Ruislip & Eastcote & Northwood Gazette
I spy – how council uses surveillance
WEST LONDON AUTHORITY USES UNDERCOVER METHODS TO CATCH ROGUE TRADERS AND BENEFITS CHEATS
INVESTIGATORS used surveillance 10 times over three years to track down fraudsters and rogue landlords.
Kensington and Chelsea council has revealed it used directed surveillance techniques twice in 2015 to investigate suspected sub-letting and housing benefit fraud.
According to the data supplied after an FOI request, the council also used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) four times in 2014.
This law allows councils to carry out directed surveillance and access communication data such as itemised phone records, delivery of recorded post and mobile phone top-ups to investigate or prevent fraud, rogue trading and anti-social behaviour.
The cases in 2014 involved making a test purchase of fireworks, alcohol and knives, looking into alleged housing benefit fraud, housing fraud and investigating a disability claim for housing and benefits.
In 2013, the council used the act four times, to make test purchases of alcohol, tobacco and knives.
A council spokesperson told the Local Democracy Reporter Service: “All authorisations were for ‘Directed Surveillance’ as defined in the Act and the non-test purchase investigations focused on single individuals, while the test purchase authorisations involved multiple retail outlets.
“No authorisations for surveillance have been made by the authority since 2015 and no authorisations for human covert sources have ever been made by the authority.”
It said it made one request for acquisition of someone’s communications data between 2013 and 2015.
The council said there were a “number of significant changes” in 2015 which “affected the need for surveillance”.
The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) took over investigation of suspected housing benefit fraud in that year.
It meant four investigators were transferred from Kensington and Chelsea council to DWP “which affected the opportunities to use surveillance.
A council spokesman said: “As a result of these changes, the fraud team changed its focus to concentrating more on tenancy fraud, where powers under the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Act provides key evidence, rather than using surveillance.”
In January 2017, the Office of Surveillance looked at how Kensington and Chelsea and Hammersmith and Fulham councils complied with the rules.
According to a report to Hammersmith and Fulham council, this week the inspector “was broadly positive and found that both councils continue to make sufficient provision to ensure compliance”.
Authorising officers had been RIPA-trained and “were clearly knowledgeable about their responsibilities,” the report said.
Recommendations included the RIPA ‘gatekeeper’ playing a more “intrusive role” to review authorisations before and after they are granted.
The councils now review authorisations at the authorising officers’ quarterly reviews. They are also reviewed by a senior solicitor in the legal services team once approved by a magistrate, the report said.
The leader of the Labour opposition councillor Robert Atkinson said: “I support surveillance when it is to stop fraud and anti-social behaviour.
“Far from being concerned about the correct use of these powers I am disappointed that they have not been used more often.
“In this, as in many other things, the council is a paper tiger.”
I support surveillance when it is to stop fraud and anti-social behaviour