Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Landlord taking photo of tenant
731 views
Skip to first unread message
HellyB
Aug 21, 2012, 12:45:02 PM8/21/12
to
My son rents a housing association flat. He has received a letter from
the association, saying that they are checking up on tenants to make
sure they are not subletting etc.
They are coming to see him in the flat, and have asked him to have photo
ID, a utility bill, and bank statement to prove evidence of who he is
etc. According to the letter, they will also photograph him, so that if
in future they do any surveillance of the flat, they will be able to
identify him.
Are they allowed to do that? RIPA comes to mind.
--
Helen
the association, saying that they are checking up on tenants to make
sure they are not subletting etc.
They are coming to see him in the flat, and have asked him to have photo
ID, a utility bill, and bank statement to prove evidence of who he is
etc. According to the letter, they will also photograph him, so that if
in future they do any surveillance of the flat, they will be able to
identify him.
Are they allowed to do that? RIPA comes to mind.
--
Helen
Peter Crosland
Aug 21, 2012, 2:25:15 PM8/21/12
to
Commissioner's Office as a matter of urgency. Alternatively he might
want to take advantage of the fee initial interview offered by many
solicitors to see what advice they have.
--
Peter Crosland
Robin
Aug 21, 2012, 2:55:02 PM8/21/12
to
ID and proposed to take a photo. I don't see anything in that which
contravenes anything. Could you perhaps cite just what lines they have
crossed?
Indeed, I suggest the first point might be to check the son's tenancy
agreeent as some LAs in London introduced "photographic tenancy
agreements" (ie ones which *require* photos) years ago to counter
subletting.
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid
Peter Crosland
Aug 21, 2012, 3:40:02 PM8/21/12
to
invasion of privacy to ask for the information subsequently. The HA
certainly have no powers to force the tenant to co-operate if he does
not wish to do so. To hold the information the housing association needs
to ensure that the comply with the Data Protection Act. I don't think
that there is sufficient need to collect and store the personal data in
the way the housing association wish to.
--
Peter Crosland
Robin
Aug 21, 2012, 4:55:02 PM8/21/12
to
> Whilst it may be appropriate before a tenancy is agreed it seems an
> invasion of privacy to ask for the information subsequently.
Merely *asking* is an invasion of privacy?
> invasion of privacy to ask for the information subsequently.
>The HA
> certainly have no powers to force the tenant to co-operate if he does
> not wish to do so.
So failure to cooperate may leads to other sanctions. (And then of
course there is the next tenancy agreement assuming the son wishes to
continue.)
> To hold the information the housing association
> needs to ensure that the comply with the Data Protection Act.
> I don't
> think that there is sufficient need to collect and store the personal
> data in the way the housing association wish to.
who think it is good practice for social landlords to take and hold
photograpic ID of tennants and other lawful occupants. So if the
Housing Association in question does require it as part of the tenancy
agreement I still don't see how they are breaching any law (assuming of
course they do have relevant data protection policies in place).
If they don't *require* under the tenancy then the son can naturally
decline. It is of course an entirely separate question whether that's a
good way to handle a social landlord.
Peter Crosland
Aug 21, 2012, 5:05:02 PM8/21/12
to
On 21/08/2012 21:55, Robin wrote:
>> Whilst it may be appropriate before a tenancy is agreed it seems an
>> invasion of privacy to ask for the information subsequently.
>
> Merely *asking* is an invasion of privacy?
>
>> The HA
>> certainly have no powers to force the tenant to co-operate if he does
>> not wish to do so.
>
> No, but as I indicated it may be required under the tenancy agreement.
> So failure to cooperate may leads to other sanctions. (And then of
> course there is the next tenancy agreement assuming the son wishes to
> continue.)
>
>> To hold the information the housing association
>> needs to ensure that the comply with the Data Protection Act.
>
> Yes.
>
>> I don't
>> think that there is sufficient need to collect and store the personal
>> data in the way the housing association wish to.
>
> OTOH there are others (including central government some 10 years ago)
> who think it is good practice for social landlords to take and hold
> photograpic ID of tennants and other lawful occupants. So if the
> Housing Association in question does require it as part of the tenancy
> agreement I still don't see how they are breaching any law (assuming of
> course they do have relevant data protection policies in place).
Have you got any verifiable references to that being the case? The whole
>> Whilst it may be appropriate before a tenancy is agreed it seems an
>> invasion of privacy to ask for the information subsequently.
