House Items going missing

El Tarangu

Gumbo wrote: »

The poster has stated in the post you quoted that he would have no interest in cctv in the bedrooms or bathrooms. Common areas only. Which is becoming quite the norm.

In order for a "honey pot" sting operation to work, as was proposed, the CCTV would need to hidden; this is not the norm.

While a homeowner having visible CCTV in common areas of the their home that they share with licencees probably does not violate any data protection or privacy legislation, clandestinely filming tenants/licencees in their home probably does.

El Tarangu

El Tarangu wrote: »

In order for a "honey pot" sting operation to work, as was proposed, the CCTV would need to hidden; this is not the norm.

While a homeowner having visible CCTV in common areas of the their home that they share with licencees probably does not violate any data protection or privacy legislation, clandestinely filming tenants/licencees in their home probably does.

In common areas it most certainly does not. The concept has been around for a very long time, ever hear of a nanny cam?

A licensee is a rightless guest, they have no expectation of privacy in common areas nor does a private dwelling have any obligation to have signs up for cctv etc. People are looking for offences that don’t exist.

It’s no different to having any other guests or people doing work in the house filmed covertly, they haven’t a leg to stand on legally when in someone else’s private dwelling. Just look at the hidden camera stings on dodgy builders etc on tv.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sariyah Few Colon wrote: »

I'm not saying I'd do it nor agree with it but I would certainly say that in a private house where the owner placed the cameras and lives there it would be a fairly strong battle to actually win any case over them. You throw out words like violation of privacy or creepy (which in most cases would be correct) but you need to understand the extremely strong position a home home in their home home is in. It would not be the open and shut case that some would think.

As an aside several pubs I frequent have cameras in the toilets.

Anyway the discussion is about common areas which I have highlighted several times, even my original suggestion of setting the person up to steal something would quite clearly be in a common area. Continuing to snipe at my posts is just derailing the thread. I still think the setup would have been a very good idea too though now that they have been confronted they probably will not do it again/for a while.

I do indeed throw out words like ‘violation of privacy’ or ‘creepy’ because a camera in non-common areas is unacceptable in all cases, not in most. The only exception maybe being a serious criminal investigation. If any pub has cameras in toilet cubicles, that would also be unacceptable. Toilet common areas would be fine, but cubicles - no. If you think it’s ever in any way or at any time acceptable to secretly film people in such private places, that’s odd. Even in common areas, you’d struggle to gain sympathy for hidden cameras, IMO. In public establishment, cameras tend to be easy to spot or patrons are informed of their presence. There’s a reason for that.

El Tarangu

Sariyah Few Colon wrote: »

In common areas it most certainly does not. The concept has been around for a very long time, ever hear of a nanny cam?

A licensee is a rightless guest, they have no expectation of privacy in common areas nor does a private dwelling have any obligation to have signs up for cctv etc. People are looking for offences that don’t exist.

It’s no different to having any other guests or people doing work in the house filmed covertly, they haven’t a leg to stand on legally when in someone else’s private dwelling. Just look at the hidden camera stings on dodgy builders etc on tv.

The level of privacy that can be reasonably expected by someone in their own home is higher than that of a workplace.

Marcusm

Sariyah Few Colon wrote: »

The fair game was in reference to common areas if you read the post correctly.

A lodger in an empty house might occasionally walk undressed from a shower through the common areas to a bedroom or likewise in limited clothing.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

A lodger in an empty house might occasionally walk undressed from a shower through the common areas to a bedroom or likewise in limited clothing.

That’s their own choice, in doing so they should expect to be seen.

There is absolutely no way an home owner can be stopped putting a camera hidden or visible in a common area. Lodgers have zero rights, they are on the private property of the owner as a guest there is simply is no offence that exists to try and pin on the home owner.

1874

Marcusm wrote: »

A lodger in an empty house might occasionally walk undressed from a shower through the common areas to a bedroom or likewise in limited clothing.

