By Aisha Akhtar, HQN associate

For landlords, CCTV and Ring doorbells can be extremely helpful in tackling antisocial behaviour. But at what point do such devices go from being an acceptable method of protection to a breach of other people’s privacy, or even become harassment?

A landlord has a duty to investigate reports from customers and residents about any ‘nuisance, annoyance or harassment’ and should offer advice and guidance as part of their response. However, claims of harassment or nuisance by inappropriate use of a video Ring doorbell must be supported by corroborated evidence of specific incidents. Expression of general dissatisfaction that a neighbour has installed a video doorbell is not considered ASB. It may, however, be deemed to be a breach of tenancy if there’s a clause within the agreement which specifies permission to install CCTV/video bell is required from the landlord, and tenancy enforcement action may follow. If there’s a concern or a legal dispute between a member of the public and a resident, or another agency, about the data, this should be treated as a private and civil matter between those parties concerned.

If a member of the public or neighbouring tenant has a concern about the use of a video doorbell or the improper use of data captured, they can report this to the police. If they are not satisfied with the police response, then they should escalate their concern to the Information Commissioner’s Office for them to advise on.

Fairhurst v Woodard [2021] 10 WLUK 151 [i]

This case provides useful guidance on the key issues around CCTV and Ring doorbells and when it can breach data protection.

The dispute arose after Mr Woodard installed a number of security cameras around his home and a Ring doorbell in order to protect his cars. His neighbour, Dr Fairhurst, was disturbed by the location and direction of the various cameras, one of which pointed directly at her property. Live feeds of these cameras could be accessed by Mr Woodard at any time on his phone or smartwatch. The judge at Oxford County stated:

“I am satisfied that a reasonable person would consider that to go from [living in harmony with his neighbours] to the level of belligerence, dishonesty, threats and oppressive behaviours exhibited by the defendant over, initially, the course of a few days was unusual and alarming behaviour amounting to harassment.”

This case was decided in the County Court and is therefore not a binding authority, but it does provide a useful reminder of the key principles that occupiers should consider when using CCTV and video Ring doorbells.

During the hearing, some of the main issues discussed were:

  • The area captured and depth of view of each camera, the direction they were pointed in
  • Could these cameras see Dr Fairhurst or her visitors entering and leaving her property, her car, or the car park
  • Did the microphones pick up conversation
  • Did Mr Woodard consult with his neighbours before installation or provided adequate notices or warnings after installation of the equipment
  • The extent to which the devices activated themselves automatically, or were triggered, to record video images or and audio.

The judge found that Mr Woodard caused Dr Fairhurst alarm and distress by his dishonesty and threatening behaviour, including a threat to set up more concealed cameras. He also told her that two of the cameras were dummies when they were in fact active. This behaviour amounted to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, entitling Dr Fairhurst to damages for distress.

Using video footage in court proceedings

In deciding if footage can be used as evidence in court proceedings, a key factor to consider would be the severity of ASB captured.

The case of Molloy v BPHA [2021] EWCA Civ 1035 [ii]

A Court of Appeal decision. Following years of enduring racist abuse from a resident, the neighbour had been advised by the police to put up a CCTV camera which recorded images and sound from her front garden, the neighbours’ shared front path and the area in front of their homes. This footage was used as evidence in ASB injunction and committal proceedings brought against him by the housing association. He appealed against the orders made on the basis that the recording of the footage infringed his privacy. The court decided that, whilst it was unusual to be recorded by a neighbour, Mr Molloy’s behaviour had justified it. The neighbour’s own privacy and family life rights outweighed any considerations of Mr Molloy’s privacy. The footage was therefore allowed.

Reminder –

  • Users of Ring doorbells should be very mindful of the visual and audio range of their ‘smart’ device and minimise the extent to which it may encroach on their neighbours’ property
  • It should be noted that a software update now allows some doorbell users to turn off audio recording.

The Information Commissioner’s Office recommends that CCTV/cameras should be pointed away from neighbours’ homes and gardens, shared spaces or public streets. Users should also give consideration as to how intrusive the CCTV activity is and whether they can take steps to reduce this.

If looking to install CCTV you should consider the following actions –

  • Tell people that recording equipment is being used (and use signage where possible)
  • Ensure the range of both visual and audio recording is no more than absolutely necessary
  • Regularly or automatically delete footage
  • Carefully manage requests for access to or deletion of a recording by a person whose images have been captured (seek legal advice if you are unsure of your responsibilities)
  • Stop recording a person if they object to being recorded but only if it is possible to do so. For example, consider if the camera can be pointed in a different direction but can still be used for the same purposes, i.e. keeping the property safe.

[i]  https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Fairhurst-v-Woodard-Judgment-1.pdf

[ii] https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/molloy-v-bpha/