Vacant Homes (www.vacanthomes.ie) and Privacy

Hupourradat

Hi,

Could I start a discussion or get advice on the right to have your property photographed and uploaded to a government database without your knowledge. As well as allegations made that its vacant? I spend a lot of time away so my house might meet the criteria (long grass, no movement - serious, these are on the website).

I don't like the idea of busy bodies taking pictures of my house at all. If Google have to remove them on my request why should anyone be allowed to do this?

Should there be an opt out option on the site and is this kind of G Man snooping even legal? Surely Big Government already has info on what houses pay full property tax and those pay as vacant?

I'd appreciate opinions.

seamus

In general taking a photograph of the front of a house is perfectly legal. "Alleging" that it may be empty is also perfectly legal, especially if it's just to a body whose purpose is to investigate whether it is.

The body's purpose is to contact owners of a property and assert whether it's vacant or not. If that happens to you, you can let them know that it is in fact occupied.

So there's not really any invasion of privacy there.

Contrary to popular belief, "Big Government" does not have one all-encompassing database of information, so obtaining Revenue records on paid property tax is not straightforward and may not be very reliable.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I would consider a stranger taking a photo of my home an invasion of privacy. I had the Google streetview of my home removed because it was a breach of my right to privacy and a security issue.
Even the notion of somebody assuming the right to consider a property of mine vacant gets my goat.

Manach

While there is likely get-out clauses that allow the state to do this within the various legislations, the concept of it implementing essentially a snooper's charter is touching on the Orwellian on the sliding scale of governmental over-reach.

freshpopcorn

Harper Fast Tag wrote: »

I had the Google streetview of my home removed because it was a breach of my right to privacy and a security issue.
Even the notion of somebody assuming the right to consider a property of mine vacant gets my goat.

Just out of interest when you did this were any of your neigbhours house excluded as well?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Just out of interest when you did this were any of your neigbhours house excluded as well?

It's a detached, stand alone, rural property.

Think_then_talk

I also had the street photo removed, they did leave next door, I would love to have the Google Earth shots
removed also.

Hupourradat

Thanks for all the replies

seamus wrote: »

In general taking a photograph of the front of a house is perfectly legal. "Alleging" that it may be empty is also perfectly legal, especially if it's just to a body whose purpose is to investigate whether it is.

The body's purpose is to contact owners of a property and assert whether it's vacant or not. If that happens to you, you can let them know that it is in fact occupied.

So there's not really any invasion of privacy there.

Contrary to popular belief, "Big Government" does not have one all-encompassing database of information, so obtaining Revenue records on paid property tax is not straightforward and may not be very reliable.

I think it may be a grey area though, after all someone can object to you taking their photograph. I think the gov are exploiting the "Alright if you get away with it" mentality.

I think the person who reports a property should be named.

It would be funny and a bit Irish if it is not possible or legal for the gov to obtain property records from one department (Property Tax) to another (Housing) yet they can encourage snoopers to do it and protect them with anonymity.

I have deGoogled the house too!

It just seems like one more step towards the State watching everything you do.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Absolutely disgraceful proposals from the Government. The vacant homes website is chilling. Who on earth is going to rat on a neighbouring homeowner, even if they don't like him, with a view to tenants moving in who might cause trouble?? This website poses a direct and clear security risk and interference to property owners.

I have my suspicions as to what's really going on here. The next step will be expansion of CPOs and forcing homeowners to take the Government's preferred choice of resident into their homes.

Hupourradat

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Absolutely disgraceful proposals from the Government. The vacant homes website is chilling. Who on earth is going to rat on a neighbouring homeowner, even if they don't like him, with a view to tenants moving in who might cause trouble?? This website poses a direct and clear security risk and interference to property owners.

I have my suspicions as to what's really going on here. The next step will be expansion of CPOs and forcing homeowners to take the Government's preferred choice of resident into their homes.

I recently watched a Youtube video where everyone who wasn't part of the elite were described as their cattle. Now it seems they are building a system to move us from field to field.

uck51js9zml2yt

It's not as anonymous as people think. I'm sure IP addresses are captured along with geolocations (even though that's optional), network details etc.

Del2005

Hupourradat wrote: »

I think it may be a grey area though, after all someone can object to you taking their photograph.

You can object all you like but if it's a public place you've no right to privacy and can only complain about it's publication not taking.

Elian Shrilling Insect wrote: »

It's not as anonymous as people think. I'm sure IP addresses are captured along with geolocations (even though that's optional), network details etc.

