be left there during a pause in removal over night or immobilisation devices that may stay as part of the securing of goods. I imagine it was included in a rare belt and braces moment when someone said we've given permission for the EA and helpers to go into relevant premises but what about forklift trucks and things he might need and what if he needs to leave a clamp or padlock behind? Whatever the reason for writing the two clauses they now must be interpreted by judges which will be easy given the wide wording used. What is more important is can he turn the BWV on and we've covered that.

[E Munch]

MM re your comments about Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The right to a private and family right is a qualified right so it can be infringed and still be in accordance with the HRA 1998 provided the infringement fits the exceptions in 8(2). One of them is protection of the rights and freedoms of others. If the EA knew in advance the debtor was aggressive and could prove that the use of BWV would calm the debtor down then it's use could be justified as it protected the EA's rights including his right to life in extreme circumstances provided it was in accordance with the law. As we've seen above we are not sure it is specifically in accordance with the law. However even if filming by an EA is in accordance with the law the filming every case where pleasant harmless debtors are involved is not necessary so would certainly be against the HRA and it is this indiscriminate use (or the belief that there should be such indiscriminate use) that is the biggest problem. I think under the current legislation it is safest to avoid using BWV for EAs. The similar job was done by bailiffs for centuries before the technology existed and as the ICO says, new technology should not be used just for the sake of it.

[E Munch]

MM re data protection principles 5 and 7. Yes the technology, operating practices and retention policies of the enforcement agent would have to comply with these principles even if the actual filming was legally correct. EAs should not just film on their personal phones, leave them lying around for anyone to pick up and play, share the stuff on line and keep it indefinitely for no reason though debtors do this all the time in reverse. It is definitely easier not to film it in the first place.

[E Munch]

BN Re your charity work. Are you sure you and the recipients of your work follow all the data protection requirements? Charities are often the worst offenders when it comes to data protection. See the statement issued yesterday by the ICO about a leading charity with a worthy cause. They were no doubt well meaning but in data protection terms they were quite simply appalling.

 

 

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2016/01/ico-criticises-disappointing-attitude-of-dementia-charity/

[brassnecked]

Agree with you on points in post#27 if a debtor is on the PV list then there is a justification for BWC in that instance, however then what about a third party answering the door and the PV debtor is not present, the footage should be deleted.

 

Best not to film then.

[brassnecked]

BN Re your charity work. Are you sure you and the recipients of your work follow all the data protection requirements? Charities are often the worst offenders when it comes to data protection. See the statement issued yesterday by the ICO about a leading charity with a worthy cause. They were no doubt well meaning but in data protection terms they were quite simply appalling.

 

 

https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2016/01/ico-criticises-disappointing-attitude-of-dementia-charity/

 

These were feature videos of Community Events like a carnival, so similar to a news report, usually 15 mins duration or less.all people filmed would have given informed consent, anyone wishing not to be in the video would not be on camera, and any accidental appearance edited out. They would also be given a copy of the finished film if they wanted one. Hard drives in the editing machine encrypted as are any external storage drives.

 

How does that fit in with the ICO report, no emails on people in film, no personal data kept apart from the permissions to film containing name and signature which are locked away, and kept securely, then destroyed after 12 months?

 

Your post causes severe implications for filming weddings also, as the staff at the reception might get inadvertently filmed obviously I personally would elicit permission and would edit out anyone not wanting to appear..

 

The recipient gets a DVD or a Blu Ray, and source footage is deleted once DVD finalised.

 

How do you see the indiscriminate posting of dashcam footage on YouTube, surely coach and horses through DPA, as mainly private individuals posting?

[E Munch]

BN Re post 30.

If you give the EA the ability to delete they could just delete their indiscretions or will be accused of so doing. Besides even deleting the footage is processing data!

It is almost impossible to rule out some infringement or other, even if the intentions are to protect debtors from the EA so the only answer is not to record. And I'm not sure the word almost is needed in that sentence. Well unless the law can be changed to make such filming fit all the interacting legislation.

I agree. As it stands it is best not to record. Please pass on.

[brassnecked]

BN Re post 30.

If you give the EA the ability to delete they could just delete their indiscretions or will be accused of so doing. Besides even deleting the footage is processing data!

