Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
1
Likes
0
#1
where i live, is one of the main thoroughfares for students to travel to and from accomadation an uni/town, when the students are here in uni, they have trashed my motorcycle , my works van damaged and doorbells ripped off the front door, my partner has had her car damaged and neighbours too. when we inform the police, their attitude is unless you prove it it students they WONT persue it.
 
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
1
Likes
0
#2
I have got a cctv camera on my house, the neighbours approve.
We were all sick of the thieving little toebags helping themselves to our stuff.
 

ACT

Full Registered User
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
56
Likes
8
#4
Don't quote me on this one, but is it only legal if you're only monitoring your own property? ie not public property. Got me thinking now......
 

Walks99

Longterm Registered User
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
695
Likes
388
#5
I was under the impression that as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone elses privacy (been able to see through their windows, garden etc...) it is ok for you to put one up.

We had a very similar problem at my old house, the local bobby came round to our local meeting and gave us the do's and don'ts, one of which was, don't go spying!
 

ACT

Full Registered User
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
56
Likes
8
#6
Will have to have a read up on RIPA, sure the answer we're looking for must be in there some place. I'm sure it's a dam good read but for now I'll stick with my Nuts magazine.
 

isstraining

Security Directors
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
1,081
Likes
672
#7
Guys,

RIPA does not apply to this situation because D.Ritchie08 is not a Public Authority so forget it! However, I would use it as 'best practise'. The DPA does not apply also if the CCTV is covert as a last resort.

If he is to go to the Police with video evidence, he is perfectly able to put a CCTV camera covering the area concerned if he makes these considerations:-

Installing a camera is a last resort - I presume it is

Is it necessary - yes it is

Is it proportionate - yes, so long as he does not have 50 cameras a seismic sensor and a tank to waste them away.

You minimise collateral intrusion - only point the camera at the areas concerned. It may be that you record 'innocent' passers by but you must takes steps to minimise this by tilting the camera or using a narrow angle lens.

Put up a sign stating 'Area covered by CCTV' to act as a deterrent. This may not deter the vandals but you have taken steps to inform them. Under the Data Protection Act this is necessary unless it is covert and as a last resort. SO you don't necessarily have to do this.

Ensure the video has a date / time stamp on it (not absolutely essential but really helps your case)

Use a fresh video tape. If you obtain a recording of vandalism, preserve the integrity of the tape (now evidence). Call the fuzz and Gene Hunt will give them a kicking!

If the culprits were caught and their solicitor decided to contest that the video evidence was obtained unlawfully a judge will be thinking: were your actions fair, unavoidable, a last resort, did you take into account any collateral intrusion....

Cheers

Peter
 

zatoichi

Removed Users
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Messages
118
Likes
10
#9
I would say a covert camera is better but quality images are a problem, its no good having a camera if they know where it is and having one if the images are crap, of no evidential value at all. Some of the council cameras still have problems at night, so unless you are prepared to pay good money or get a security light you may be wasting your time. Have you thought about some type of pyshical barriers or fencing, forget the police they would probally say the images you did get do not show faces etc, i imagine it would be unlikely the offenders would hold up a sign with the names and addresses written on it.
 

nicecna

Full Registered User
Joined
Mar 7, 2008
Messages
11
Likes
9
#10
yes it is legal if you are only monitoring your own property, but even than u have to get approval from you neighbours. cuz they can complain saying they are being monitored. so if u explain to ur neighbours and istall cctv, its no probs.

SHAH
 

blueonezero

Full Registered User
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
45
Likes
37
#11
The true legal position is actually fairly straightforward but widely misunderstood.

It is true that RIPA does not apply in this scenario but it is important to remember that Part II of RIPA (the bit that deals with surveillance et al) is enabling legislation i.e. it does not actually make any activity unlawful. The key point in this scenario is that the Human Rights Act 1998 (which does make certain activity unlawful) only applies to public authorities and those acting as agents of same.

Any member of the public is perfectly entitled to install either a covert or overt video camera on their own premises with a view of their neighbours premises or the public highway. This activity will not interfere with any person's rights to respect for their private and family life as the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to the actions of private citizens.

There are, however, one or two caveats. Where the use of the covert or overt cameras can be seen as amounting to harrassment of the filmed party (within the meaning of the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997) then that conduct may amount to a criminal offence.

Similarly, common sense will tell you that if your camera is such that it captures imagery of, for example, naked children playing in a neighbours garden, you may find yourself in hot water.

It is also important to bear in mind that if the covert surveillance is carried out by a member of the public on behalf of a public authority, any privacy interference is likely to fall within the coverage of the Human Rights Act and some form of lawful authority will be required.

sedoparking.com - Online Videos, Access Account, Schools Online
 
Last edited:

blueonezero

Full Registered User
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
45
Likes
37
#12
The true legal position is actually fairly straightforward but widely misunderstood.