No need for geo location analysis when the person posting will be giving the location of the building

Atlantic Dawn

I think their plan is to shift the blame on ordinary people for the housing crisis.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

uck51js9zml2yt

Fred Swanson wrote: »

I think they mean recording the geo location of the informant.

Indeed I do as providing the geoloc of the house is optional.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Had a look at the Vacant Homes website just there - no identifying information as to who is running it, responsible for it or where and how information submitted is transferred or handled.

The potential for criminality and damage to one's property is limitless.

Must take a look at a domain lookup site to see who is running this Stasi-esque sham.

twilight_singer

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Had a look at the Vacant Homes website just there - no identifying information as to who is running it, responsible for it or where and how information submitted is transferred or handled.

The potential for criminality and damage to one's property is limitless.

Must take a look at a domain lookup site to see who is running this Stasi-esque sham.

'ol mayo county council

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Really Interested

Hupourradat wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies



I think it may be a grey area though, after all someone can object to you taking their photograph. I think the gov are exploiting the "Alright if you get away with it" mentality.

I think the person who reports a property should be named.

It would be funny and a bit Irish if it is not possible or legal for the gov to obtain property records from one department (Property Tax) to another (Housing) yet they can encourage snoopers to do it and protect them with anonymity.

I have deGoogled the house too!

It just seems like one more step towards the State watching everything you do.

The High Court has made a decision on the privacy aspect.

http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/9bd14182c49347be8025713300410c9c?OpenDocument

I do not believe it has been appealed or overturned

Really Interested

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Had a look at the Vacant Homes website just there - no identifying information as to who is running it, responsible for it or where and how information submitted is transferred or handled.

The potential for criminality and damage to one's property is limitless.

Must take a look at a domain lookup site to see who is running this Stasi-esque sham.

It is registered by Mayo County Council.

Really Interested

Fred Swanson wrote: »

What is the legal basis for the collection of such information?

Ask Mayo county council and the minister for local government

seamus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They're asking for it.

On what basis is the collection of this information illegal?

Harper Fast Tag wrote: »

I would consider a stranger taking a photo of my home an invasion of privacy.

What you consider to be invastion of privacy doesn't mean it is.

I had the Google streetview of my home removed because it was a breach of my right to privacy and a security issue.

You had it removed because Google allow you to do so in good faith. They are under no legal obligation to do so.

It would be funny and a bit Irish if it is not possible or legal for the gov to obtain property records from one department (Property Tax) to another (Housing) yet they can encourage snoopers to do it and protect them with anonymity.

I have no doubt that if the government had one big database on everyone that any government department could access with impunity, you'd be spitting feathers. Yet when they don't have such a database, you think it's ridiculous.

The collection of this information appears on the face of it to be perfectly legal.

Peregrinus

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Generally you don't need a "legal basis" to collect information. You need a legal basis to stop someone collecting information.

AlanG

IMO this site is fine as it only gathers information and does not distribute it like Google. It is likely that it will fall foul of GDPR as it has a notes field that will most likely end up having peoples names entered. Site only has a 3 month cert so it looks like they figured it wont last long.

Mrs Shuttleworth

Legal or otherwise, if I stood outside someone's house, a house I have no connection with, and took several photographs of it (as the site requests turncoats to do) I shouldn't be surprised if someone saw fit to call the Gardai.

seamus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Legal or otherwise, if I stood outside someone's house, a house I have no connection with, and took several photographs of it (as the site requests turncoats to do) I shouldn't be surprised if someone saw fit to call the Gardai.

Sure. And the Gardai would do nothing about it unless a law has been broken.

GM228

AlanG wrote: »

IMO this site is fine as it only gathers information and does not distribute it like Google. It is likely that it will fall foul of GDPR as it has a notes field that will most likely end up having peoples names entered. Site only has a 3 month cert so it looks like they figured it wont last long.

The site was developed with the assistance of the DPC.

No names are entered unless you want to set up an account.

The site needs a renewal in February 2018, not in 3 months.

minikin

Hopefully someone will record Dáil Éireann as a vacant home of democracy... given that they're all off on their jollies for the foreseeable

nsa0bupkd3948x

AlanG wrote: »

. Site only has a 3 month cert so it looks like they figured it wont last long.

They're using Lets Encrypt. 90 days is the longest certificate they offer, normally renews after 60/75 days.

gctest50

Hupourradat wrote: »

......

I have deGoogled the house too!

........

They are the ones that "stand out"

Mrs Shuttleworth

seamus wrote: »

Sure. And the Gardai would do nothing about it unless a law has been broken.