>
> Merely *asking* is an invasion of privacy?
>
>> The HA
>> certainly have no powers to force the tenant to co-operate if he does
>> not wish to do so.
>
> No, but as I indicated it may be required under the tenancy agreement.
> So failure to cooperate may leads to other sanctions. (And then of
> course there is the next tenancy agreement assuming the son wishes to
> continue.)
>
>> To hold the information the housing association
>> needs to ensure that the comply with the Data Protection Act.
>
> Yes.
>
>> I don't
>> think that there is sufficient need to collect and store the personal
>> data in the way the housing association wish to.
>
> OTOH there are others (including central government some 10 years ago)
> who think it is good practice for social landlords to take and hold
> photograpic ID of tennants and other lawful occupants. So if the
> Housing Association in question does require it as part of the tenancy
> agreement I still don't see how they are breaching any law (assuming of
> course they do have relevant data protection policies in place).
thing seems excessive and unjustifiable intrusion into the tenant's rights.
--
Peter Crosland
Tired
Aug 21, 2012, 4:25:03 PM8/21/12
to
Peter Crosland wrote:
For these purposes are RSL's classified as public bodies covered by RIPA?
Robin
Aug 21, 2012, 5:20:02 PM8/21/12
to
> Have you got any verifiable references to that being the case? The
> whole thing seems excessive and unjustifiable intrusion into the
> tenant's rights.
Some examples of people thinking it's a good thing and doing it:
> whole thing seems excessive and unjustifiable intrusion into the
> tenant's rights.
DCLG good practice guidaace in 2002
http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1396431.pdf
(see page 38)
Southwark - phographic tenancy agreements since 2004
http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/200027/council_tenant_information/673/rights_and_responsibilities/3
Brent Housing Partnership - ditto
http://www.bhphousing.co.uk/bhpv2.nsf/Files/BHPA-465/$FILE/BHP%20Self%20Assessment%20Income-Tenancy-Estates%20Final.pdf
If you still think the Housing Association are breaking the law can you
please be a little more precise?
Periander
Aug 21, 2012, 7:05:03 PM8/21/12
to
On 21-Aug-2012, HellyB <hel...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Are they allowed to do that? RIPA comes to mind.
conducting surveillance on him so again RIPA doesn't apply. If he does sub
let and the spies keep an eye on his illegal tenants then they would require
a RIPA authorisation.
I would also imagine that this is a term of his tenancy, as a taxpayer (and
sorry if this offends) I'm gratified to read that housing associations -
organisations that are very heavily subsedised from the public purse are
beginning to crack down on cheats and those would steal from us. That's far
from suggesting that your son is other than an honest upright person but for
fairness' sake I wouldimagine that the housing association wants everyone
under the same rules and conditions.
--
All the best,
Periander
Periander
Aug 21, 2012, 7:10:02 PM8/21/12
to
On 21-Aug-2012, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Have you got any verifiable references to that being the case? The whole
> thing seems excessive and unjustifiable intrusion into the tenant's
> rights.
to themselves yet significant cost to the taxpayer. Whilst I may allow
myself to be persuaded that this is a good use of taxpayers cash the first
responsibility of these associations is to ensure that taxpayer's cash isn't
being stolen via their service.
Tired
Aug 21, 2012, 8:20:10 PM8/21/12
to
Periander wrote:
In many areas of the country abuses are quite casual, boyfriend living there
and still claiming HB, or a relative stays there, while they have moved in
with their latest baby daddy.
In other areas of the country however, we have organised criminality in some
cases and in many cases blatent large scale theft, with subletting been a
way of life, a very lucrative way of life in areas of high demand.
and still claiming HB, or a relative stays there, while they have moved in
with their latest baby daddy.
In other areas of the country however, we have organised criminality in some
cases and in many cases blatent large scale theft, with subletting been a
way of life, a very lucrative way of life in areas of high demand.
Peter Crosland
Aug 22, 2012, 3:55:05 AM8/22/12
to
with the law and in a reasonable manner. Furthermore we have no evidence
that in case under discussion that such conditions do apply or that the
tenancy agreement included such a clause. Neither does it alter the
law. In the case stated by the OP it would appear that the HA were
intruding in an unjustifiable manner. As I said before the OP, or his
son, should take professional advice.
