Can’t Pay? We’ll Take It Away!, Channel 5, 9 October 2016

Ofcom has upheld this complaint made by Ms Y on her own behalf and on behalf of her daughter (a minor) of unwarranted infringement of privacy.

The programme included footage of Ms Y and her young daughter, and both the exterior and interior of their home, as she spoke with two High Court Enforcement Agents (“HCEAs”) who are there to enforce a Writ of Control (“Writ”) against her for the repayment of a debt for nursery fees. Footage shown in the programme of the interior of Ms Y’s home was recorded by the body cameras worn by the HCEAs, but belonging to the programme makers, and by the programme makers’ main TV camera.

Ofcom considered that both Ms Y and her daughter had a legitimate expectation of privacy in relation to the filming and the subsequent broadcast of the footage of them. We considered that it was not reasonable in the particular circumstances of this case for the programme makers to conclude that they had obtained Ms Y’s informed consent in relation to the footage of her and her daughter. We therefore considered their legitimate expectation of privacy, on balance, outweighed the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression and the public interest. Ofcom found that Ms Y’s privacy and that of her daughter was unwarrantably infringed in both the obtaining and broadcast of the footage included in the programme.

Can’t Pay? We’ll Take It Away!, Channel 5, 3 May 2017

Ofcom has upheld this complaint made by Mrs R made on her own behalf and on behalf of her two children (minors) of unwarranted infringement of privacy.

The programme included footage of Mrs R and her children, and both the exterior and the interior of their home, as Mrs R spoke with two High Court Enforcement Agents (“HCEAs”) who were there to enforce a Writ of Control (“Writ”) against her estranged husband for the repayment of a debt to a shipping company. The HCEAs visited Mrs R’s house on two separate occasions to enforce the debt which had accrued. On the first visit, the filming took place on the doorstep of her home and then, inside her home. On the second visit, the filming took place predominantly on the doorstep and driveway, and towards the end of the enforcement process there was filming inside her home. All of the footage shown in the programme of the interior of Mrs R’s home was recorded by the body cameras worn by the HCEAs but belonging to the programme makers.

Ofcom found that Mrs R and her children had legitimate expectations of privacy in relation to the filming and the subsequent broadcast of the footage of them without their consent. We considered their legitimate expectations of privacy, on balance, outweighed the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression and the public interest in the particular circumstances of the case. Therefore, Mrs R’s and her two children’s privacy was unwarrantably infringed in both the obtaining and broadcast of the footage included in the programme.

Having taken all the factors above into account Ofcom considered that, on balance, the interference with the complainants’ rights to privacy in this case was significant and of such a nature and gravity as to outweigh the public interest in programming of this nature and the wider Article 10 rights of the broadcaster and programme makers. Ofcom also took the view that the broadcast of the footage of Mrs R and her children gained by the surreptitious filming was not warranted for the purpose of Practice 8.14 ("Material gained by surreptitious filming and recording should only be broadcast when it is warranted") in these circumstances. For these reasons, Ofcom considered that the complainants’ privacy was unwarrantably infringed in the programme as broadcast.

Ofcom has upheld Mrs R’s complaint made on her own behalf and on behalf of her children of unwarranted infringement of privacy in connection with the obtaining of material included in the programme, and in the programme as broadcast.

Source: Ofcom.org.uk