They would be entitled to ask you what you are doing.

And if the house is broken into, well the ninny who submitted the info to the site is a sitting duck.

Tragic to see people fall for this sh*te. Thankfully judging by the overall response not many.

Gatling

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

They would be entitled to ask you what you are doing.

Do you honestly think they would rush there just to ask someone why they're taking photos

Mrs Shuttleworth

Gatling wrote: »

Do you honestly think they would rush there just to ask someone why they're taking photos

They may or may not, it depends on the conduct of the "snitch", but it's a distinct possibility as it could be perceived as loitering with intent. You could be taking photos with a view to breaking in later on. If you were taking photos, and randomly quizzed, and replied that you were planning on uploading photos to the vacanthomes website, do you honestly think the Gardai would believe you?

The first question they would ask is, why?

A couple of houses near me are vacant. If I report them (why would I do that anyway?) to the website, and give my name - even if I don't they can trace an IP address - I'm a sitting duck if there's a burglary, both in civil and criminal liability.

Mod deletion. Unfounded accusation

If someone was burgled in the coming weeks and it transpires that their property was uploaded to this website prior to the break in I'd wager they would have a prima facie case in action against Mayo County Council and whoever furnished information.

gctest50

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

.........

The first question they would ask is, why?

vacanthomes dot ie

Mrs Shuttleworth

gctest50 wrote: »

vacanthomes dot ie

It makes no logical sense at all that anyone would report a vacant property to authorities, unless it is completely dilapidated and a safety risk in that case uninhabitable in any event.

gctest50

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

It makes no logical sense at all that anyone would report a vacant property to authorities, .......

Makes perfect sense, vacant properties in the area attract the wrong sort of visitor

That sort of visitor are like rats, if they know there's no copper plumbing n tanks to be got, they won't be around


this exists too :



http://www.housing.gov.ie/housing/social-housing/leasing/repair-and-leasing-scheme-rls-frequently-asked-questions

The scheme is targeted at owners of vacant properties who cannot afford or access the funding needed to bring their properties up to the required standard for rental property

The Repair and Leasing Scheme (RLS) has been developed to assist private property owners and local authorities or Approved Housing Bodies (AHBs) to harness the accommodation potential that exists in certain vacant properties across Ireland.

seamus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

It makes no logical sense at all that anyone would report a vacant property to authorities

To you.

Some people may see it as a civic duty to flag up vacant properties when the country is in the middle of a housing crisis.

Your use of inflammatory language - snitch, ninny, turncoat, Stasi, rat - illustrates that you automatically consider the state to be an enemy of the individual which seeks to undermine the rights of the individual.

So it doesn't surprise me why you'd have trouble understanding that other people don't feel the same way.

Anyway, your assertion that taking photos of a vacant property could find you liable for burglary charges is unfounded Mod deletion

Mrs Shuttleworth

gctest50 wrote: »

Makes perfect sense, vacant properties in the area attract the wrong sort of visitor

That sort of visitor are like rats, if they know there's no copper plumbing n tanks to be got, they won't be around


this exists too :



http://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/repair-leasing-faqs_feb-2017.pdf

If an owner wants to avail of that scheme let him apply himself.

It's none of my business to be a snitch to the State as to what he wants to do with his property, or what his personal circumstances are.

Mrs Shuttleworth

seamus wrote: »

To you.

Some people may see it as a civic duty to flag up vacant properties when the country is in the middle of a housing crisis.

Your use of inflammatory language - snitch, ninny, turncoat, Stasi, rat - illustrates that you automatically consider the state to be an enemy of the individual which seeks to undermine the rights of the individual.

So it doesn't surprise me why you'd have trouble understanding that other people don't feel the same way.

Anyway, your assertion that taking photos of a vacant property could find you liable for burglary charges is unfounded and hysterical.

Agreed. I fully believe that.

It's not the State's business, or mine, what anyone does with property they lawfully purchased (other than accommodating criminal or anti-social activity).

Feel free to suffer from Stockholm Syndrome if it makes you feel important.

seamus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

It's not the State's business, or mine, what anyone does with property they lawfully purchased (other than accommodating criminal or anti-social activity).

Well, that's a matter for a different forum. This is the legal discussion forum. Whether you consider the purpose of the website to be morally right or wrong, it's still legal.

Mrs Shuttleworth

seamus wrote: »

Well, that's a matter for a different forum. This is the legal discussion forum. Whether you consider the purpose of the website to be morally right or wrong, it's still legal.

