rossendales

[mazzy72]

whats this that the baliffs of that fine org (sniggers).

..are now recording door step interviews with video cameras?

 

had one this morning, despite the fact i had to point out to him that i now have a payment plan direct with the council

(he was having none of it) which is paid every thursday at 7 am (the wake up coffee and smoke before i wake the kids) along with my other bills...

 

..he switched on this gizmo and said he was filming me.....there it was...me!

 

just before i go off on one with them again...

..is this legal as i personally find it an infringement..

 

...im just glad he got a screenful of what my t-shirt said

[dx100uk]

actualy thinks its a good idea

 

stops him from claiming things he should not

and levying fees he should not

 

dx

[brassnecked]

I would repay the compliment by filming him with my mobile phone, and when he gets stroppy, tell him what's good for the goose.....

[caledfwlch]

I should think its illegal without permission if he is on your property. I would think if you demand its switched off he would have to.

 

I dare anyone to find legislation that actually allows a Bailiff to do this, since we do not have a contractual relationship with them.

 

At the very least I would think this could actually be a sneaky way of removing a Bailiff's right to visit, along the lines of refusal to be filmed.

[seanamarts]

Basically the rule of thumb is, If you're standing in a place where you are legally allowed to be, then you can legally record what you can see from there.

 

You can request a copy of the recording and it should be freely given.

 

If the recording is done without you knowing then it cannot be used in a court, only a transcript of it.

 

So in hind sight a bailiff can record you on your property.

[seanamarts]

actualy thinks its a good idea

 

stops him from claiming things he should not

and levying fees he should not

 

dx

 

Totally agree

[caledfwlch]

Basically the rule of thumb is, If you're standing in a place where you are legally allowed to be, then you can legally record what you can see from there.

 

You can request a copy of the recording and it should be freely given.

 

If the recording is done without you knowing then it cannot be used in a court, only a transcript of it.

 

So in hind sight a bailiff can record you on your property.

 

I think thats maybe an extremely generous view of the law - I am legally entitled to walk into my boots, they can legally ask me to stop filming. If Council employees, even when invited in to do work started filming, im sure that would breach.

 

Because remember, all the rules on public filming require it to be "general" ie, you cannot focus in on peoples faces/individuals without permission - its where Photographers go wrong when filming the Police imho - I fully support it, I believe its a right, but some do take the mick, focussing more on their faces.

[seanamarts]

I think thats maybe an extremely generous view of the law - I am legally entitled to walk into my boots, they can legally ask me to stop filming. If Council employees, even when invited in to do work started filming, im sure that would breach.

 

Because remember, all the rules on public filming require it to be "general" ie, you cannot focus in on peoples faces/individuals without permission - its where Photographers go wrong when filming the Police imho - I fully support it, I believe its a right, but some do take the mick, focussing more on their faces.

You do not have a legal entitlement to walk into boots. You are a customer, they are allowing you to go onto their premises to purchase their items.

If Boots requested that you leave their store for what ever reason, you would have to leave, you would have no legal rights to stay.. A bailiff has a warrant to be at the property, he has a legal right to be there.

 

You can take photographs of people's faces without their permission, if in a public place, you would need to sign a release form for those pictures to be used if you were to make money from them. If you did the same on some one's private property it would be classed as harassment.

[caledfwlch]

You do not have a legal entitlement to walk into boots. You are a customer, they are allowing you to go onto their premises to purchase their items.

If Boots requested that you leave their store for what ever reason, you would have to leave, you would have no legal rights to stay.. A bailiff has a warrant to be at the property, he has a legal right to be there.

 

You can take photographs of people's faces without their permission, if in a public place, you would need to sign a release form for those pictures to be used if you were to make money from them. If you did the same on some one's private property it would be classed as harassment.

 

The Bailiff then is committing Harassment, no legislation specific to a bailiff allows them to film when on private property. If we refuse to be filmed, which must be a right, then surely the bailiff must either turn off or leave the property if its "company rules to film" we surely cannot be forced to be put on film except by the Police.

 

I am sure people have in fact been arrested for harassment for focussing on peoples faces in the street without permission.

[BananaRepublic]

Are these Bailiffs operating within the PACE rules? If so how? I made my feelings clear on here yesterday but the posts removed as they we're deemed unacceptable. There are strict rules governing video evidence, these bailiffs leave themselves wide open if they even think they can get away with using a video camera 'willy nilly' filming people on their property up close and personal.

 

I do not retract my posts yesterday, I don't think whoever removed my posts realised the seriousness of what this alleged Bailiff done. Broadcast companies get away with this if it's in the public interest, Bailiffs can't make this claim because they do it for their own interest. I work in broadcasting and have a pretty good idea what is legal and what is not when it comes to filming on both private and public property.

