Now Fully Prepared !

[The Watcher]

Just completed installing cameras (hidden in trees and total invisible unless you knew they were there) covering both the front and back door, plus a hidden microphone to record any conversations etc.

 

I also have a hand-held small dictation machine - so small that it fits into the palm of your hand - on the shelf by the door.

[buster642]

I presume this is to capture any inappropriate bailiff activity. Out of interest, what recording equipment are you using.

 

I also wonder that if a bailiff forced entry, could they seize it as property.

 

Also, under RIPA, are you required to inform them that they are under surveillance before you can use it as evidence.

 

I know that if you are using it purely for your own purposes, you don't need to inform them. If you want to telephone recordings in court, you must inform them that they are being recorded.

 

Given how the BBC and other organisations seem to quite freely use recording equipment, I presume this doesn't apply to in-person surveillance equipment, especially on your own private property.

[The Watcher]

I presume this is to capture any inappropriate bailiff activity. Out of interest, what recording equipment are you using.

 

I also wonder that if a bailiff forced entry, could they seize it as property.

 

Also, under RIPA, are you required to inform them that they are under surveillance before you can use it as evidence.

 

I know that if you are using it purely for your own purposes, you don't need to inform them. If you want to telephone recordings in court, you must inform them that they are being recorded.

 

Given how the BBC and other organisations seem to quite freely use recording equipment, I presume this doesn't apply to in-person surveillance equipment, especially on your own private property.

 

I've been a "twitcher" (bird watcher) for many years and we've had a couple of webcams in the garden now for some time, near to (on in) nesting boxes. The webcams are wired direcly to the hard drive of my computer (for recording purposes, from which I can transfer to DVD) and via the TV outlet to the main TV (simply for viewing purposes).

 

I've simply re-positioned the cameras to "watch" front and rear doors.

 

I can't image that any permission would be necessary as they are security cameras (in effect) and simply protecting my property.

 

Rest assured - the bailiffs WILL NOT get in !

[buster642]

I can't image that any permission would be necessary as they are security cameras (in effect) and simply protecting my property.

 

Rest assured - the bailiffs WILL NOT get in !

 

You DEFINATELY do not need permission to record for your own purposes - I am very sure of that.

 

What I am less sure about is if you want to use it for evidence purposes.

 

For telephone calls, the other person must be made aware if the recording is used for any other purpose. For "in person" audio/video purposes on your own property, things might be different.

 

When we installed CCTV at work, we had to put signs up warning people that they were being recorded.

 

But then, whether you can use it or not as evidence, it's still a useful weapon if they have mis-behaved. They won't want to take the chance that it could be admitted as evidence and will probably crawl back under the rock they came from.

[The Watcher]

You DEFINATELY do not need permission to record for your own purposes - I am very sure of that.

 

But then, whether you can use it or not as evidence, it's still a useful weapon if they have mis-behaved. They won't want to take the chance that it could be admitted as evidence and will probably crawl back under the rock they came from.

 

Yes, I think you are right. After all, when there has been a crime the police obtain CCTV from anywhere (their own cameras and any that happen to be in local shops, shopping arcades etc).

 

I can't honestly see someone refusing to use obvious evidence merely because you "forgot" to ask their permission beforehand !

 

In fact it might be actually worth putting up a little sign (saying that CCTV was in operation) and the bailiffs would look round, not see anything, and think it was the equivalent of a dummy alarm box - so carry on as normal !

[itsamomentintime]

watcher

 

whats the background to this thread?

 

why are the bailiffs coming round?

[The Watcher]

County Court Judgement ... long story but basically disputed because (a) I didn't order the goods, (b) I never received the goods, and © I have never even seen the goods.

 

Initially there was a Default Judgement (because there was a postal strike at Northampton at the time and I didn;t receive the summons for days). My defence was received a day AFTER the Judgement had been entered.

 

I've been challenging this ever since and the costs have just risen.

[tiglet]

Who did you order the goods from, as a matter of interest? And did you apply for the judgement to be set aside?

[The Watcher]

Don't want to give the name of the firm (or to give away too many details in case I'm identified).

