Note that the powers the councils were using in these cases have nothing to do with the contentious encryption parts of RIPA discussed elsewhere in this thread: RIPA was a dog's-breakfast of an Act throwing together a whole bunch of stuff, some a good idea, some very much not. Some councils did very stupid things using anti-terrorism legislation and were told to stop (ostensibly because dog foulers are not terrorists, but actually because it's a PR disaster waiting to happen). The encryption parts of RIPA relate to the police -- the surveillance parts relate to local councils as well, and it's *those* busybody-stuffed excrescences on the state that have been abusing RIPA and invading privacy left right and centre.
Since slapping councils' wrists hasn't stopped them from spying, this got enacted: <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/part/2/chapter...> which beefs up the judicial oversight (though part of it is still odious, notably the part which says that legal representatives of the surveilled need not be informed of the surveillance. I note that this law doesn't say that surveillance requests can be rejected on grounds of unreasonableness, though I suspect that won't stop judges from doing so).