It is true that RIPA does not apply in this scenario but it is important to remember that Part II of RIPA (the bit that deals with surveillance et al) is enabling legislation i.e. it does not actually make any activity unlawful. The key point in this scenario is that the Human Rights Act 1998 (which does make certain activity unlawful) only applies to public authorities and those acting as agents of same.

Any member of the public is perfectly entitled to install either a covert or overt video camera on their own premises with a view of their neighbours premises or the public highway. This activity will not interfere with any person's rights to respect for their private and family life as the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to the actions of private citizens.

There are, however, one or two caveats. Where the use of the covert or overt cameras can be seen as amounting to harrassment of the filmed party (within the meaning of the Prevention from Harrassment Act 1997) then that conduct may amount to a criminal offence.

Similarly, common sense will tell you that if your camera is such that it captures imagery of, for example, naked children playing in a neighbours garden, you may find yourself in hot water.

It is also important to bear in mind that if the covert surveillance is carried out by a member of the public on behalf of a public authority, any privacy interference is likely to fall within the coverage of the Human Rights Act and some form of lawful authority will be required.

blueonezero
 

blueonezero

Full Registered User
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
45
Likes
37
#13
The true legal position is actually fairly straightforward but widely misunderstood.

It is true that RIPA does not apply in this scenario but it is important to remember that Part II of RIPA (the bit that deals with surveillance et al) is enabling legislation i.e. it does not actually make any activity unlawful. The key point in this scenario is that the Human Rights Act 1998 (which does make certain activity unlawful) only applies to public authorities and those acting as agents of same.

Any member of the public is perfectly entitled to install either a covert or overt video camera on their own premises with a view of their neighbours premises or the public highway. This activity will not interfere with any person's rights to respect for their private and family life as the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to the actions of private citizens.

There are, however, one or two caveats. Where the use of the covert or overt cameras can be seen as amounting to harrassment of the filmed party (within the meaning of the Prevention from Harrassment Act 1997) then that conduct may amount to a criminal offence.

Similarly, common sense will tell you that if your camera is such that it captures imagery of, for example, naked children playing in a neighbours garden, you may find yourself in hot water.

It is also important to bear in mind that if the covert surveillance is carried out by a member of the public on behalf of a public authority, any privacy interference is likely to fall within the coverage of the Human Rights Act and some form of lawful authority will be required.

sedoparking.com - Account Login, Online Bank Account, Online Auction
 

blueonezero

Full Registered User
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
45
Likes
37
#14
The true legal position is actually fairly straightforward but widely misunderstood.

It is true that RIPA does not apply in this scenario but it is important to remember that Part II of RIPA (the bit that deals with surveillance et al) is enabling legislation i.e. it does not actually make any activity unlawful. The key point in this scenario is that the Human Rights Act 1998 (which does make certain activity unlawful) only applies to public authorities and those acting as agents of same.

Any member of the public is perfectly entitled to install either a covert or overt video camera on their own premises with a view of their neighbours premises or the public highway. This activity will not interfere with any person's rights to respect for their private and family life as the Human Rights Act 1998 does not apply to the actions of private citizens.

There are, however, one or two caveats. Where the use of the covert or overt cameras can be seen as amounting to harrassment of the filmed party (within the meaning of the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997) then that conduct may amount to a criminal offence.

Similarly, common sense will tell you that if your camera is such that it captures imagery of, for example, naked children playing in a neighbours garden, you may find yourself in hot water.

It is also important to bear in mind that if the covert surveillance is carried out by a member of the public on behalf of a public authority, any privacy interference is likely to fall within the coverage of the Human Rights Act and some form of lawful authority will be required.

blueonezero
 
Last edited:

blueonezero

Full Registered User
Joined
Dec 28, 2007
Messages
45
Likes
37
#15
Really sorry about the multiple posts

I have no idea what went on there but if anyone can let me know how I can delete the first three posts I will gladly do so
 

coffeegirl

Full Registered User
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
6
Likes
0
#16
haha it must be internet problem..........

Anyway, classic message! Never mind it is repeated for 3 times.
 

kensplace

Full Registered User
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
56
Likes
7
#17
The data protection act does not apply to domestic residential cctv, so you can stick a camera up without worries. Obviously, bear in mind the advice above about harrasment etc etc.

The only other rule I can think of would be planning permission if your going to stick a number of cameras on the outside, or they are massive beasts (old style pan/tilt zoom with huge ir lamps etc)
 
Top Bottom