--
Peter Crosland
Partac
Aug 22, 2012, 3:30:02 AM8/22/12
to
"HellyB" wrote in message news:zTXgbAQx...@ntlworld.com...
Dr Zoidberg
Aug 22, 2012, 8:30:02 AM8/22/12
to
"HellyB" <hel...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:zTXgbAQx...@ntlworld.com...
is he entitled to refuse.
I suspect it's part of his tenancy agreement that he consents to have his
picture taken, and to be honest it doesn't sound like an unreasonable
request.
--
Alex
Ken
Aug 22, 2012, 9:15:03 AM8/22/12
to
In article <k12j6q$dtc$1...@dont-email.me>, Dr Zoidberg
<AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> writes
tenancy agreement and that had no such provision.
I don't think it is unreasonable either, however the people that receive
benefits often don't have passport/driving licence and may not be easily
able to get them.
The question might then arise as to whether a person had made themselves
" voluntarily homeless" for local authority purposes by failing to
provide photo ID. Maybe the Landlord will accept something like a bus
pass.
--
Ken
<AlexNOOOO!!!!!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> writes
>
>"HellyB" <hel...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:zTXgbAQx...@ntlworld.com...
>> My son rents a housing association flat. He has received a letter
>>from the association, saying that they are checking up on tenants to
>>make sure they are not subletting etc.
>>
>> They are coming to see him in the flat, and have asked him to have
>>photo ID, a utility bill, and bank statement to prove evidence of who
>"HellyB" <hel...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:zTXgbAQx...@ntlworld.com...
>> My son rents a housing association flat. He has received a letter
>>from the association, saying that they are checking up on tenants to
>>make sure they are not subletting etc.
>>
>> They are coming to see him in the flat, and have asked him to have
>>photo ID, a utility bill, and bank statement to prove evidence of who
>>is etc. According to the letter, they will also photograph him, so
>>that if in future they do any surveillance of the flat, they will be
>>able to identify him.
>>
>> Are they allowed to do that? RIPA comes to mind.
>>
>You aren't really asking if they are allowed to do it, what you want to
>know is he entitled to refuse.
>
>I suspect it's part of his tenancy agreement that he consents to have
>his picture taken, and to be honest it doesn't sound like an
>unreasonable request.
>
>
Why do you suspect that? I have only seen one Housing Association
>>that if in future they do any surveillance of the flat, they will be
>>able to identify him.
>>
>> Are they allowed to do that? RIPA comes to mind.
>>
>You aren't really asking if they are allowed to do it, what you want to
>know is he entitled to refuse.
>
>I suspect it's part of his tenancy agreement that he consents to have
>his picture taken, and to be honest it doesn't sound like an
>unreasonable request.
>
>
tenancy agreement and that had no such provision.
I don't think it is unreasonable either, however the people that receive
benefits often don't have passport/driving licence and may not be easily
able to get them.
The question might then arise as to whether a person had made themselves
" voluntarily homeless" for local authority purposes by failing to
provide photo ID. Maybe the Landlord will accept something like a bus
pass.
--
Ken
Sara
Aug 22, 2012, 10:10:03 AM8/22/12
to
In article <k12j6q$dtc$1...@dont-email.me>,
I wouldn't like it. It would very much feel like an invasion of privacy.
--
Armageddon can be louder than expected for such a small cat.
--
Armageddon can be louder than expected for such a small cat.
Jethro_uk
Aug 22, 2012, 10:20:03 AM8/22/12
to
Neil Williams
Aug 22, 2012, 10:45:03 AM8/22/12
to
When employed, the employer is the customer. When renting a property, I am
the customer.
Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.
the customer.
Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.
Sara
Aug 22, 2012, 10:50:02 AM8/22/12
to
In article <nT5Zr.6565$4k2....@fx09.am4>,
That would depend on the job and who would be expected to see it.
Ian Kane
Aug 22, 2012, 10:55:02 AM8/22/12
to
"Periander" wrote in message news:a9iim5...@mid.individual.net...
Jethro_uk
Aug 22, 2012, 11:10:03 AM8/22/12
to
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:45:03 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> When employed, the employer is the customer. When renting a property, I
> am the customer.
In which case you have the privilege of the free market to exercise.
> When employed, the employer is the customer. When renting a property, I
> am the customer.
I apologise for sounding flippant, but as a student, and through various
friends I know that subletting is a problem, and that the governments
statement that if it were to be curtailed, the housing market would be
improved is probably correct.