It is almost impossible to rule out some infringement or other, even if the intentions are to protect debtors from the EA so the only answer is not to record. And I'm not sure the word almost is needed in that sentence. Well unless the law can be changed to make such filming fit all the interacting legislation.

I agree. As it stands it is best not to record. Please pass on.

 

Yes my illustration in post#30 regarding third party and deletion shows you are correct, best for the EA not to film. Of course nothing to stop debtor filming EA

 

I would say that the Can't Pay programmes might be out of order also, as CH would need debtor's permission, and would have to stop filming and leave the premises. They would argue that filming the doorstep from the street is OK.

[E Munch]

BN Not the place to debate you good works but you could do a privacy impact assessment (PIA) as an exercise in frustration. Remember even recording then deleting the images of people who have not given permission is processing their personal data. What happens to the DVDs after you lose control of them? Should every recipient sign a DP agreement with you and agree not to take the DVDs or the content outside the EEA states? Trouble is with PIAs the easiest answer is usually to not do whatever activity you are assessing.

 

 

Yes the posting of videos is a curse (as well as sometimes a wonder) of the modern age. News isn't news if there is no video of it. I suppose the inclusion of it in YouTube makes it part of a relevant filing system but mostly no-one gets harmed and if the harm is so great the poster may get their comeuppance.

[brassnecked]

Munch thanks for the insights and I will leave you to consider the DPA implications of a BBC News outside broadcast where people are milling around and walking past. They have the same conundrum as I do filming a wedding, best they don't do the report eh, and get an engraver to draw a picture as per 1840 newspapers:-)

[E Munch]

Indeed. Bicycles, umbrellas and steam engines were wonderful inventions and perhaps man should have stopped inventing at that point!

[brassnecked]

Indeed. Bicycles, umbrellas and steam engines were wonderful inventions and perhaps man should have stopped inventing at that point!

Ah almost the universe of Bioshock Infinite.

 

One thing is certain we should not consider BWC acceptable in any circumstance as they contravene a great deal of Statutory Requirements.

[E Munch]

I don't know how the "reality bailiff" programmes work. I presume the people that get shown have given their permission and that some refuse and there stuff is supposed to be deleted but there will be loads of infringements if anyone could be bothered to look. People are so keen to have their time in the spotlight they are prepared to have the world see how stupid they are and in the case of the bailiffs are prepared to have their lack of knowledge and potentially illegal acts recorded for posterity. I do my bit to protect peoples' privacy by not watching fly on the wall programmes apart from "The Office" of course. That should have shamed the genre into history but alas not.

[brassnecked]

The reality bailiff programmes are a shot through with privacy and DPA as the EA with BWC as you point out even deleting an image of someone who doesn't want to appear is processing data.

[Bailiff Advice]

Off the subject just for a moment it is the prolific use of cameras and 'live streaming' that have led prosecutors to be able to bring these six idiots (The Rooftop Six) to court this week. The Crown Court case started on Tuesday and is due to last 3 weeks.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-no ... e-35246428

 

 

Day One:

 

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Tom-Crawford-s-son-court-alleged-rooftop-protest/story-28476506-detail/story.html

 

Day Two:

 

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Security-team-guarding-Tom-Crawford-s-home-told/story-28481140-detail/story.html

 

 

 

PS: The senior member is of course the owner of a well know Freemen on the Land 'debt avoidance' site.

 

PPS: I reported about this eviction (Tom Crawford) on the forum earlier this year. Maybe a good idea to update the thread (always assuming that the moderators do not mind).

Edited January 8, 2016 by Andyorch
Name removed irrelevant to post

[E Munch]

BA these links don't work. The articles are still there if you google them so something in the link not set up properly. I think someone explained the problem in another thread yesterday.

[mikeymack2002]

I've had this issue as well to get by this I use word then create the link using the same font as CAG then copy paste it to the thread. It works better sometimes but then it does lose out and become a dead link.

[Bailiff Advice]

BA these links don't work. The articles are still there if you google them so something in the link not set up properly. I think someone explained the problem in another thread yesterday.

 

Links have been fixed.

[caledfwlch]

As I understand it there is no requirement to put up warning notices in private residences, you have every right to covertly record visitors to your property, the same as you have every right to covertly record phone calls.

 

Your only getting into dodgy territory if you have external cameras focussing on a neighbours property, they could then rightfully claim harassment, and you would not be acting within the law, ie you can film your property but not a neighbours.