Thats complete bollrocks, I have made a point of telling people I dont want to see them scooting from the bathroom in a state of or of complete undress. Im no prude, but its common sense, and consideration to just cover up given there could be mixed sex/backgrounds sharing, some people would be offended by that, anyone up to that is some kind of attentions seeking tool.

Sariyah Few Colon wrote: »

That’s their own choice, in doing so they should expect to be seen.

There is absolutely no way an home owner can be stopped putting a camera hidden or visible in a common area. Lodgers have zero rights, they are on the private property of the owner as a guest there is simply is no offence that exists to try and pin on the home owner.

Id be inclined to agree with this post, you cant have people going about the place in shared accomodation starkers, sounds great and all if they are all models of whatever persuasion takes your fancy, but realistically, that is not likely. I agree lodgers dont have certain rights, Id be inclined to think they have the right of privacy and Ive considered it could be an option for having a visible/known camera pointing at the front door/back door internally, then inform people of it, mainly for security, ie people leave doors open/unlocked in shared accomodation, A to pin down the person responsible and if need be help identify any perpetrator of break in/opportunist crimes of testing doors.
Id be dead set against hidden or secret cameras in shared areas and even then only as above for security, so not in a living room and obviously none in the private spaces, but potentially overt or hidden cameras in private areas that are not for use by lodgers.

I would also point out the only reason I am suggesting a hidden camera is a temporary measure to try catch the thief lodger. I’m not suggesting they should be just installed by every home with rent a room.

I think every house should have (visible) outside and some indoor cameras (like suggested above) nowadays. even just for convenience as well as security (great for altering you if someone calls when you are out etc). It’s all diy nowadays with smart home tech.

Del2005

Sariyah Few Colon wrote: »

I'm not saying I'd do it nor agree with it but I would certainly say that in a private house where the owner placed the cameras and lives there it would be a fairly strong battle to actually win any case over them. You throw out words like violation of privacy or creepy (which in most cases would be correct) but you need to understand the extremely strong position a home home in their home home is in. It would not be the open and shut case that some would think.

As an aside several pubs I frequent have cameras in the toilets.

Anyway the discussion is about common areas which I have highlighted several times, even my original suggestion of setting the person up to steal something would quite clearly be in a common area. Continuing to snipe at my posts is just derailing the thread. I still think the setup would have been a very good idea too though now that they have been confronted they probably will not do it again/for a while.

A licencee has no rights under residential law, they still have their rights under the other all the other legislation that goes with personal data etc. With our anti landlord media, and especially social media, a landlord sticking up cameras on their licencees will be on very dodgy ground.

Your employer can stick CCTV where ever they want, once they aren't recording in the cubicle of the toilet, are you OK with a camera watching your workstation?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Del2005 wrote: »

A licencee has no rights under residential law, they still have their rights under the other all the other legislation that goes with personal data etc. With our anti landlord media, and especially social media, a landlord sticking up cameras on their licencees will be on very dodgy ground.

Your employer can stick CCTV where ever they want, once they aren't recording in the cubicle of the toilet, are you OK with a camera watching your workstation?

I remember being in a workplace though where officially there were no cameras but we had reason to believe that there were hidden ones. I won’t get into what aroused our suspicions but we did have suspicions. A few of my colleagues said that if they found out that there were cameras, they’d leave. Because of the dishonesty and lack of trust, not because of the cameras. None of us would have had a problem with the boss saying “We’re installing a camera” but installing cameras to watch us without our knowledge unnerved us all and made us feel like we weren’t trusted. Not great for morale.