Re-reading the OP, I think the word "surveillance" is odd. AIUI the HA
are trying to ensure that the person living in the flat is indeed the
person they rented it out to. Taking a photograph doesn't seem too
extreme, but since every employer I have had since 1986 has taken a photo
of me and kept a copy, I'm probably inured to the idea.
Just an observation, but in theory, the photograph would not need to be
associated with the name of the tenant - just the property they are
renting. True, someone with access to the photo *and* the tenancy details
could connect picture with name, but it would be how I would implement
such a system.
Maybe a less intrusive method would be a fingerprint scan (as used at my
sons school for meals) ?
Robin
Aug 22, 2012, 11:35:02 AM8/22/12
to
> When employed, the employer is the customer. When renting a
> property, I am the customer.
>
But a customer with obligations as well as rights - and in social
> property, I am the customer.
>
housing a customer who is also being subsidised by the general body of
taxpayers. The National Fraud Authority in 2010 reported that "Many
registered providers take photographs of new tenants at sign-up, and
retrospectively for existing tenants at tenancy audits. Although some
providers expressed concern that tenants might see it as an intrusion,
or that Muslim women in particular might object. However, providers who
are already photographing tenants reported they had encountered few
problems."
Periander
Aug 25, 2012, 10:00:04 AM8/25/12
to
On 22-Aug-2012, "Ian Kane" <ik...@million.com> wrote:
> Some housing association rents aren't subsidised at all.
association doesn't get a pocketful of cash from the taxpayers and
consequently it can afford to set rents at below market prices obviating the
tenants to make additional claims on the taxpayer?
Not wishing to be rude - and I do stand to be corrected but I'm not aware of
any housing association that isn't at it's most fundamental level funded to
a greater or lesser extent by taxpayers.
Robbie
Aug 25, 2012, 1:05:02 PM8/25/12
to
on social rents were changed several years back to allow HA's to move
towards charging market rents. In my area HA's charge more or less the
same rent as a private landlord. In some cases they charge more -
especially for one bedroom flats in a particular area.
--
Robbie
tim.....
Aug 25, 2012, 2:15:02 PM8/25/12
to
"Robbie" wrote in message news:k1b0gs$4sg$3...@dont-email.me...
Periander wrote:
> On 22-Aug-2012, "Ian Kane" <ik...@million.com> wrote:
>
>> Some housing association rents aren't subsidised at all.
>
> Difficult to know how to answer that, do you mean that the housing
> association doesn't get a pocketful of cash from the taxpayers and
> consequently it can afford to set rents at below market prices obviating
> the
> tenants to make additional claims on the taxpayer?
>
> Not wishing to be rude - and I do stand to be corrected but I'm not aware
> of
> any housing association that isn't at it's most fundamental level funded
> to
> a greater or lesser extent by taxpayers.
>
>In which way would a Housing Association be funded by taxpayers?
By being given a wedge of cash to spend each year
>Rules on social rents were changed several years back to allow HA's to move
>towards charging market rents. In my area HA's charge more or less the same
>rent as a private landlord. In some cases they charge more - especially for
>one bedroom flats in a particular area.
This doesn't mean that they aren't a drain on the treasury
tim
Periander wrote:
> On 22-Aug-2012, "Ian Kane" <ik...@million.com> wrote:
>
>> Some housing association rents aren't subsidised at all.
>
> Difficult to know how to answer that, do you mean that the housing
> association doesn't get a pocketful of cash from the taxpayers and
> consequently it can afford to set rents at below market prices obviating
> the
> tenants to make additional claims on the taxpayer?
>
> Not wishing to be rude - and I do stand to be corrected but I'm not aware
> of
> any housing association that isn't at it's most fundamental level funded
> to
> a greater or lesser extent by taxpayers.
>
>In which way would a Housing Association be funded by taxpayers?
>Rules on social rents were changed several years back to allow HA's to move
>towards charging market rents. In my area HA's charge more or less the same
>rent as a private landlord. In some cases they charge more - especially for
>one bedroom flats in a particular area.
tim
Robbie
Aug 25, 2012, 2:25:02 PM8/25/12
to
tim..... wrote:
> "Robbie" wrote in message news:k1b0gs$4sg$3...@dont-email.me...
>
> Periander wrote:
>> On 22-Aug-2012, "Ian Kane" <ik...@million.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Some housing association rents aren't subsidised at all.
