Is this an invasion of female tenants privacy??

[HeIenaDove]

twitter.com/Paradigm_tenant/status/1211425426297503747?s=20

Some housing associations have taken to photographing tenants in their homes. Apparently to counteract tenancy fraud.

belfastmediagroup.com/housing-body-takes-photographs-of-its-tenants-in-their-living-rooms/

However whats in the twitter link is a step too far IMO.

I did post this twitter link on the latest social housing thread but got the usual predictable response.

I've no doubt that there are serious issues with subletting in some places and they can be bad for a variety of reasons. In social or subsidised housing it's directly exploitative of course, but also people taking advantage of such sublets can be people you don't want to be neighbours with. The worst example I experienced was my friend who lived in a sort of rooming house. The owners were negligent and the manager was elderly and not really able to cope. My friend's downstairs neighbour sub-letted to people who started dealing crack out of their rooms, which brought a lot of very nasty people around and also they were smoking crack in the apartment which is not nice stuff.

I don't know though that the twitter picture is what is says. Could it be that they hired a private detective to gather evidence that someone was living there illegally? That doesn't quite seem likely either. I can't really see the advantage of taking a picture that way.

But why is it guilty until proven innocent

It has nothing to do with "guilty until proven innocent". The landlord is checking that the person living in the flat is their tenant.

Why is it always those lower down the socio economic scale who are all tarred with the same brush

It's not a question of "tarring all with the same brush"-. What do you suggest landlords do ? Turn a blind eye to someone making a profit on an illegal sublet?

I don't know though that the twitter picture is what is says

It's so blurred and grainy who knows? There's no provenance to it.

Those seem to be two very different things. The Twitter one looks like a spy cam in the ceiling and Paradigm in SE England.

The Belfast Media story from 5 years ago relates to issues arising from a widespread scam in which mostly men (a lot of them Ex paramilitaries) were fraudulently subletting social housing. The victims of this were mostly women with children who were on long waiting lists for social housing.

I completely understand there's abuses of lets. Of course. Don't be silly.

I completely disagree with those photos! The end does not justify the means by any means.

Its not legal to take photos like this, its a private home and noone else has a right to enter it without prior arrangement, unless an emergency.

Tenants shouldn't have their privacy breached for any reason, its unjustifiable.

If you let out a property, its a risk, so are lots of other things. What can I say?

Your property could be trashed, it could be used for drug dealings, it could be sub let, but all these things can be detected with careful management.

Its written in tenancy agreements the same as all ll protections are.

There is a risk in letting property legally surely to anyone who doesnt posess a passport (or can't prove who they are with any kind of records).

I thought it a legal requirement to receive sight of original documents proving ID for immigration purposes?

a widespread scam in which mostly men (a lot of them Ex paramilitaries) were fraudulently subletting social housing.

Ah, that makes sense. I wondered why it mentioned Lenadoon specifically and not other areas.

You really don't get it TruthOnTrial

You keep banging on about passport checks at the beginning the the tenancy. Many social housing tenants won't have one.

You also seem incapable of understanding that the issue is not who the original tenants were but who is living in the house. See FlaviaAlbiaWantsLangClegBack's post.

Do you not understand that there can be collusion between the original tenant and the occupier? Or even worse intimidation of the original tenant? Your attitude seems to be tough luck on the landlord if that happens.

I completely disagree with those photos! The end does not justify the means by any means
There is nothing to suggest those photos have any connection with the housing association. Frankly if I were the OP I would be wary of linking the 2.

Tenants shouldn't have their privacy breached for any reason, its unjustifiable

Bollocks. All landlords have the right to inspect their property and check who is living there.

Oh and surveillance (or spying as you called it) is not illegal.

Would they not achieve the same results by unannounced inspections rather than spying.

But what results lolly? The article describes announced visits, if you don't object to unannounced visits I don't see why you'd object to announced ones.

I've googled the housing association in the Twitter thread and like Dionne said, they don't operate in NI, so the Twitter picture is irrelevant and not linked to the article.

I know Helena is passionate about tenants rights but trying to squeeze an English shaped issue into a NI one generally doesn't work.

They are trying to see if there are unregistered tenants (That is the results). Announced visits don't work. If i get notice of inspection, I tidy. So if someone with illegal tenants gets notice they will hide the evidence.

Sadly the government has no care for the realities of the new legislation. HAs are under pressure, LLs too. And there are tenants who are not who they say they are. Others who sublet to people with no Right to Rent - and the legal LL is the one held to accout for that!

Something has to be done or LLs, LAs and HAs are open to legal proceedings if they let to someone who has no Right to Rent. Blame the government for effectively making them all Associate Customs Officers. They don't appreciate it either!

