Body-worn cameras to curb aggressive bailiffs

[stu007]

Body-worn cameras to curb aggressive bailiffs

 

Quote

People in debt will be given greater protection from rogue bailiffs as the government today announced the introduction of compulsory body-worn cameras.

 

-- Body worn-cameras to be made compulsory for bailiffs

-- Further findings and action on bailiff behaviour to be published later this year

-- Part of wider Government efforts to improve how people in debt are treated, including 60-day ‘breathing space’

 

While the vast majority act professionally and within the rules, there are concerns that some bailiffs continue to employ intimidating tactics that put both themselves and often vulnerable consumers at risk.

 

The Government is taking decisive action and making body-worn cameras mandatory to ensure debt is collected in a fair and safe manner – with those who fail to do so held to account.

 

READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/body-worn-cameras-to-curb-aggressive-bailiffs

[brassnecked]

many have been using them since 2014, but issues remain like losing footage, alleged tampering, and of course the CH5 DCBL debacle where Ch5 owned the cameras and therefore copyright.  Might be a positive step though.  Enforcement of itself is archaic and brutal.

[Andyorch]

Thread moved to the appropriate forum.

[E Munch]

It will be good news if they do make it mandatory as at the moment, although almost everyone involved, including most debtors, the advice sector and the enforcement industry themselves want the filming to happen, the ICO has expressed concerns over the widespread use of this intrusive data processing. At the moment the legitimising purpose for such filming from Article 6 of the GDPR is "legitimate interests" and this means there needs to be a balancing exercise between the rights of the data subject and the enforcement agent. It the debtor (or another data subject that is caught on camera) does not want filming, the enforcement agent needs a good reason to ignore their request to stop filming. The simple reason that the council might want to see it in less than 0.1% of cases does not mean the filming of the other 99.9% of visits is not excessive. If it is made a legal requirement, the legitimising reason can be "processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation" and filming will be done as the new legislation requires.

I do hope they express the legislation clearly and fully after talking to the ICO.

 

[brassnecked]

The ICO might well squish it or severely restrict it  as they are not happy with DCBL and Ch5.  They are also looking to ban or restrict the use of car dashcams on GDPR and consent as they regard pedestrians and other vehcle occupants as Data Subjects so users might need to register as Data Controllers. 

[lookinforinfo]

I hope that the 60 day breathing space will be brought into force and soon. It has always seemed particularly unfair to me that people who are already having financial problems should have the added burden of bailiff fees  to pay on top of their existing debts. Not helped by certain bailiff companies adding preemptive fees for which there appears to be little in the way of admonishment when they are exposed. Thus there is little incentive for those ignoring the correct  fee structure to discontinue their ways. Indeed, it may encourage some of the others to copy.

Edited September 24, 2019 by lookinforinfo