>>
>> Difficult to know how to answer that, do you mean that the housing
>> association doesn't get a pocketful of cash from the taxpayers and
>> consequently it can afford to set rents at below market prices
>> obviating the
>> tenants to make additional claims on the taxpayer?
>>
>> Not wishing to be rude - and I do stand to be corrected but I'm not
>> aware of
>> any housing association that isn't at it's most fundamental level
>> funded to
>> a greater or lesser extent by taxpayers.
>>
>
>> In which way would a Housing Association be funded by taxpayers?
>
> By being given a wedge of cash to spend each year
A wedge of cash from where and for what reason?
> "Robbie" wrote in message news:k1b0gs$4sg$3...@dont-email.me...
>
> Periander wrote:
>> On 22-Aug-2012, "Ian Kane" <ik...@million.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Some housing association rents aren't subsidised at all.
>>
>> Difficult to know how to answer that, do you mean that the housing
>> association doesn't get a pocketful of cash from the taxpayers and
>> consequently it can afford to set rents at below market prices
>> obviating the
>> tenants to make additional claims on the taxpayer?
>>
>> Not wishing to be rude - and I do stand to be corrected but I'm not
>> aware of
>> any housing association that isn't at it's most fundamental level
>> funded to
>> a greater or lesser extent by taxpayers.
>>
>
>> In which way would a Housing Association be funded by taxpayers?
>
> By being given a wedge of cash to spend each year
>
>> Rules on social rents were changed several years back to allow HA's to
>> move towards charging market rents. In my area HA's charge more or
>> less the same rent as a private landlord. In some cases they charge
>> more - especially for one bedroom flats in a particular area.
>
> This doesn't mean that they aren't a drain on the treasury
>
> tim
>
>
>
Robbie
tim.....
Aug 25, 2012, 2:40:02 PM8/25/12
to
"Robbie" wrote in message news:k1b58n$39a$1...@dont-email.me...
tim..... wrote:
> "Robbie" wrote in message news:k1b0gs$4sg$3...@dont-email.me...
>
> Periander wrote:
>> On 22-Aug-2012, "Ian Kane" <ik...@million.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Some housing association rents aren't subsidised at all.
>>
>> Difficult to know how to answer that, do you mean that the housing
>> association doesn't get a pocketful of cash from the taxpayers and
>> consequently it can afford to set rents at below market prices obviating
>> the
>> tenants to make additional claims on the taxpayer?
>>
>> Not wishing to be rude - and I do stand to be corrected but I'm not aware
>> of
>> any housing association that isn't at it's most fundamental level funded
>> to
>> a greater or lesser extent by taxpayers.
>>
>
>> In which way would a Housing Association be funded by taxpayers?
>
> By being given a wedge of cash to spend each year
A wedge of cash from where and for what reason?
=-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From some branch of government, because they can't operate without it
tim
tim..... wrote:
> "Robbie" wrote in message news:k1b0gs$4sg$3...@dont-email.me...
>
> Periander wrote:
>> On 22-Aug-2012, "Ian Kane" <ik...@million.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Some housing association rents aren't subsidised at all.
>>
>> Difficult to know how to answer that, do you mean that the housing
>> association doesn't get a pocketful of cash from the taxpayers and
>> consequently it can afford to set rents at below market prices obviating
>> the
>> tenants to make additional claims on the taxpayer?
>>
>> Not wishing to be rude - and I do stand to be corrected but I'm not aware
>> of
>> any housing association that isn't at it's most fundamental level funded
>> to
>> a greater or lesser extent by taxpayers.
>>
>
>> In which way would a Housing Association be funded by taxpayers?
>
> By being given a wedge of cash to spend each year
A wedge of cash from where and for what reason?
From some branch of government, because they can't operate without it
tim
Robbie
Aug 25, 2012, 3:20:03 PM8/25/12
to
to operate at the margins of making a profit and as a result they are
expected to be non-profit making entities. But it doesn't follow that
HA's are operating with taxpayer funding other than they have a
propensity to rely more on tenants who are funded through Housing
Benefit. But so do many private landlords. But private landlords aren't
expected to cater for a variety of people with differing needs.
If anything, the existence of HA's allows private landlords to be able
to make a profit by being more able to concentrate on tenants who can
pay their own way through employment.
>
> tim
>
>
--
Robbie
David McNeish
Aug 25, 2012, 4:05:02 PM8/25/12
to
On Aug 25, 6:05 pm, Robbie <ngrobbi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In which way would a Housing Association be funded by taxpayers?