 

I did apply for the Judgement to be set aside and had a hearing. The claimants produced an e mail (from me) which simply said "I'll sort this out for you tomorrow". The Judge took that to be an acceptance (from me) of liability for the debt - something which it certainly was not! (**)

 

The mail just happened to arrive on a very busy day and what I meant was that I would chase the people who had ordered the goods (and who incidentally had also collected the goods) and get them to pay up!

 

I had ordered goods from this firm 3/4 times previously (and had always paid either pro-forma or in cash within 48 hours of recept).

 

An associate wanted something similar and I recommended the firm that I had used. I'm not sure how (as I wasn't there) but the firm must have got the idea that the goods were actually for me - which they were not (as I said before I've never even seen them).

 

Anyway .... the upshot is that the claimants are now on their 3rd set of solicitors, and quite obviously I've never put any further business their way (which has cost them thousands).

 

Incidentally - they haven't even got my correct (Christian) name on the Judgement.

 

(**) When I received the e mail, which said something like "Do you know what's happening with payment"? I took that to be a request for me to chase up the person that I had recommended to them, on the grounds that I knew him better than they did.

[tesco]

you dont even need to inform other person regarding telephone conversations. as long as one person knows the conversation is being recorded then thats all the law requires.

[Just Joe]

you dont even need to inform other person regarding telephone conversations. as long as one person knows the conversation is being recorded then thats all the law requires.

 

Hmm, I'm pretty sure that if you want to use a taped conversation as evidence in a court of law then both parties must be made aware at the beginning of the conversation that it is being recorded, anything said before disclosure is inadmissible. You don't need their permission, you just need to make them aware. For personal use however then it's fine that they don't know.

As for CCTV I believe a similar thing applies. Again you don't require permission but you do need to show that you have tried to make people aware of the fact. As long as you put up clear notices that your premises our under surveillance then the video is admissible. Remember, there have been cases where people have recorded neighbours "from hell" committing a criminal offence, but have then been unofficially cautioned themselves when they'd handed the video to the police because they did not make the offenders aware they could have been under surveillance. I believe only the police and customs can obtain and use surveillance footage without obviously making people aware... I'd need to double check that last bit though.

Police can only use surveillance tapes in court that do adhere to this rule, it the same with taped conversations. While anything will be accepted that will help in their enquiries, I doubt they'll attempt to submit it as evidence, because it'll be chucked out and weaken a case.

[Janet-M]

You do not have to warn anyone that you are recording a telephone call ( weird I have just had this in another thread )

 

My understanding is if you want to use a CCTV recording as evidence in court it has to be timed and dated throughout .

 

You are able to record on your property but only on your property , if any of the street is in view then you are not legally entitled to record it .

[The Watcher]

Thanks to all above for your responses. I fully intend to have a sign warning that video recording is in progress, and, like I said before, because people will not instantly see the cameras they will feel it is just a bluff.

 

Regarding the "time and date" - I'm not so sure about this. As a bailiff will not deny that he has been to the house, if evidence exists of any wrongdoing I don't see how a Court could not accept it. It's clearly evidence to support the complaint.

[The Watcher]

You are able to record on your property but only on your property , if any of the street is in view then you are not legally entitled to record it .

 

Janet-M

 

Hi

 

I have to challenge you on this - are you sure? I'm quite a keen photographer and my understanding of the law was that I was entitled to photograph anything that was in a public space (ie could be seen from a public place) - although you could not trespass in order to get a photograph.

 

So ... for example ... I'm legally entitled to photograph anything that I can see from a street (or from my house for that matter) but could not climb on a ladder to see "over a wall" etc (as that "view" would not be a view from a public place.

 

Of course there may be a difference between a photograph (a moment in time) and video recording (which, as its continuous, could almost be construed as snooping)?

[Just Joe]

That's what I forgot... Janet-M is correct about the time and date thing when used in a court of Law. I have had this pointed out to me once when a CCTV camera wasn't changed after the end of British summertime. Basically, the video would not be admissible as the time would be different to the actual time of the offence.

[buster642]

You do not have to warn anyone that you are recording a telephone call ( weird I have just had this in another thread ).

