Hartlepool Council’s Use of Secret Surveillance Powers Soars in 2025..

The number of covert surveillance operations being signed off by both the local council & Magistrates is increasing.

28th October 2025

Questions are being asked over a local councils use of what's claimed to be "Big Brother Powers" as its been revealed that the local council has monitored a sharp increase in the number of people becoming subject to what's known as 'direct surveillance' from the local council in the last year.

Its been reported that in the first quarter of 2025, Hartlepool Borough Council had authorised three separate instances of direct surveillance against members of the public — a significant increase compared to previous years, where the council had rarely, if ever, resorted to such measures.

The surveillance was carried out under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) — a piece of legislation originally designed to regulate how public bodies and law enforcement agencies conduct covert investigations. While RIPA was introduced to tackle serious organised criminal activity, it's said to have been increasingly used by local councils across the country for relatively minor offences, & in some cases, to monitor social media accounts of those vocal against local councils in general, sparking concerns about civil liberties and proportionality.

What Is RIPA and How Does It Work?

RIPA was brought in to make sure that covert surveillance, phone tapping, and the use of informants by public institutions are conducted lawfully, proportionately, and with proper oversight. It gives certain public bodies — including local councils — the legal power to carry out covert investigations only in limited circumstances.

Under RIPA, councils can apply for authorisation to use:

• Directed surveillance – secret monitoring of an individual’s activities in a public place, such as filming or photographing them, or following their movements.

• Covert human intelligence sources (CHIS) – using informants or undercover officers to gather information.

  
  

Hartlepool Borough Council does not have the legal authority to intercept private communications such as emails or phone calls — those powers remain strictly reserved for the police and national intelligence agencies. However, serious concerns were raised following an incident in 2023 where it was alleged Hartlepool Borough Council had collaborated with Cleveland Police in an attempt to gain unauthorised access to a journalist’s social media account. The alleged action was reportedly part of an effort to support a potential prosecution linked to claims of “harassment” made by the council.

How Councils Get Authorisation for Surveillance

A local council cannot simply decide to spy on someone at will. Under the current system, councils must:

1. Demonstrate necessity and proportionality. The council must show that the surveillance is necessary for the purpose of preventing or detecting a criminal offence and that it is proportionate to the seriousness of that offence.

   
   

2. Obtain internal approval. The application must be reviewed and authorised by a senior council officer, usually a Head of Service or Director.

   
   

3. Seek approval from a Magistrate. Since 2012, councils have been legally required to obtain a Magistrate’s approval before any RIPA surveillance can take place. The court must be satisfied that the correct procedures have been followed and that the surveillance is justified.

   
   

Only once these hurdles are cleared can the council legally proceed with covert monitoring.

A Sharp Increase — But Why?

Hartlepool Borough Council’s decision to conduct three directed surveillances in just one quarter raises important questions about why this level of activity has suddenly surged.

In previous years, local councils across the UK reported a steady decline in RIPA use, following public backlash over councils using surveillance to investigate trivial offences such as littering, dog fouling, or school catchment fraud.

The increase in Hartlepool could signal a policy shift towards stricter enforcement, possibly linked to housing, environmental, or trading standards investigations. However, without further transparency, the public cannot easily determine what offences justified such an invasive approach.

Transparency and Accountability

Councils are required to report their RIPA activity to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office (IPCO), which monitors and inspects councils use of surveillance powers. However, the details of specific cases are rarely ever made public, leaving residents in the dark about who is being watched, and why.

While surveillance can be a legitimate tool for tackling crime, it must be used sparingly, lawfully, and with full regard for individual rights. Hartlepool Borough Council’s increased use of RIPA powers is said to be raising ever more questions over accountability, transparency, and the balance between public protection and personal privacy.

As one legal expert once warned, “When councils start acting like intelligence agencies, the public really should start paying attention.”