By receiving large government grants for their capital expenditure,
> In which way would a Housing Association be funded by taxpayers?
for example.
Robin
Aug 25, 2012, 4:25:01 PM8/25/12
to
> That's far too simplistic an arguement to make. By definition HA's
> have to operate at the margins of making a profit and as a result
> they are expected to be non-profit making entities. But it doesn't
> follow that HA's are operating with taxpayer funding other than they
> have a propensity to rely more on tenants who are funded through
> Housing Benefit. But so do many private landlords. But private
> landlords aren't expected to cater for a variety of people with
> differing needs.
I wonder if you are confusing capital and running costs. Housing
> have to operate at the margins of making a profit and as a result
> they are expected to be non-profit making entities. But it doesn't
> follow that HA's are operating with taxpayer funding other than they
> have a propensity to rely more on tenants who are funded through
> Housing Benefit. But so do many private landlords. But private
> landlords aren't expected to cater for a variety of people with
> differing needs.
Assocations have as a rule required subisdy to meet the capital costs of
acquiring or building homes. Prior to the late 1980s Housing
Associations had around 90% of the capital cost met from grants from
central giovernment. That was reduced then to a grant of 30~40% on
average . While the level of hgrant has reduced further is subsidy in
eg developers being required to provide social housing as a condition of
planning permission (s.106 agreements). Then there is the thorny issue
of their "historic grant".
Steve Firth
Aug 25, 2012, 2:20:03 PM8/25/12
to
Periander <u...@britwar.couk> wrote:
> It's not covert if he knows about it so RIPA doesn't apply also they are not
> conducting surveillance on him so again RIPA doesn't apply.
Hmm, my local authority have been taking photographs of each property in
> It's not covert if he knows about it so RIPA doesn't apply also they are not
> conducting surveillance on him so again RIPA doesn't apply.
their area. They have been trespassing to do so. For example the
photograph of my property was taken by entering a neighbour's land
(without permission) and my land (again without permission). I don't
suppose that I can throw RIPA at them? Although it would be fun if I
could.
tim.....
Aug 26, 2012, 2:55:03 AM8/26/12
to
"Robbie" wrote in message news:k1b89d$mt6$1...@dont-email.me...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not making a claim that it does follow.
I am making a claim that the *are*, in fact, given money by HMG (from time
to time, if not annually) and that therefore they are taxpayer subsidised.
tim
I'm not making a claim that it does follow.
I am making a claim that the *are*, in fact, given money by HMG (from time
to time, if not annually) and that therefore they are taxpayer subsidised.
tim
Roland Perry
Aug 26, 2012, 5:30:02 AM8/26/12
to
In message <1kped49.1d3k0q21xrkaflN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, at 19:20:03
on Sat, 25 Aug 2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked:
Not does it sound very covert. The DPA is where I'd be looking for a
remedy, if they are also taking photos of residents (either accidentally
or deliberately) and then distributing them in ways which fall foul of
the law (eg by putting up posters in the street saying "the man in this
picture has rent arrears").
See also discussions of Google Streetcars.
--
Roland Perry
on Sat, 25 Aug 2012, Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> remarked:
>Hmm, my local authority have been taking photographs of each property in
>their area. They have been trespassing to do so. For example the
>photograph of my property was taken by entering a neighbour's land
>(without permission) and my land (again without permission). I don't
>suppose that I can throw RIPA at them? Although it would be fun if I
>could.
I don't think RIPA covers the covert surveillance of inanimate objects.
>their area. They have been trespassing to do so. For example the
>photograph of my property was taken by entering a neighbour's land
>(without permission) and my land (again without permission). I don't
>suppose that I can throw RIPA at them? Although it would be fun if I
>could.
Not does it sound very covert. The DPA is where I'd be looking for a
remedy, if they are also taking photos of residents (either accidentally
or deliberately) and then distributing them in ways which fall foul of
the law (eg by putting up posters in the street saying "the man in this
picture has rent arrears").
See also discussions of Google Streetcars.
--
Roland Perry
Steve Firth
Aug 26, 2012, 9:35:16 AM8/26/12
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't think RIPA covers the covert surveillance of inanimate objects.
No I didn't have much hope for that.
> I don't think RIPA covers the covert surveillance of inanimate objects.