Pictures in your living room? I can think of more intrusive things. And the legalities... well, under GDPR I am sure it can be justified, and kept confidential.

As for hiding evidence of illegal tenants, it's harder to do than you think! I have notified agents a couple of times... additional cars, constantly using the Visitors space in a block of flats to a 'spare' set of pyjamas!

Best thing that raised my suspicions and was later flatly denied by the tenant.. postman delivered whilst I was there... a wage slip for A N Other! It landed face up, I read the addressee...

Sometimes there is little choice. The government dicates and HAs etc have to work out how to comply - or risk being prosecuted!

Would they not achieve the same results by unannounced inspections rather than spying. That would be illegal. Inspections have to have at least 48 hours notice and the tenant can refuse!

I don't think it should be illegal is the point. I rent, it is the landlords house, I would be perfectly happy to let him in any time he knocked-but I have nothing to hide. However hidden cameras in my house would be a no.

I don't think it should be illegal is the point. Hmm! I suspect you have never been graced by an intrusive landlord!

I rent, it is the landlords house, I would be perfectly happy to let him in any time he knocked-but I have nothing to hide. But you have the legal right to quiet enjoyment... and that includes the legal right to say no!

However hidden cameras in my house would be a no Obviously! But a HA sending someone to take your picture in the house to help clarify your legal status, so that they themselves don't break any laws??

They are trying to see if there are unregistered tenants (That is the results).

I imagine it would be tricky if like Dionne said there are paramilitaries involved. Once if initial identities are established then when fraud is suspected an investigation could start, but ultimately the target is the dodgy landlord, not the tenant.

My attitude is not one of tough luck.

I am not banging on about anything atall, simply stating the tenancy and ll situation.

No, tenants do actualpy have rights.

It seems to me you are the one getting rude and irate about this.

Its not bollocks either.

No ll has the the right to put cameras in a tenants home.

Airbnb have been involved in cases of ll doing this, and its an infringement of basic rights when indoors to not be spied on when you feel you are alone.

The end does not justify the means.

I don't know how you think that I believe sub-letting is ok, I dont, but neither are all the other things that happen in tenancies, despite legal agreements.

Spying is not the way clearly.

There are always official documents of some description, even if they be immigration, or housing authority, medical reference numbers. If there aren't then how do those people receive any form of assistance atall?

Genuinely, do housing associations let to anyone atall without any proof of anything?

If they do, is that operating legally?

lolly
You might be. As a rule, someone's home is expected to be respected. That the landlord only has right of access with genuine need (work, repairs, etc, not to take pictures of you in your home)

Everyone's different, but those are standard ll and tenancy rules, includig 24 hours notoce for such legitimate reason for gaining access.

Any other attempted access you can say no. Its no longer the ll's home, if it ever was, merely the ll's property to be maintained.

Genuinely, do housing associations let to anyone atall without any proof of anything?
You still don't seem to understand that it is what happens during the tenancy which is the problem.

No ll has the the right to put cameras in a tenants home

Straw man No one here has said they should have. The photos in the first link are meaningless.

I don't think anyone has said landlords have the right to put cameras in tenants homes.

The photo on twitter is blurry and it's hard to tell where it was taken or why, but either way, it's not the housing association mentioned in the link. It's not even in the same country so I don't think it can be used to prove anything...

Regarding ID, people would have letters to their address, bank cards, NHS numbers and National Insurance numbers but many of the tenancies I'm thinking of would be 30 years plus, more around 50 years plus for some. The younger people with recent tenancies would probably have passports or driving licences.

Theres been some defence of photography within a tenants private home space, because subletting.

As I say, the end doesn't justify the means, and as this is a thread about taking photos of tenants because of reasons, it seems.fair tonmake a stand against photography of tenants, and assert tenants' rights to peaceable living under tenancy rules.

Sub-letting is breaking the contract, so are many activities that a tenancy agreement is written to the ll and tenant.

*protect

FlaviaAlbiaWantsLangClegBack, the outcome of the Belfast Media story was positive In a constituency where there is 40% poverty, there was a backlash. It became socially unacceptable for Ex paramilitaries to use social housing as "pension" while local families were in B&Bs, hostels and overcrowded accommodation.

Few were prosecuted, but many HA and HE houses and flats were returned to actual social housing. Benefitting those on low incomes and benefits. Turns out hell hath no fury as a West Belfast Women's Group.

Actually, nothing has the fury as a West Belfast Women's group.

That is brilliant Dionne

Ha, good on them I wondered how it panned out.