In message
<[log in to unmask]
uk>, at 11:59:51 on Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Tim Turner
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>I disagree. You tell me that a house is empty.
No, I've told you it's unoccupied according to the CT rules. That
doesn't mean I'm not inside doing some naked wallpapering (or worse).
>I go to check that the house is empty.
But perhaps after I've told you it's now occupied!
> If the information you have given to me is correct, all
>I am doing is going to see an empty house. Nobody is being surveilled.
Unless there's someone inside the "empty" house.
>I think peering through the windows at a empty house, or at a house
>where decorators are at work is fine.
Others may think it's surveillance.
>how can a council check that empty property benefits are being
>legitimately claimed without visiting. Should the benefit system be
>operated solely on trust?
They could arrange for an appointment to inspect, or get a RIPA
surveillance warrant (that's all I'm asking).
>Tim Turner
>NHS Manchester
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
>Sent: 05 August 2010 11:40
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [data-protection] Poole Council Decision
>
>In message
><[log in to unmask]
>.
>uk>, at 11:20:15 on Thu, 5 Aug 2010, Tim Turner
><[log in to unmask]> writes
>>If a person states that a property is empty for the purposes of a
>>council tax exemption or discount, how can it be surveillance or
>>snooping to check whether the property is indeed empty?
>
>In just the same way as it's surveillance to check what car is parked in
>
>the drive. Someone is invading the privacy of the potential occupants.
>
>>Admittedly, they must check to see that the exemption / discount is
>>still being claimed, but what harm is there in checking on an empty
>>property? If the property is empty, there will be nobody in it, nobody
>>will have been surveilled and nobody's rights would have been
>infringed.
>
>A stake-out is surveillance, and it doesn't stop being surveillance if
>no-one turns up. In the case of an "unoccupied for CT purposes" house,
>there may be people legitimately inside (sans furniture) decorating etc.
>
>There's also the possibility of having the wrong address, or as in my
>case turning up late[1] after the house has become properly occupied,
>and the whole point of a regime like RIPA is to be able to track that
>back.
>
>>I don't want to live a council area where people get spied on in the
>way
>>that Poole appeared to have done.
>
>Do you mean observing where the place of residence appeared to be, or
>trying to close the stable door after the horse had bolted?
>
>>Equally, I don't want to live in a council area where common sense and
>>proportionate methods are not employed to make sure that people don't
>>cheat the system.
>
>And you seem to believe that peering through windows is OK, but looking
>at the car parked on the drive isn't.
>
>[1] The more I think about this, the more my case seems to be similar to
>
>the one in Poole.
>
>>Tim Turner
>>NHS Manchester
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Roland Perry
>>Sent: 05 August 2010 11:13
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: [data-protection] Poole Council Decision
>>
>>In message
>><[log in to unmask]>, at
>>09:18:45 on Thu, 5 Aug 2010, "Bradshaw, Phillip"
>><[log in to unmask]> writes
>>>Last year I occupied two houses for a period of eight weeks during a
>>>staggered move. As far as I was concerned the one I 'lived in' was the
>>>one with the lower Council Tax band so I had the empty property relief
>>>on the other. That was the only deciding factor which seemed relevant
>>to
>>>me ....
>>
>>This happened to me five years ago (I was moving from rented, into a
>>purchased house that I was doing up). The rule is, strictly, that a
>>house must be completely unoccupied, with no furniture at all, to get
>>the exemption. And guess what - the council will perhaps send round a
>>snooper to peer in the windows and check.
>>
>>I wonder if this counts as 'directed surveillance'? It is, according to
>>a lawyer on another list I subscribe to. I wonder if Poole have
>>reviewed/stopped this practice too?
>>
>>In my case the chap had a wasted journey, because he only arrived after
>>I'd fully moved (and I'm sure after I'd told the council's other hand
>>that this had happened, and the other house had been fully signed over
>>to the next occupant).
>
--
Roland Perry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
Any queries about sending or receiving messages please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
Full help Desk - please email [log in to unmask] describing your needs
To receive these emails in HTML format send the command:
SET data-protection HTML to [log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|