> Not does it sound very covert.
hiding behind sheds, fences and hedges isn't "covert"?
> The DPA is where I'd be looking for a remedy, if they are also taking
> photos of residents (either accidentally or deliberately) and then
> distributing them in ways which fall foul of the law (eg by putting up
> posters in the street saying "the man in this picture has rent arrears").
properties so that they can use the photos to enforce action against
planning infringements. There aren't any such in this area but it seems
to be a blanket policy. However I'm irked that they entered my property
to photograph my neighbour's land and house and used their land to
photograph mine, all without the decency to ask permission which would
probably have been given. They also brought stepladders and stood on
those along the road frontage to photograph difficult to see areas such
as roof valleys and areas obscured by hedging.
No doubt the fact that this is now a National Park and the buildings are
Grade II/II* listed has some bearing on what is going on.
John Briggs
Aug 26, 2012, 11:45:03 AM8/26/12
to
On 26/08/2012 14:35, Steve Firth wrote:
>
> No doubt the fact that this is now a National Park and the buildings are
> Grade II/II* listed has some bearing on what is going on.
There may be a right of entry in such cases - certainly English Heritage
>
> No doubt the fact that this is now a National Park and the buildings are
> Grade II/II* listed has some bearing on what is going on.
Inspectors would have such powers.
--
John Briggs
Periander
Aug 26, 2012, 2:15:02 PM8/26/12
to
Steve Firth
Aug 26, 2012, 4:50:02 PM8/26/12
to
Tired
Aug 28, 2012, 4:15:10 PM8/28/12
to
Periander wrote:
why social rents are more of less universally set at a target based on the
average commericial rent.
:: Not wishing to be rude - and I do stand to be corrected but I'm not
:: --
::
:: All the best,
::
:: Periander
:: On 22-Aug-2012, "Ian Kane" <ik...@million.com> wrote:
::
::: Some housing association rents aren't subsidised at all.
::
:: Difficult to know how to answer that, do you mean that the housing
:: association doesn't get a pocketful of cash from the taxpayers and
:: consequently it can afford to set rents at below market prices
:: obviating the tenants to make additional claims on the taxpayer?
If it sets its rents low it doesnt get the same central assistance, which is
::
::: Some housing association rents aren't subsidised at all.
::
:: Difficult to know how to answer that, do you mean that the housing
:: association doesn't get a pocketful of cash from the taxpayers and
:: consequently it can afford to set rents at below market prices
:: obviating the tenants to make additional claims on the taxpayer?
why social rents are more of less universally set at a target based on the
average commericial rent.
:: Not wishing to be rude - and I do stand to be corrected but I'm not
:: aware of any housing association that isn't at it's most fundamental
:: level funded to a greater or lesser extent by taxpayers.
Of course its subsidised... It's all subsidised.
:: level funded to a greater or lesser extent by taxpayers.
:: --
::
:: All the best,
::
:: Periander
Tired
Aug 28, 2012, 4:20:02 PM8/28/12
to
Robbie wrote:
In every single way. In some areas it is possible for the revenue from the
rents to maintain basic repairs, but it rarely if ever covers the capital
investment costs.
If it wasnt for central government grants most older social houses would
still have outside toilets and single glazing.
:: --
:: Robbie
rents to maintain basic repairs, but it rarely if ever covers the capital
investment costs.
If it wasnt for central government grants most older social houses would
still have outside toilets and single glazing.
:: --
:: Robbie
Ian Kane
Aug 29, 2012, 8:50:03 AM8/29/12
to
"Periander" wrote in message news:a9s40c...@mid.individual.net...
Determine open market rent for property, charge tenant open market rent for
that property (Peabody Trust do this for some of their properties).
--
IK
Robin
Aug 29, 2012, 10:50:02 AM8/29/12
to
> Determine open market rent for property, charge tenant open market
> rent for that property (Peabody Trust do this for some of their
> properties).
Those properties are not what would usually be seen as social housing
> rent for that property (Peabody Trust do this for some of their
> properties).
(and are not described as such by the Trust). But most of the properties
let by the Peabody Trust are social housing. Those have benefitted from
government money. If you look at the recent accounts you'll see them
carrying several hundred millions of social housing grants.
Ian Kane
Aug 29, 2012, 4:25:02 PM8/29/12
to
"Robin" wrote in message news:k1la0q$584$1...@dont-email.me...
--
IK
0 new messages