I read with interest the editor’s Comment (“Rules of the new spying game”, HT 12 November).
His use of such phrases as “hired snoops” , “burly spies”, “potential spooks” and references to Orwell’s 1984 and Big Brother show that he has little knowledge of why and how covert surveillace is employed by social housing landlords, and the degree to which these measures are welcomed by the majority of law abiding residents.
When we, and I’m sure most social landlords, use covert surveillance we follow strict guidance and protocols and comply fully with the Data Protection Act and the Regulation Of Investigatory Powers Act before deploying such measures. We only use these methods following consultation with the police, and even then only when all other attempts at gathering evidence have failed.
The evidence gained in all our operations to date has been used effectively to deal with the minority of tenants who cause problems on our estates. When our use of such measures has been publicised, for example in subsequent court proceedings, we have noticed a dramatic reduction in antisocial behaviour on our estates. Additionally, not one single person has objected to these methods being employed.
It’s a fair cop, as they could well say.
We work with, not against, our tenants and residents, and they welcome the use of these methods, as it demonstrates we take their complaints seriously and do not just send them away with a nuisance sheet and a reminder that they must attend court for anything to happen.
We use reputable firms, check out their references, and minimise the length of an operation, taking great care to ensure the surveillance is strictly targeted and directed.
I have yet to see, let alone employ, a “burly spy” and find the editor’s comments sensationalist at best.
Peter Wynne, senior housing officer (antisocial behaviour unit), Flintshire County Council
Source
Housing Today
Postscript
The editor replies:While I am pleased Flintshire County Council adheres to all necessary regulation before employing covert surveillance and am glad it has been a success, the editorial did not question these points. Rather, it drew attention to issues surrounding the intrusive nature of this type of operation: shouldn't tenants be consulted and does it not raise other problems? It also concluded it “may prove to be the best and, in some cases the only answer” to antisocial behaviour. It is good Flintshire has successfully overcome these problems, but in many areas of the country landlords have not yet needed to take such drastic action. When they do, these are genuine issues they will need to consider.
No comments yet