Click the headline or link below to read the rest of this story.
Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council officers used the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to carry out surveillance for alleged offences including counterfeit DVDs and rogue builders.
The figures have been branded ‘absurd and excessive’ by a campaign group which obtained the figures – but council leaders said they were needed to crack down on criminals.
It comes after earlier figures showed the council used the powers to watch people it suspected of illegal dog fouling – and The Silhillian highlighted an inspectors’ concerns about the council’s use of the act.
Big Brother Watch found the authority carried out 44 operations in 2008/09, resulting in one prosecution.
This included six noise monitoring complaints, six for counterfeit tobacco and 16 for suspected rogue traders.
No prosecutions were brought the following year, when 31 authorisations were made for issues including fly posting and counterfeit tobacco.
The new Government has pledged to bar senior council officers from authorising investigations. Only magistrates could approve probes.
Yet the campaign group said this does not go far enough.
Director Alex Deane said: “Now that the absurd and excessive use of RIPA surveillance has been revealed, these powers have to be taken away from councils.
“The coalition Government plan to force councils to get warrants before snooping on us is good, but doesn’t go far enough.
“If the offence is serious enough to merit covert surveillance, then it should be in the hands of the police.”
The council with the highest number of investigations was Newcastle City Council, 231 times in two years.
The act was infamously used to spy on a Portsmouth couple who council officials wrongly suspected about lying where they lived to get a school place for their daughter.
But the Local Government Association, which represents councils, said: “All public authorities have a responsibility to use surveillance in a way that is acceptable to local residents and is consistent with the spirit of the legislation.
“The use of surveillance is necessary for cracking down on serious criminals like fly-tippers, benefit cheats and loan sharks.
“Local people need to be able to scrutinise how their council is using surveillance. By giving elected councillors more power, we can help rebuild public trust in the use of techniques that town halls need to crack down on serious criminals.”
In November, The Silhillian reported that the council used the act five times to watch dog owners in 2003.
And The Silhillian revealed in February that a report by the official watchdog into use of the act found that the ‘standard of authorisations could be substantially improved’.
It found: “In most cases, authorisations contain a dearth of information as a result of which authorising officers are failing to provide specific direction for the conduct of surveillance operations.”
What do you think? Leave your comments below. No registration required.
Click here to get stories by email.