Irish_peppa

It seems to be commonplace to have cctv indoors in peoples homes in the United States. Mainly in the common areas see video attached. I have lodgers and I certainly wouldnt feel comfortable saying to them "right lads im installing CCTV in the tv/kitchen area which covers the seating area etc. I dont think they would be too impressed. And to be honest if I was looking for a house share and I was told there were cameras overlooking the common areas like in this link i think I would pass on the house. Outside no problem.:cool: It seems to cover the kitchen tv seating area and landing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eA_pPq6uQ4

On another note I was thinking to get a trail camera for my room my lodger twice went in to my room under the guise "he was leaving the rent in their" despite me asking him to leave it in a secure press hidden on landing. Point to note he allways went into my room when I left the house despite me being home 80% of the time

Irish_peppa

Sariyah Few Colon wrote: »

I would also point out the only reason I am suggesting a hidden camera is a temporary measure to try catch the thief lodger. I’m not suggesting they should be just installed by every home with rent a room.

I think every house should have (visible) outside and some indoor cameras (like suggested above) nowadays. even just for convenience as well as security (great for altering you if someone calls when you are out etc). It’s all diy nowadays with smart home tech.

Nox you could get a google home hub. It records movement yet isnt a cctv camera :cool: Its more an "entertainment device" yet has the ability to discretly view the room. and playback any motion it may have detected:eek:

Del2005

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I remember being in a workplace though where officially there were no cameras but we had reason to believe that there were hidden ones. I won’t get into what aroused our suspicions but we did have suspicions. A few of my colleagues said that if they found out that there were cameras, they’d leave. Because of the dishonesty and lack of trust, not because of the cameras. None of us would have had a problem with the boss saying “We’re installing a camera” but installing cameras to watch us without our knowledge unnerved us all and made us feel like we weren’t trusted. Not great for morale.

They would have to put up a CCTV sign in the building if they installed any type of camera hidden or obvious to avoid getting in huge trouble with data protection laws and possibly a good few others

Irish_peppa

Del2005 wrote: »

They would have to put up a CCTV sign in the building if they installed any type of camera hidden or obvious to avoid getting in huge trouble with data protection laws and possibly a good few others

In my old job they had a cctv system years . Yet we were told it didnt work. I unexpectedly had to go into MDs office one day while he was out to lunch and by mistake knocked off his screen saver.... what was on his monitor? 16 Screen CCTV system Yes 16 camera feeds from the building inside and out. A few days later I said I thought someone had taken something from the showroom and were the cctv cameras active. His reply "no they dont work and havent in years they have to be replaced" Sneaky fecker was watching us years but letting on he wasnt. I told a co worker what I had seen and they said they had seen him watching live cctv feeds on his phone so possibly connected to his phone also watch while not in building:eek:
He was a cute hoer as I had said to him it would be good investment to get them working again as a few incidents had happened and the CCTV would of been handy. "ahhh its too expensive" he would say.

Hotblack Desiato

what's more concerning there is the MD's screensaveer wasn't password protected... but how is ogling CCTV a good use of his time?

Marcusm

Sariyah Few Colon wrote: »

That’s their own choice, in doing so they should expect to be seen.

There is absolutely no way an home owner can be stopped putting a camera hidden or visible in a common area. Lodgers have zero rights, they are on the private property of the owner as a guest there is simply is no offence that exists to try and pin on the home owner.

You are addressing civil or contract (lodging agreement whether in writing or not) law matters. What I am referring to is a criminal matter; stop for a second and consider what you are saying.

Marcusm

1874 wrote: »

Thats complete bollrocks, I have made a point of telling people I dont want to see them scooting from the bathroom in a state of or of complete undress. Im no prude, but its common sense, and consideration to just cover up given there could be mixed sex/backgrounds sharing, some people would be offended by that, anyone up to that is some kind of attentions seeking tool.






Id be inclined to agree with this post, you cant have people going about the place in shared accomodation starkers, sounds great and all if they are all models of whatever persuasion takes your fancy, but realistically, that is not likely. I agree lodgers dont have certain rights, Id be inclined to think they have the right of privacy and Ive considered it could be an option for having a visible/known camera pointing at the front door/back door internally, then inform people of it, mainly for security, ie people leave doors open/unlocked in shared accomodation, A to pin down the person responsible and if need be help identify any perpetrator of break in/opportunist crimes of testing doors.
Id be dead set against hidden or secret cameras in shared areas and even then only as above for security, so not in a living room and obviously none in the private spaces, but potentially overt or hidden cameras in private areas that are not for use by lodgers.

