B&B turned private residence after enforcement notice

[StuartH]

Thats useful information. The survellance that I was involved with as a station officer consisted of four of us (2 pairs) observing a premises to obtain evidence that the premises was being occupied by an excessive number of persons, which would have been in breach of an existing prohibition notice. Two of us were watching from a car parked at the side of the premises, the other two were watching from a premises opposite.

I know that my Divisional Officer found RIPA a mine field. I believe this was the my brigades first application of the RIPA regs.

In the end he did not exceed his maximum permitted occupancy. We suspected that he was tipped off by the occupiers of the premises opposite which was being used for survellance.

[nunu]

Latest update.  As it turns out, it appears that my private residence is now fully booked for the summer!  I shall keep you posted.

[CivvyFSO]

Just to add something else, I do believe that the surveillance has to be directed at a person for RIPA to apply. However, in the example of watching a number people enter a hotel or a nightclub, although you are not spying on them personally, you are still potentially invading their right to privacy, and as such this 'collateral intrusion' aspect has to be considered.

[PhilB]

Latest update.  As it turns out, it appears that my private residence is now fully booked for the summer!  I shall keep you posted.

I would say that it may be worth issuing a prohibtion notice prohibiting the use as sleeping accomodation. If they then use it as a b&b the offence is straight forward i.e. contravening a prohibition notice, there would be no need to prove that persons had been placed at risk.

If it is being used as a house occupied as a single private dwelling that notice would have no effect as the order does not apply.

The notice could come into effect at a later date, i.e. when you believe the premises are due to be used as a b&b.

[PhilB]

Just to add something else, I do believe that the surveillance has to be directed at a person for RIPA to apply.

Not necessarily Civvy surveillance is directed if it is undertaken for the purposes of a specific investigation or a specific operation.

That does not have to be directed at a person…it could for example be an organisation.

[StuartH]

Latest update.  As it turns out, it appears that my private residence is now fully booked for the summer!  I shall keep you posted.

I would say that it may be worth issuing a prohibtion notice prohibiting the use as sleeping accomodation. If they then use it as a b&b the offence is straight forward i.e. contravening a prohibition notice, there would be no need to prove that persons had been placed at risk.

If it is being used as a house occupied as a single private dwelling that notice would have no effect as the order does not apply.

The notice could come into effect at a later date, i.e. when you believe the premises are due to be used as a b&b.

I think PhilB's suggestion is spot on. Furthermore failing to comply with a prohibition notice is a much more serious offence.

[CivvyFSO]

Not necessarily Civvy surveillance is directed if it is undertaken for the purposes of a specific investigation or a specific operation.

That does not have to be directed at a person…it could for example be an organisation.

From my notes from an accredited course delivered by Bond Solon... "Note, RIPA does not regulate the surveillance of place or premises per se. There has to be a human subject for the surveillance for RIPA to apply."

From RIPA explanatory notes...  "Directed surveillance" is defined in subsection (2) as covert surveillance that is undertaken in relation to a specific investigation or a specific operation which is likely to result in the obtaining of private information about a person (whether or not one specifically identified for the purposes of the investigation or operation);"
 
"By subsection (9), surveillance will be covert where it is carried out in a manner calculated to ensure that the person or persons subject to the surveillance are unaware that it is or may be taking place."

I think the key there being 'person or persons subject to surveillance'. If it is not covert then it is not, by definition, directed surveillance.

If you can point me towards something that might change my mind then feel free.

[CivvyFSO]

I think PhilB's suggestion is spot on. Furthermore failing to comply with a prohibition notice is a much more serious offence.

The problem there being that if it is a house the occupier could easily challenge the notice, ensuring that between the time he appeals the notice and the time the appeal is heard, that he keeps everything above board (To avoid the FRS getting any evidence to prove otherwise) The hidden beauty of this is that it is forcing his hand to go in front of a Magistrate and lie. If a prohibition is cancelled, and then the owner is proved to have lied to a Magistrate, I can't see the next Magistrate being so accommodating when he is up for other offences.

[Mike Buckley]

OK Civvy for the sake of arguement, if you have the premises under surveillance and you are counting the number of people who enter in the evening and leave in the morning with suitcases, but you are not following the owner or the people then the RIPA does not apply. Am I correct?

[CivvyFSO]

The information I have at present would lead me to believe that is correct. I am no legal expert, just operating on what I have in front of me that is supplied by ex-police and barristers who ARE classed as legal experts.

It is a fine line, you could say that to be on the safe side of a 'human rights act defense' you should use RIPA if there is the slightest doubt regarding an invasion of privacy, but then again with all the media interest in RIPA you might be better avoiding it where possible, taking into account that the owner cannot claim an invasion of someone elses privacy as his defense.. There you are, I have quite successfully sat firmly on the fence!

[nearlythere]

Latest update.  As it turns out, it appears that my private residence is now fully booked for the summer!  I shall keep you posted.

If it fully booked for the summer it must be advertising somewhere. If it is advertising the owner is then confirming it to be a B&B or guest house.
No need for surveillance.

[PhilB]

Not necessarily Civvy surveillance is directed if it is undertaken for the purposes of a specific investigation or a specific operation.

That does not have to be directed at a person…it could for example be an organisation.

From my notes from an accredited course delivered by Bond Solon... "Note, RIPA does not regulate the surveillance of place or premises per se. There has to be a human subject for the surveillance for RIPA to apply."

From RIPA explanatory notes...  "Directed surveillance" is defined in subsection (2) as covert surveillance that is undertaken in relation to a specific investigation or a specific operation which is likely to result in the obtaining of private information about a person (whether or not one specifically identified for the purposes of the investigation or operation);"
 
"By subsection (9), surveillance will be covert where it is carried out in a manner calculated to ensure that the person or persons subject to the surveillance are unaware that it is or may be taking place."

I think the key there being 'person or persons subject to surveillance'. If it is not covert then it is not, by definition, directed surveillance.

If you can point me towards something that might change my mind then feel free.

All I will say Civvy is be careful believing all you are told by the various training providers out there...I have also attended courses run by certain organisations and a lot of what I heard was incorrect....in my humble opinion of course....... and the opinion of other persons much cleverer than me...and even cleverer than Todddy

[CivvyFSO]

Surely nobody is more cleverer than CT? Just like noone can speak the proper english as gooder as what I does.