My neighbours have cameras around the outside of their house and a smart doorbell.
You should be aware of your obligations when owning and operating surveillance equipment and your rights if you think that you are being filmed by a neighbour.
Harassment, issues around data protection and a breach of rights under the law could apply:
- If you have not been told about the operational cameras
- If recordings can be seen or heard beyond the owner’s property
- If the amount of cameras are disproportionate to the property size
- If the cameras are capturing audio and video footage without justification
- If your privacy is being invaded and you feel intimidated
- If audio and video recordings are being made around the clock
Sophie Kerry, litigation solicitor at Wake Smith looks at the questions about CCTV, harrassment and data protection following a recent case.
Lots of people use domestic CCTV and video doorbells. You should respect people's privacy rights and take steps to minimise intrusion to neighbours and passers-by.
This case does not set a legal precedent however, it could be referred to in future cases. It also serves as a reminder to be aware of your obligations when owning and operating surveillance equipment and your rights if you think that you are being filmed by a neighbour.
It does continue an ongoing conversation about our changing attitude towards domestic surveillance. It has become normalised in our communities.
Anyone with a Ring doorbell can turn their area of the neighbourhood into a surveillance space due to its video recording functionality and audio processors which are able to pick up sound over 60 feet away.
Therefore some residents can effectively transform public spaces into surveillance hotbeds, and even share their recordings with police.
Privacy row over security cameras and smart doorbell
A recent case ruled that security cameras and a Ring doorbell installed in Jon Woodward’s house "unjustifiably invaded" the privacy of his neighbour Mrs Mary Fairhurst.
She had claimed his devices broke data laws and contributed to harassment. The Judge upheld both these claims.
Mr Woodard, who now faces a substantial fine, claimed he installed the devices in good faith as a burglar deterrent.
Mrs Fairhurst first found out about Woodward’s new security system when she toured his house looking at new renovations.
She had been "alarmed and appalled" when she noticed a camera mounted on his shed which sent footage to his smartphone and subsequently moved out after a series of disputes.
The Ring doorbell captured images of the Mrs Fairhurst’s house and garden, while the shed camera covered almost the whole of her garden and her parking space.
The Judge found that audio data collected by the shed cameras, in a driveway and on the Ring doorbell was processed unlawfully and, at the time, the audio recording facility could not be switched off. This did happen in an update in 2020.
The audio data could capture conversations "even more problematic and detrimental than video data" said the Judge.
She said in her judgment that personal data captured from people who were not even aware that the device is there, or the recording and processing of audio and personal data, was in breach of both the UK Data Protection Act and UK GDPR.
Fairhurst v Woodward details
In Fairhurst v Woodward, the Claimant, Mrs Mary Fairhurst and the Defendant, Mr Jon Woodward were neighbours. The Claimant sought injunctive relief and damages about the Defendant’s use of cameras placed around his property, including a ‘Ring’ Doorbell.
The Claimant claimed the Defendant had invaded her privacy and intimidated her, which amounted to harassment and breach of her rights under the Data Protection Act 2018.
The ‘Ring’ doorbell installed by the Defendant also had the ability to record sound and video.
There was also a camera at the top of the Defendant’s garden shed overlooking a communal car park and a further camera with permission was placed on a neighbouring property overlooking a shared access road. This also had a light that shone into the Claimant’s conservatory. The Defendant’s case was that the cameras were installed for security purposes.
The ‘trigger’ event for the dispute was when the Defendant showed the Claimant his shed camera.
The Claimant alleged the Defendant said he could view footage from it at any time via his mobile phone or smartwatch.
The Defendant also lied to the Claimant, on various occasions, and suggested that the cameras were non-operational when they actually were.
Harassment
Her Honour Judge Melissa Clark held that the Defendant’s course of conduct amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
On several occasions, the Defendant had acted in a way designed to intimidate or scare the Claimant.
Judge Clark further rejected that the cameras were in place to prevent/detect crime.
Data Protection
The Defendant further argued that the ‘data collection’ and ‘processing’ (defined within the General Date Protection Regulation) were necessary for the purpose of crime prevention.
Judge Clark found the Defendant had misled the Claimant about how the cameras functioned and this was a breach of the General Data Protection Regulation.
The ‘Ring’ doorbell was able to capture audio from over 60 feet away. Judge Clark held that the camera’s audio recording capabilities were disproportionate to the needs of protecting the Defendant’s home.
Judge Clark also held that the camera overlooking the shared access road was unlawful, capturing audio and video footage without justification as the footage collected was from outside the Defendant’s property.
Nuisance
The Claimant’s nuisance argument failed. Judge Clark decided, in line with a previous case, that the mere overlooking from one property to another was not capable of giving rise to a cause of action in private nuisance.
Similarly, the triggering of a light on the driveway which could be seen through the conservatory roof was not an ‘undue interference’ with the Claimant’s enjoyment of her property.
Remedy
At the time of writing, the Judge has invited further proposals from those involved on what they sought in terms of any injunction and the level of damages.
Although the case is not a binding decision and does not set a precedent, it could be referred to in future cases. However, much will depend on the facts of each case.
It also serves as a reminder to be aware of your obligations when owning and operating surveillance equipment and your rights if you think that you are being filmed by a neighbour.