[brassnecked]

Are these Bailiffs operating within the PACE rules? If so how? I made my feelings clear on here yesterday but the posts removed as they we're deemed unacceptable. There are strict rules governing video evidence, these bailiffs leave themselves wide open if they even think they can get away with using a video camera 'willy nilly' filming people on their property up close and personal.

 

I do not retract my posts yesterday, I don't think whoever removed my posts realised the seriousness of what this alleged Bailiff done. Broadcast companies get away with this if it's in the public interest, Bailiffs can't make this claim because they do it for their own interest. I work in broadcasting and have a pretty good idea what is legal and what is not when it comes to filming on both private and public property.

I think if you objected and he was on YOUR property he would have to stop, but if he was filming in general from the pavement outside and wasn't filming the occupant "specifically" he may be OK, but if the occupant was the main subject of the filming even from outside the boundary of the premises it would be dodgy ground imho.

[BananaRepublic]

He'd be in the poo if he was standing on the pavement and filming through the windows and zooming in. Even LA's have strict blackout zones on their CCTV systems to prevent snooping into peoples properties. The consequences are quite severe.

[hallowitch]

I'm convinced i read a post on here a while back that some Rossie's bailiffs would be trying out video cameras when enforcing debt

 

I think it was an article in credit today

[1Loretta]

The ones who visited me filmed without my permission last July (2011) and they edited it very well! of course they will never video themselves doing anything wrong and this filming males the whole situation much worse because it looks as if they have proof of what they are alleging but in fact it is making more of the lie they have already told

[ploddertom]

Look up BWV or body worn video.

[seanamarts]

We are not talking about some one shoving a camera in some ones face here, we are talking about the bailiff videoing the events as they occur. The exact same thing as some police do. It wasnt done in secret either, the bailiff informed the debtor what he was doing.

If you feel that the bailiff is inappropriately videoing then you request a copy, which is your legal right to do and place a complaint.

 

BR this has nothing to do with PACE ruling, What are you talking about?? This is a civil matter not a criminal one. The bailiff is not collecting evidence either.

 

How can you assume the seriousness of this when the OP hasnt said what was being videoed. You have taken this totally out of context.

 

I work in broadcasting and have a pretty good idea what is legal and what is not when it comes to filming on both private and public property.

 

obviously not where bailiffs are concerned.

[brassnecked]

I'm convinced i read a post on here a while back that some Rossie's bailiffs would be trying out video cameras when enforcing debt

 

I think it was an article in credit today

 

@BananaRepublic He'd be in the poo if he was standing on the pavement and filming through the windows and zooming in. Even LA's have strict blackout zones on their CCTV systems to prevent snooping into peoples properties. The consequences are quite severe.

 

Hallow yes it was in Credit Today, and they were crowing about like Civil Enforcement Occifers (deliberate spelling) it was to protect the public

 

BananaRepublic, they were in Liverpool, and were observing a woman undressing and did jailtime didn't they?

[BananaRepublic]

We are not talking about some one shoving a camera in some ones face here, we are talking about the bailiff videoing the events as they occur. The exact same thing as some police do. It wasnt done in secret either, the bailiff informed the debtor what he was doing.

If you feel that the bailiff is inappropriately videoing then you request a copy, which is your legal right to do and place a complaint.

 

BR this has nothing to do with PACE ruling, What are you talking about?? This is a civil matter not a criminal one. The bailiff is not collecting evidence either.

 

How can you assume the seriousness of this when the OP hasnt said what was being videoed. You have taken this totally out of context.

 

obviously not where bailiffs are concerned.

 

This isn't out of context at all. They have no right. You can ask them to stop, if they don't, they'll soon find out which side of the law they fall on if the Police are called. You've answered you own question, this is a Civil Matter, they have no right to film you without your express consent. End of..

[seanamarts]

This isn't out of context at all. They have no right. You can ask them to stop, if they don't, they'll soon find out which side of the law they fall on if the Police are called. You've answered you own question, this is a Civil Matter, they have no right to film you without your express consent. End of..

 

You carry on thinking that BR, You show me where it states that they have no rights to video when executing a warrant.

[seanamarts]

Legality and compliance of using a body-worn-video system?

 

Organisations have been using body-worn-video systems for some years now. It is an accepted security technology, like CCTV. Body-worn-video systems have been used successfully in civil and criminal cases.Legislation

Falls under CCTV regulations for use:

Inform people they are being recorded with signage and or verbal statement

Inform who is doing the recording (The organisation)

Inform on the purpose of the recording (i.e. for safety and security)

Have controls in place for who views any footage

Data Protection Act

Keeping safe records and deleting the information after a reasonable

period of time. The VideoManager software manages this aspect, with

controls for secure viewing, storage, auto deletion, evidence management

and audit trail.

