Surveillance in personal injury

[Spygames]

I have a few questions and would be most grateful for any answers.

I have an ongoing chronic pain claim. I was advised that surveillance may be used but this was highly unlikely.

Two years down the line and I am suddenly aware of surveillance. I thought I was imagining it however I noticed a car parked outside my house yesterday for quite some time, then noticed the same car following me today. I am certain it was the same car as I saw the reg plate.

My solicitor told me I have nothing to hide and to continue as normal.

I forgot to ask her as to what level they can spy on me? I am deeply uneasy about this. The back of my house has a house on one side, a car park on another and a walkway running alongside the end. Can they watch from over the back fence or position a fixed camera?

I have 3 children who use the sand pit, swing, paddling pool & sprinkler . Are they allowed to film the children if I am sat with them? I would not want them filmed at any time however they wear trunks/costumes when the weather is hot and this would be most disturbing. Is this allowed?

Thanks

Hopeful bump

I would have thought it could only be in public places? I'm no expert but pretty sure people can't record over fences or through windows into private property.

No they won't film your children in their bathing suits. They won't try and film inside your house. They are likely to be watching your front door/car and will follow you whenever you go and watch you/film you there if it's a public place. It's incredibly expensive to arrange surveillance so it's unlikely to be for more than a couple of days.

Very grateful to you both for taking the time to respond. Chew are you a solicitor? No idea how to link to your name, sorry,

I work in this area but I'm not a solicitor. I've seen quite a few surveillance reports and I've never seen one where they've gone around the back of a house or deliberately filmed children.

Thanks again

Hopefully (for their employers sakes) they will be very careful about how they are gathering "evidence". Courts have thrown entire cases out where evidence has been unlawfully gathered.

There's also the little matter of harassment. Now you are aware of the surveillance, it's not allowed to stray into harassing you.

Personally, I'd consider calling the local police about a suspicious car that's been there a couple of days, and see what happens.

You are also quite free to survey the surveyors, so to speak. Whether covertly (sneaking a picture through a window) or overtly by getting pictures of the car (and occupants) in the open.

@ProfessorSlocombe surely it cannot actually be illegal as it must be the defendants solicitors who have instructed them? I am guessing they would know the law in this area!

Am waiting for my own solicitor to return my call.

I have no intention of photographing them although I was tempted to wave.

@ProfessorSlocombe surely it cannot actually be illegal as it must be the defendants solicitors who have instructed them? I am guessing they would know the law in this area!

it's always dangerous to assume a professional is an expert. Trust me. I'm not an expert .

If they go beyond the bounds of privacy in gathering evidence, then it's unlawful. And may be illegal. And either way is highly unlikely to see the inside of a courtroom.

From elsewhere

What needs to be considered by solicitors using covertly or illegally obtained evidence?
Before obtaining / putting forward such evidence solicitors should consider the following:

Evidence will not be admissible if it was obtained through torture or inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights).
Privileged material will not be admissible in court unless it was created in the course of a criminal act or to further a criminal enterprise.
It is a criminal offence to intercept communication between individuals, such as emails and telephone calls, unless you have their permission (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000).
It is a civil wrong and a criminal offence to persuade someone to disclose personal data (for example a person’s name and address) without the “data controller’s” consent (Data Protection Act 1998). This could include, for example, coaxing an employee to provide you with company records without the employer’s permission.
In the course of civil litigation you are required to provide your opponent with any material in your or your client’s possession which (among other things) helps the other side’s case or harms your client’s case. If you have acquired covertly or illegally obtained evidence, you may therefore be forced to provide this to the other side (even if you decided that it was harmful to your case and you did not want to deploy it).

...

Oh that’s interesting. So if they do not mention surveillance during settlement negotiations I can ask for copies anyway.

Hardly James Bond as I spotted him and I am not particularly observant. I have not left the house today so no idea if he is there or not.

Just to warn you, the DWP also use surveillance sometimes.

@Nat6999 - oh, I did submit a Mandatory Reconsideration for PIP and am waiting for a decision. This is my first claim and I am still employed (just).

I loathe the thought of anyone spying on us. Not sure if that’s better or worse.

It's worth reporting suspicious behaviour to the police because you are assuming you know why they are there. You could be wrong. There's no reason you should immediately assume you are being spied on (unless you know you are doing something underhand and are afraid of being found out).

I'm not disputing your honesty, just pointing out you've no reason to expect that car to be there, it's suspicious, and you should mention it to the police.

I have nothing to hide from DWP or insurers. I never gave a thought to anything untoward - I don’t live an exciting life and barely go anywhere except for work/school/health. I always laugh on Mumsnet when the advice is to log it with 101 but actually, if I see him again I will. Im worried now.

Does anyone know how likely it is for DWP or an Insurance company to use surveillance?

Can I contact the DWP and ask them to confirm it was them under GDPR?

They are not permitted to trespass on your property. It costs around £2500 for a period of 3 days surveillance. Insurance companies have also been known to carry our surveillance after a claim has been settled.

They are not permitted to trespass on your property

Drifting into hypotheticals now, but it would be interesting to remove even the presumed initial right to cross your threshold by a premptive letter removing that consent ....

Please don't worry Spy- I didn't want to unsettle you. However it would be perfectly reasonable to be unsettled, and not to immediately assume DWP or insurance.

Yes it happens.

Can't give too much detail as not my situation but happened to friends family over a serious broken limb. Family member did things despite severe pain and what ended up as an addiction to strong painkillers.

By "coping" the insurance company paid out 1/4 minimum less than they would have done.

But they couldn't sit around doing nothing for years due to the pain whilst they took that amount of time to decide what a fractured spine was valued at

Wow, I’m in the wrong profession!

I am in agony and on a cocktail of painkillers. I do carry on as best as I can as I have bills to pay, children to feed and no partner.

My sickness record is poor but I do my best as giving up is not an option. I have no idea what the claim is valued at as apparently it is too early to say as treatments continue. I have been advised to push through the pain to build up stamina levels. I do this when I can but am them curled up unable to move later on - pity they cannot spy on me inside the house as that would be more revealing, after the brave face comes off.

Feeling annoyed now. Appreciate responses.

@Parky04 why would they do that retrospectively?

I would happily receive no money if surgery can identify a treatment that works sufficiently! Would also gladly withdraw the pip claim.

Spy that's exactly the situation I know about. Was told after if they'd don't push through they would have received x amount compared to what they got.

I kind of understand it because payout is to reflect what can and can't be done but I don't think excluding things such as pain levels and if you do x (work) you then can't do y makes a fair system.

They just want to check if your evidence is consistent i imagine. Ie. I've seen surveillance reports where someone says they need constant care and can't leave the house on their own, then theyve been seen to go out banger racing for example. When you're talking about high level claims a couple of days of surveillance is pretty standard. Just be honest about your symptoms and your limitations when talking to medical experts and you'll be fine.