Again, irrelevant once this is introduced into criminal law. Even if they paraded around naked in front of you, it would not be permitted to record, transmit or communicate an image of their nakedness!

Marcusm

Irish_peppa wrote: »

It seems to be commonplace to have cctv indoors in peoples homes in the United States. Mainly in the common areas see video attached. I have lodgers and I certainly wouldnt feel comfortable saying to them "right lads im installing CCTV in the tv/kitchen area which covers the seating area etc. I dont think they would be too impressed. And to be honest if I was looking for a house share and I was told there were cameras overlooking the common areas like in this link i think I would pass on the house. Outside no problem.:cool: It seems to cover the kitchen tv seating area and landing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eA_pPq6uQ4

On another note I was thinking to get a trail camera for my room my lodger twice went in to my room under the guise "he was leaving the rent in their" despite me asking him to leave it in a secure press hidden on landing. Point to note he allways went into my room when I left the house despite me being home 80% of the time

At least you are considerate enough to suggest informing them; it is the hidden undisclosed cameras which exposure the owner to potential criminal penalties.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

Again, irrelevant once this is introduced into criminal law. Even if they paraded around naked in front of you, it would not be permitted to record, transmit or communicate an image of their nakedness!

If someone is parading in front of you naked they have waved any right to privacy simple as that.

Marcusm wrote: »

At least you are considerate enough to suggest informing them; it is the hidden undisclosed cameras which exposure the owner to potential criminal penalties.

What criminal penalty are you going to try to prosecute the the home owner for placing cameras in common areas of his house, where he lives? You would be laughed at by guards or judges. The law is not as far reaching as you would like to think (thankfully).

I would have no issue whatsoever placing a hidden camera temporarily to catch a dodgy lodger stealing, wouldn’t think twice about it. Perfectly legal simple as that. What good is informing people when the point is to try catch them out?

Of course I would inform lodgers about permanent cctv around the house and if they didn’t like it they are under no obligation to rent a room or stay. I’ll never be renting rooms anyway so it’s pointless really to discuss this aspect, I will have both outdoor and indoor cameras on my property though.

Marcusm

Sariyah Few Colon wrote: »

If someone is parading in front of you naked they have waved any right to privacy simple as that.



What criminal penalty are you going to try to prosecute the the home owner for placing cameras in common areas of his house, where he lives? You would be laughed at by guards or judges. The law is not as far reaching as you would like to think (thankfully).

I would have no issue whatsoever placing a hidden camera temporarily to catch a dodgy lodger stealing, wouldn’t think twice about it. Perfectly legal simple as that. What good is informing people when the point is to try catch them out?

Of course I would inform lodgers about permanent cctv around the house and if they didn’t like it they are under no obligation to rent a room or stay. I’ll never be renting rooms anyway so it’s pointless really to discuss this aspect, I will have both outdoor and indoor cameras on my property though.

It’s not a right to privacy issue; the issue relates to the Bill which I cited earlier and which Is not yet law. It’ll someone can parade around in front of you without consenting to having their image recorded; indeed someone can consent to (and enjoy) having sex with you without having their image recorded. The impending law (which is supported by all parties) would make such recording unlawful.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Irish_peppa wrote: »

It seems to be commonplace to have cctv indoors in peoples homes in the United States. Mainly in the common areas see video attached. I have lodgers and I certainly wouldnt feel comfortable saying to them "right lads im installing CCTV in the tv/kitchen area which covers the seating area etc. I dont think they would be too impressed. And to be honest if I was looking for a house share and I was told there were cameras overlooking the common areas like in this link i think I would pass on the house. Outside no problem.:cool: It seems to cover the kitchen tv seating area and landing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eA_pPq6uQ4