It's not a matter for a different forum when it's mooted that Compulsory Purchase Orders be expanded.

I find your motive for being on this thread very suspect.

Mod
I don't see anything suspect in what Séamus posted

GM228

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

They may or may not, it depends on the conduct of the "snitch", but it's a distinct possibility as it could be perceived as loitering with intent. You could be taking photos with a view to breaking in later on. If you were taking photos, and randomly quizzed, and replied that you were planning on uploading photos to the vacanthomes website, do you honestly think the Gardai would believe you?

Weather or not they believe you is irrelevant. There is no crime of loitering or loitering with intent in Ireland.

When loitering in a manner which gives rise to a reasonable apprehension for the safety of persons or the safety of property or for the maintenance of the public peace, Gardaí can ask you to leave, but the photo is already taken. The problem is the Gardaí must suspect with reasonable cause that you are doing so and you must not have any reasonable excuse before they can do so. Taking a photograph is a fairly reasonable excuse which would not give rise to reasonable cause.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

The first question they would ask is, why?

The thing is you are only taking a picture, by the time the Gardaí are called and respond the chances is still being there to be asked why are very slim. And if you are there you say why and that is the end of it.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

If someone was burgled in the coming weeks and it transpires that their property was uploaded to this website prior to the break in I'd wager they would have a prima facie case in action against Mayo County Council and whoever furnished information.

A case for what exactly? The information supplied isn't published.

gctest50

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

It's not the State's business, or mine, what anyone does with property they lawfully purchased (other than accommodating criminal or anti-social activity)........

It's the States business to try look after everybody

if you have a place that ( looks ) vacant, it will attract the wrong sort of visitor


If you have a place that "looks vacant " you are accommodating criminal/anti-social behavior

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

.......

(other than accommodating criminal or anti-social activity)........

Mrs Shuttleworth

God bless the innocence of some posters on here.

They'll learn.

trixiebust

Peregrinus wrote:

Generally you don't need a "legal basis" to collect information. You need a legal basis to stop someone collecting information.

I'm living in an estate of about 200 houses, of which approx 65 houses are empty. Have been so, since 2007.

Looking in the windows ( the one's that aren't broken anyway ), it's like a time warp. Newspapers on the ground, half finished coke bottles.

It's like someone walked in one day and said " right lads pack up, we're
finished ".

seamus

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

I find your motive for being on this thread very suspect.

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. Feel free to PM me if you have any queries about my motives rather than drag this any further off topic.

Victor

The shrill 'they tuk our properties' would be bemusing if it wren't so serious. The right to property is not unfettered.

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

Who on earth is going to rat on a neighbouring homeowner, even if they don't like him, with a view to tenants moving in who might cause trouble?? This website poses a direct and clear security risk and interference to property owners.

So, you are suggesting that "tenants ... who might cause trouble" are worse than a vacant property that is at risk of vandalism, flooding, fire, etc.

Really Interested wrote: »

The High Court has made a decision on the privacy aspect.

http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/9bd14182c49347be8025713300410c9c?OpenDocument

I do not believe it has been appealed or overturned

Interesting that the right to privacy in this case is tied to the inviolability of the home - vacant houses aren't homes.

gctest50

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

God bless the innocence of some posters on here.

They'll learn.

It can be tricky to insure a vacant house

If a kid has an accident on the site of the vacant house - who pays ?

The State ?

Mrs Shuttleworth

Victor wrote: »

The shrill 'they tuk our properties' would be bemusing if it wren't so serious. The right to property is not unfettered.So, you are suggesting that "tenants ... who might cause trouble" are worse than a vacant property that is at risk of vandalism, flooding, fire, etc.

The issue is the encroachment of the State on property ownership. You are very naive if you don't see that that's what is happening here. It isn't about dealing with homelessness. It's about creeping measures on the drip effect towards seizure in an expanded set of circumstances. Then the State can decide in an escalating fashion who they choose to house and not house. I won't say anymore but I have my suspicions as to what is actually going on here.

If a property owner leaves a property vacant as long as it is not a safety risk he is perfectly entitled to do so.

Existing laws, authorities and insurers perfectly serve the circumstances you highlight and are a separate issue.

I hope developers and property investors fight any measures involving penalties tooth and nail in the Courts.

Mrs Shuttleworth

gctest50 wrote: »

It can be tricky to insure a vacant house

If a kid has an accident on the site of the vacant house - who pays ?

The State ?

The owner if it's uninsured. Though should the kid have been on the vacant premises in the first instance? Probably not.