Bailiff enforcement CCTV and Body Worn Cameras

[mikeymack2002]

Grumpy nice to see you again.

 

 

You actually miss one very important issue. If this is not in public and is on private property, (if you had to go up a path away for the public highway). Also if you are stood on the pavement facing in then is also private.

 

 

As stu007 says this would be assisted if the industry along with the MoJ made the rules regarding this much more clearer and what must not may must not be done re: BWV ...

[stu007]

Bailiff Advice you are more than welcome to use those example questions (could add massively to them).

 

Another one:

 

Does an Enforcement Agent using BWVC when entering a property have to inform just the Debtor or all those present in view of the BWVC that it is recording and their rights?

 

If an Enforcement Agent is using BWVC at a Debtors and children are present what are their legal rights in its use?

[brassnecked]

I think Grumpy's post poses as many questions as answers especially with regard to the, extra question stu has suggested BA asks :

 

"Does an Enforcement Agent using BWVC when entering a property have to inform just the Debtor or all those present in view of the BWVC that it is recording and their rights?

 

If an Enforcement Agent is using BWVC at a Debtors and children are present what are their legal rights in its use?"

 

Grumpy says the camera is there to protect bailiff and debtor, all very laudable however the rights of third parties and children present would seem to be overridden if the EA decided one of the people present was going to have a a pop at them so keeps recording to film evidence of assault and obstruction, but the children are under 10 and they are the ones baiting the bailiff not the adults. And/Or one of the third parties says the bailiff should not be filming the children or them, but the bailiff keeps the camera rolling.

[mikeymack2002]

Unfortunately the EA has no rights to record on private property. I hate to say this but it's covered in our rights.

 

Then a little used law public nuisance...

 

What is Public Nuisance?

 

At common law public nuisance is a crime for which the remedy is criminal proceedings.* It is defined as an unlawful act or omission which endangers or interferes with the lives, comfort, property or common rights of the public.*

 

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/offences/public-nuisance.htm

[stu007]

BA do we have an update to the conference at all??

[caledfwlch]

I would point out that the HCEO's who appear on "Can't Pay" use covert audio recording, and doing so on private property without the permission of the Occupant is almost certainly against the law - at the very least Data Protection Act, since they are acting as Agents of a Private Company. But you often see on the show when the debtor demands the cameras leave, they play the audio which one of the HCEO's is continuing to record, despite the fact the Debtor has clearly and since its been transmitted on television, unarguably used his right to not be recorded and demanded they stop.

 

I personally think EA's and HCEO's should by Law wear BWC that is clearly indicated as such - Police Officers often have the equipment painted bright yellow with a little sign for example and they should also verbally indicate they are recording - if Debtor requests not to be filmed, then they will have to respect that, as they are on private property and thus don't get to make the rules. When footage is recorded it should be stored for up to 12 months, in case an aggrieved Debtor triggers either a Civil or Criminal case.

 

At the end of the day though it would be daft asking an EA to turn his CCTV off, as BWC offers far more protection to the Debtor than the EA.

 

I don't understand how they are even allowed by the ICO to dump the footage so quickly - all other Data is treated under principle 5 which requires you to retain personal data no longer than is necessary for the purpose you obtained it for - and since it is there as proof against, or for claims of criminal or civil wrongdoings it is clear that AV Data is NOT being kept as long as the purpose it was obtained for, since Police Forces and Civil Courts are much, much slower than the timeframe within which footage is being destroyed.

[brassnecked]

Looking in the round it would seem that the BWC is more to protect the bailiff if a debtor kicks off, and ground evidence for a charge of "Obstructing" the bailiff than protect a debtor. The quick timeframe for deletion would suggest that was the real reason for usage.

[caledfwlch]

Looking in the round it would seem that the BWC is more to protect the bailiff if a debtor kicks off, and ground evidence for a charge of "Obstructing" the bailiff than protect a debtor. The quick timeframe for deletion would suggest that was the real reason for usage.

 

Aye, that is the real reason its being deleted so quick, which is why it needs to become a legal requirement to use it, and to hold it for the typical time it takes for a civil or criminal case to go to trial, whichever is longest, with penalties that are financially horrific for "losing" Data, or it being "accidently" deleted. Given the trouble with getting the Police to even investigate Criminal Offences committed by EA's, it is vital they be obliged to keep the Footage for a much longer period.

[brassnecked]

Agree Caled, needs much longer retention period, also a debtor should always try to film the EA if possible after all the bailiff cannot Take Control of the phone or camcorder whilst it is in use.

[Bailiff Advice]

BA do we have an update to the conference at all??

 

Not at the moment Stu. The conference is on the 23rd March and I am very much looking forward to attending.

 

The Information Commissioner is giving a presentation on the use of Body Worn Video's. Slightly, off topic is that the conference is also concerning the local authorities use of in-house bailiff operations (another subject that I am looking forward to hearing about).

 

I will almost certainly update the thread.