 

Absolutely correct. You can record your own telephone conversations without informing anyone.... AS LONG AS it is for your own use only.

 

If you want to play the recordings to anyone else (which obviously includes court evidence), you must inform that all other parties that the call is being recorded.

 

However I believe there is nothing wrong with recording a telephone conversation without warning and producing a transcript while stating that the transcript is taken from a personal use recording. You wouldn't be able to play the recording to back up the transcript, but you could still submit the transcript as evidence.

 

Also you only have to inform them they are being recorded. Any reason you give is purely for information. Therefore, when firms say "calls recorded for training purposes", this also means that it can be used as evidence in court. What they are saying is the primary reason for recording is training - it doesn't preclude other uses.

 

It's very, very easy for people to be lulled into a false sense of security with that term. They think the call can't be used as evidence because they have been told it was recorded for "training" purposes.

 

Anyhow, getting off track slightly

[ScarletPimpernel]

Janet-M

 

I'm quite a keen photographer and my understanding of the law was that I was entitled to photograph anything that was in a public space (ie could be seen from a public place) - although you could not trespass in order to get a photograph.

 

So ... for example ... I'm legally entitled to photograph anything that I can see from a street (or from my house for that matter) but could not climb on a ladder to see "over a wall" etc (as that "view" would not be a view from a public place.

 

 

You are correct. I understand that it is also considered unlawful to use a long telephoto lens or other equipment to obtain images of people or private property from a public place e.g to take an image of someone in their own house through a window, when they could not usually be seen and could reasonably expect privacy.

 

That said, I once watched several armed policemen giving a professional photographer a very hard time because he was photographing buildings in Grosvenor Square in London. Many of the buildings are embassies, and the police (DPG) seemed to be concerned that J. Foreigner might be upset if photos were taken of all the antennae on the roof, or of people going in or out. No matter how much the photog told them he was breaking no law, the police wouldn't listen, and threatened to arrest him. I offered to be a witness, but eventually the police were satisfied when the photog said he'd leave the area. It all struck me as very heavy-handed, and an example of how the police often don't know the law. I gather that there had been no complaint, either.

 

I once almost got arrested for photographing a building in Zagreb during the recent unpleasantness in the Balkans, that I didn't realise was the Ministry of Defence, but that's another story...

[TheRealAvengers]

I have read this thread with much interest and looked at the RIPA act.

 

Still unsure!

 

Is it legal to tape record someone without their knowledge and use it in a court of law?

 

Is it legal to have taken pictures of someone in a hotel for example?

[The Watcher]

Is it legal to have taken pictures of someone in a hotel for example?

 

There is no right to privacy in this counrty - much to the Celebs' disgust. If they could "control" use of shots taken in a public place they would - but there is nothing they can do about it.

 

The current hounding of Prince William's girlfriend by the Papparazzi is a case in point.

 

If you can photograph people in a public place - then it follows that you can also photograph people on your own private property (who are not there at your invitation)?

 

Again I say - I don't know whether images would be allowed in a Court - but it would be perverse to refuse to allow anything which conclusively proved a claim one way or the other?

[The Watcher]

I just took a look at the Ofcom website regarding what TV companies can do, with regard to filming in a public place. The following is of interest -

 

Rule 8.1 Any infringement of privacy in programmes, or in connection with obtaining material included in programmes, must be warranted.

Meaning of "warranted":

In this section “warranted” has a particular meaning. It means that where broadcasters wish to justify an infringement of privacy as warranted, they should be able to demonstrate why in the particular circumstances of the case, it is warranted. If the reason is that it is in the public interest, then the broadcaster should be able to demonstrate that the public interest outweighs the right to privacy. Examples of public interest would include revealing or detecting crime, protecting public health or safety, exposing misleading claims made by individuals or organisations or disclosing incompetence that affects the public.

 

Interesting?

[The Watcher]

Well, would you believe it?

 

The Government are (apparently) planning to introduce laws to BAN filming in a public place and there is already a petition on the Downing Street website to protest against it !

 

It is a fundamental right of a UK citizen to use a camera in a public place, indeed there is no right to privacy when in a public place. >>>