CAMPAIGNERS called for a ''root and branch review'' of spy laws today after it emerged that councils were using them to track dog-foulers and litterbugs.

Some local authorities across the United Kingdom have used the Act more than 100 times in the past 12 months to conduct surveillance under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa).

It follows the controversy surrounding the case of a family in Poole in Dorset who were tracked covertly for nearly three weeks to check they lived in a school catchment area.

The same council has made similar checks on two other families in the last year under Ripa and it defended its actions, saying the cases were treated as potential criminal activity, which allowed them to spy under the Act.

The majority of councils say surveillance was mainly used to combat rogue traders, benefit fraud, counterfeit goods and anti-social behaviour like noise nuisance and criminal damage.

Hampshire County Council used Ripa 67 times for surveillance of people. Authorisations granted almost exclusively related to work carried out by trading standards for operations against counterfeit goods. The council used Ripa 22 times to find out billing information.

Southampton City Council said it used Ripa for surveillance in 31 instances during the past financial year to "help us prevent and detect crime in the city".

Some of the incidents in which the legislation was used included benefit fraud, underage sales of alcohol and anti-social behaviour.

But the law was also used to find out about people who let their dog foul in at least seven cases, a breach of planning law, an animal welfare case, and an instance of littering.

Surveillance has also been used to investigate alleged misuse of a disabled parking badge.

Privacy International director Simon Davies called for a "root and branch review" of Ripa and questioned the huge cost to the taxpayer of the council surveillance.

"There has to be hard limits on the scope of surveillance by local authorities which do not work within the spirit of the Act or indeed the letter," he said.

"Ripa put physical surveillance on a legal basis but that doesn't make it right or morally right - it just covers the back of local authorities but at huge expense.

"Local authorities can be very petty and vindictive and they can become obsessed with issues like dog fouling and there can be a lack of judgment.

"There need to be measures in place to make sure they do not go overboard in regard to surveillance."

Human rights group Liberty's director Shami Chakrabarti said: "You don't use a sledgehammer to crack a nut, nor targeted surveillance to stop a litter bug.

"You can care about serious crime and terrorism without throwing away our personal privacy with a snoopers' charter.

"The law must be reformed to require sign-off by judges not self authorisation by over-zealous bureaucrats."