 

If there are privacy issues with an EA wearing BWV, then surely there are also privacy issues with them using ANPR, surprised the ICO hasn't stuck his oar into that.

 

The most recent Code of Practice on the use of Surveillance equipment (including ANPR, CCTV and BWV) is the following from the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) dated July 2105.

 

Pages 27 through to 29 deal specifically with BWV camera's.

 

Thanks BA so it allows domestic CCTV within the curtilage of a home and garden:

covered here

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property

 

If notices are up the Ea cannot object to the CCTV filming him. It is a two way street with obstructions for the EA but not the resident

 

There is another can of worms as in a dashcam recording a vehicle journey, especially if it inadvertently films an EA parking his Berlingo and going into a property whilst the vehicle with the camera is stuck in a traffic jam outside the debtor's house.

 

Before anyone screams out of context, this shows how far cameras and recording have come, they record journeys by car, van or truck and even cycles with helmet mounted cameras.

 

Here is a random dashcam off Youtube, wonder what DPA breachesd are contained in it being as it is a private individual posting this up.

 

[E Munch]

The ICO is not in favour of the use of ANPR in the ways some enforcement agencies use them. The ICO regards VRM as personal data and so does not believe that they should be gathered unless a good reason can be shown for doing so and then they should only be kept for a reasonable time and not just stored just in case One firm was even openly saying it had the ANPR on permanently capturing the locations of all vehicles and building up a database of locations of vehicles for which they had no warrants so that they would know where to look for a vehicle if they did get a warrant in the future. If you know of inappropriate use of ANPR report it to the ICO so they can investigate.

[brassnecked]

The ICO is not in favour of the use of ANPR in the ways some enforcement agencies use them. The ICO regards VRM as personal data and so does not believe that they should be gathered unless a good reason can be shown for doing so and then they should only be kept for a reasonable time and not just stored just in case One firm was even openly saying it had the ANPR on permanently capturing the locations of all vehicles and building up a database of locations of vehicles for which they had no warrants so that they would know where to look for a vehicle if they did get a warrant in the future. If you know of inappropriate use of ANPR report it to the ICO so they can investigate.

 

So the Car Parking people are OK then. BTW the dashcam situatiuon is such that police are using footage capured as evidence from peoples dashcams. Surely massive DPA issue with all these private motorists filming every journey?

 

Why I even caught a bailiff on mine gettting out of his van on an estate in In Wales as I was delivering a DVD last week. Of course it will now have been overwritten.

[E Munch]

What? You are routinely filming all and sundry from a camera on your dashboard?

Hand yourself into the ICO immediately and beg them to show mercy!

Then get counselling to cure you of this obsession before you end up like Michael Schumacher.

[brassnecked]

What? You are routinely filming all and sundry from a camera on your dashboard?

Hand yourself into the ICO immediately and beg them to show mercy!

Then get counselling to cure you of this obsession before you end up like Michael Schumacher.

Dashcams are used to protect drivers from spurious claims and are seen as protection from the whiplash frauds perpetrated in Birmingham, Manchester and other places where the brake light bulbs are removed, and a rear end collision is engineered by a driver then slamming on the brakes causing the following vehicle to collide with it. Insurance details are then exchanged by the drivers, but when the claim goes in there are 4 or 5 passengers who were not in the vehicle claiming whiplash and other personal injuries.

 

A good explanation of the fraud is here:

 

https://www.johnheath.com/news/the-cash-for-crash-and-rear-end-bump-[problem]/#.VpT-IF71FhE

 

Don't worry E Munch I have alerted the ICO to the widespread use of these dashcams and told them they should either set up a code of conduct or ban them, along with ALL CCTV/ANPR etc, after all even the police and councils cannot be trusted with the technology

 

Cyclists also cycle around cities with cameras on their helmets and give footage to police when a pedestrian or driver annoys them, Wake up to a nasty world where the ICO would have to prosecute and investigate millions of private individuals with no registration as a data controller.

[E Munch]

My last post was a joke. Or at least an attempt at one.

[brassnecked]

My last post was a joke. Or at least an attempt at one.

Some of my reply was tongue in cheek also, as I appreciated there was humour in there.

 

The rear light removal to facilitate the insurance fraud, and the cyclists with helmet cams is real though. And bailiffs, police and councils cannot be trusted with technology, they are among the greatest abusers.