 

Who else uses VideoBadge?

 

Many different public and private companies, who deal with the public. The common need is frontline workers who are at risk of abuse of allegation. Examples are the police, parking enforcement, security staff, bailiffs, housing wardens, street wardens, retail and logistics loss prevention officers.

 

I hope this settles this disagreement.

[BananaRepublic]

I know who I'd be taking advice from. You are a fool if you seriously think you can just use cameras to do just what you feel like when conducting your business at work, especially when it involves members of the public

[caledfwlch]

I hope this settles this disagreement.

 

I still think it makes a difference when a private organisation is visiting private property - in that one can request they stop filming, and they must leave if they refuse - as I understand it, even the Police attempting to gain "mugshots" during protests is debatable legally, and one of the reasons they are doing it by force.

 

The quote mentions the DPA - but what applies to CCTV, and businesses recording phone calls, and more germane to this case, calling a Bailiff call centre that records calls? You must warn the customer filming/recording is happening, and the Customer of course can choose to hang up/not enter the business premises. Which part of legislation exempts Bailiff's, or rather exempts a Bailiff's "Customer" from their legal rights to refuse to be recorded?

 

Anyone who is happy to be filmed should at least start their conversation by stating the time, and finish the conversation by stating the time, in order to show if footage is edited - which it absolutely will be if wrong doing occurs.

 

I would also like to know how a gentleman dressed a certain way sporting camera equipment on their clothing complies with the legislation that a Bailiff must not be "identifiable" as such from their dress?

 

I know who I'd be taking advice from. You are a fool if you seriously think you can just use cameras to do just what you feel like when conducting your business at work, especially when it involves members of the public

 

There is no need for rudeness, it is possible to debate civilly.

[mazzy72]

well well...

.seem to have opened up something here.

 

...firstly he WAS NOT executing any kind of warrant as there isnt one

since i deal direct with the council over my arrears after making their ears bleed with my constant barrage of letters and e-mails about rossendales being completly OTT

and trying all sorts of imaginary tactics to get my money..

 

..this meat head was not having any of it demanding i pay them 100 quid a week compared to the £25 a week payment plan i have with the council.

 

he said that would not be recommended by the council (i had just told him i have the plan with them!!!and been paying it for months!)

and that he would be passing back the paper work to them

but, in the meantime sending me payment slips!

 

it was like talking to...well a meathead tbh..

 

..o then he said it was for last year...um....im a full time carer to a terminally ill hubby and 2 disabled kids

and get council tax benefit since april 2011 so last year...i think not!

and before that i had an attatchment order to my salary when i was working..

..so what the absolute hell he was talking about i dont know.

 

he said he was filming me

...no ifs or buts like he had the gods given right to.

..sorry but as an old and retired activist i do not agree to it.

..police, yes and for good reason.

..but an 18 stone bully (and believe me when i say these guys do not bother me one bit...iv sent more away back to their vans in tears).

..no way.

 

..i have already e-mailed and sent 2 letters in duplicate to the council.

...to me it is wrong

...they can edit it..

..they can photoshop my face onto some cheap porn pics for their own interest (probably all they can get anyway)...

 

.this will not be dropped and i am bit of a nuisance like that.

..ask s.p.m.l...

..they hate me...

.hahahaha.

 

..thanks for this and im with BR on this one and i cannot find anything relating to this at all..

..so to me its just another stunt in this area of legalized thuggery.

 

must get back to yet another letter pointing out a few home truths.

..no warrant, no reason to be there, no clarification, blah blah.....

[brassnecked]

Send a Formal Complaint to the Council CEO, your councillor, the leader and MP, telling them that the numpty from rossers, is harassing a vulnerable family who alredy have and are keeping to a direct payment plan with the council. Indicate that you think the bailiff is trying to defraud you imho, and film the J Arthur Ranker, yourself when and if he returns. he won't like that,

[BananaRepublic]

You carry on thinking that BR, You show me where it states that they have no rights to video when executing a warrant.

 

Hi seanmarts, I'm not going to argue the toss, just try to get a numpty Bailiff to carry it out on a victim who is prepared to make an issue out of it. I know where my money would be. On this occasion, let's just say, I wouldn't be following your advice on this particular matter. This doesn't include just UK law, it extends to ECHR law and privacy laws which also cover these particular actions by those who think they can wield a camera at will and intimidate people, especially those acting on behalf of a private organisation (Whether they have a warrant or not) I'd be very interested if the LA who foolishly subcontracts theses rossendale muppets, know their contractors are fannying about with video cameras. The LA is fully responsible and I don't think even they are stupid enough to let these morons do that. Ask any LA / Licensed CCTV operator about strict rules of commercially using ANY camera equipment with the public.

Edited July 6, 2012 by BananaRepublic