>> Basically a bloke with a Ring doorbell is sued and found liable for harassment of
>> neighbours for having a Ring doorbell and other CCTV.
>>
>> Some interesting points in other sources saying he broke data protection laws also which I
>> didn’t think applied to private individuals holding data but only to organisations/businesses.
>>
>> Just wait for shops, councils and other authorities to be sued if this succeeds.
I think the £100k bit is massively speculative. Simply cannot see how the claimant has suffered a loss at much more than 1% of that sum. Looks as though the County Court have found as a fact that the operator failed to comply with the law. Assessment of damages will presumably follow.
There is an exemption for domestic CCTV provided that surveillance only covers the user's own property. Once it extends beyond there then there are requirements regarding notice, subject access etc. The ICO website is a useful primer:
ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv-systems-guidance-for-people-using-cctv/
Neighbour over the road has CCTV cameras at eaves level covering his own property and a general view of the turning bell at the end of the cul de sac. Signs explain that CCTV is present an quote his house number and mobile for further details.
The advent of Ring bells and similar has led to a massive explosion in CCTV surveillance and one wonders how many users are aware of, never mind compliant with, the relevant law.
Provided shops, councils etc have complied with the law then claims are on a hiding to nothing.
We've had on placed over the office door to augment the entry phone and for evidence of occasions where people have attempted unlawful entry. We had several hundred pounds worth of damage done by somebody who would not accept we'd no face to face advice service due to the pandemic and tried to kick the door in.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 13 Oct 21 at 10:53
|