On another note I was thinking to get a trail camera for my room my lodger twice went in to my room under the guise "he was leaving the rent in their" despite me asking him to leave it in a secure press hidden on landing. Point to note he allways went into my room when I left the house despite me being home 80% of the time

Agreed. If, as someone stated in this thread, it’s becoming commonplace, I’d put up with it if I had no other choice but the houseshare would immediately be marked as a very temporary one in my mind. I’d be looking for a less intrusive one pretty much straight away.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Del2005 wrote: »

They would have to put up a CCTV sign in the building if they installed any type of camera hidden or obvious to avoid getting in huge trouble with data protection laws and possibly a good few others

This is nearly two decades ago. I’m not sure what the data protection laws entailed back then. Like I said, we had reason to believe there were hidden cameras.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Agreed. If, as someone stated in this thread, it’s becoming commonplace, I’d put up with it if I had no other choice but the houseshare would immediately be marked as a very temporary one in my mind. I’d be looking for a less intrusive one pretty much straight away.

As time goes on and smart systems become more and more common there will be very few houses owner occupied especially that won’t have things like cameras (outdoor looking outwards and inside viewing say the front door and /or back door), proximity sensors etc.

Have you an issue with cameras like the above for security and dealing with people calling while you are out, deliveries etc? Similar for ring door bells etc would you refuse to live in a house with one they generally record on proximity also they don’t need to be pressed.

Del2005

Sariyah Few Colon wrote: »

As time goes on and smart systems become more and more common there will be very few houses owner occupied especially that won’t have things like cameras (outdoor looking outwards and inside viewing say the front door and /or back door), proximity sensors etc.

Have you an issue with cameras like the above for security and dealing with people calling while you are out, deliveries etc? Similar for ring door bells etc would you refuse to live in a house with one they generally record on proximity also they don’t need to be pressed.

You can't install hidden cameras and record people living in your property. You can put up any amount of overt CCTV cameras you want, once they aren't recoding public places, you can't install covert cameras in a house with others living there.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sariyah Few Colon wrote: »

As time goes on and smart systems become more and more common there will be very few houses owner occupied especially that won’t have things like cameras (outdoor looking outwards and inside viewing say the front door and /or back door), proximity sensors etc.

Have you an issue with cameras like the above for security and dealing with people calling while you are out, deliveries etc? Similar for ring door bells etc would you refuse to live in a house with one they generally record on proximity also they don’t need to be pressed.

No, outdoor cameras are very different. What a daft question about the doorbell. Seriously, like.

Look, people can put cameras in common areas if they want and inform tenants but nobody is required to be okay with it. And hidden cameras - well, that’s deeply creepy. If a landlord does such a thing, they are morally questionable.

Del2005

Del2005 wrote: »

You can't install hidden cameras and record people living in your property. You can put up any amount of overt CCTV cameras you want, once they aren't recoding public places, you can't install covert cameras in a house with others living there.

You most certainly can install a hidden camera in a common area of your property if you live there especially when trying to find out if a crime is being committed by one of them.

I don't think people understand how strong the rights of an owner occupier are.

1874

Irish_peppa wrote: »

It seems to be commonplace to have cctv indoors in peoples homes in the United States. Mainly in the common areas see video attached. I have lodgers and I certainly wouldnt feel comfortable saying to them "right lads im installing CCTV in the tv/kitchen area which covers the seating area etc. I dont think they would be too impressed. And to be honest if I was looking for a house share and I was told there were cameras overlooking the common areas like in this link i think I would pass on the house. Outside no problem.:cool: It seems to cover the kitchen tv seating area and landing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eA_pPq6uQ4

On another note I was thinking to get a trail camera for my room my lodger twice went in to my room under the guise "he was leaving the rent in their" despite me asking him to leave it in a secure press hidden on landing. Point to note he allways went into my room when I left the house despite me being home 80% of the time

Lock your bedroom door?

Marcusm wrote: »

Again, irrelevant once this is introduced into criminal law. Even if they paraded around naked in front of you, it would not be permitted to record, transmit or communicate an image of their nakedness!

I disagree, If I tell someone to specifically not parade around and there is say an overt known camera pointing at the front door and at the back door internal, and they have been told about them and not parading around starkers and they still manage to get in its field of view in the buff, then they either have some issues and they will have a problem, ie leaving promptly.
Your suggestion is contrary to what I have said regarding covert cameras which I would disagree with in any area a licensee has permitted access, so you are either accidentally misreading what I said, reading it too quickly and jumping to conclusions as it doesnt tally with your opinions or are intentionally misrepresenting what I said. To be clear, I said I dont agree with covert cameras in public areas, or any cameras in private areas for a licensee, BUT I would have overt camera front/back door for the purposes of security AND I would have either overt or hidden cameras in areas which are not for a Licensees use. I have had stuff nicked in houseshares AND Licensee situations and some people do have a tendency to snoop and steal IMO, best thing is to ensure room/s off limits are locked.

Marcusm wrote: »

At least you are considerate enough to suggest informing them; it is the hidden undisclosed cameras which exposure the owner to potential criminal penalties.

And as you admit yourself, it is hidden undisclosed cameras which can be a problem. Id add as above, except in any room/area off limits to a licensee, I wouldnt need to tell them there is a hdden or plainly in sight camera as Id be telling them such a place is not for their use and would be locked anyway.

Del2005 wrote: »

You can't install hidden cameras and record people living in your property. You can put up any amount of overt CCTV cameras you want, once they aren't recoding public places, you can't install covert cameras in a house with others living there.

Domestic exemption, but it makes sense when sharing to be reasonable and considerate of peoples privacy

Claw Hammer

This whole conversation is now becoming nuts. Why would anybody have lodgers in their house and consider it necessary to have internal camera surveillance on them? If I was uncomfortable with lodgers, I would simply throw them out and get others. Living in close quarters to people who have a propensity to steely or otherwise misbehave is stressful. I certainly wouldn't want it in my home.

1874

Claw Hammer wrote: »

This whole conversation is now becoming nuts. Why would anybody have lodgers in their house and consider it necessary to have internal camera surveillance on them? If I was uncomfortable with lodgers, I would simply throw them out and get others. Living in close quarters to people who have a propensity to steely or otherwise misbehave is stressful. I certainly wouldn't want it in my home.

Thats the whole point if you read the OP, one person likely stole and the other did nothing wrong, so its possible a camera/cctv could pin point what happened and when and prevent the wrong person suffering the inconvenience of looking for somewhere else to live based on the problem caused from another persons sticky fingers. So technology, cctv in this case can be useful/a benefit without being over the top and limit anyones rights.

Most licensees were alright IMO, but I have come across people who were openly difficult or covertly for unknown reasons. IMO cctv could have highlighted who was doing what and likely made someone think twice about intentionally doing stuff they arent supposed to.
I dont see any issue with a plainly in sight cctv camera pointing at the front door and back door from internally as some people are careless leaving doors unlocked or open and would outright deny it or even be aware they had done it, so for the security of everyones personal property, I think its useful.



What I dont understand how the OP couldnt see that a person who had borrowed a vase and had it in their room could not have been the person who stole the original item (a framed poster?), it seems obvious to me, not 100% certainty, but enough to get my attention.

Claw Hammer

1874 wrote: »

Thats the whole point if you read the OP, one person likely stole and the other did nothing wrong, so its possible a camera/cctv could pin point what happened and when and prevent the wrong person suffering the inconvenience of looking for somewhere else to live based on the problem caused from another persons sticky fingers. So technology, cctv in this case can be useful/a benefit without being over the top and limit anyones rights.

.

I would just put the two of them out. It is just bonkers to have CCTV in a home where people should trust each other.