Domestic CCTV law

[Killer2005]

Morning all

A question on domestic CCTV systems and what it can cover. I'm obviously aware that you can't have your CCTV camera pointed into someone's property, however the ICO website has a section that reads

"If you are capturing images beyond your property boundary, you should have a clear and justifiable reason for doing so. In particular, you will need to think why you need these images. If asked by an individual or the ICO, you will need to be able to explain your reasons, so you should write them down now".

I won't go into full details however I'm assuming harassment and criminal damage would be sufficient reason to.

For reference, the camera isn't fully pointing into the other property, but does cover a small section of the neighbouring property where the harassment is coming from.

Thanks in advance

[anonymous-user]

Unsure about this fine point of law but do know the deeper you hunt within the law, one of two things will happen. . . . . . . .
1. Either it will contradict itself
2. Revert back to basics ( ie: Intent )

[Heres Johnny]

The OP has also contradicted themselves - it’s either filming part of 5he neighbours property or not, property being land as well as buildings.

I’d be having the video pointing at my property for security reasons, and if in the corner there was ‘accidentally and unavoidably’ a bit of something else then plead innocence.

[Killer2005]

Heres Johnny said:

The OP has also contradicted themselves - it’s either filming part of 5he neighbours property or not, property being land as well as buildings.

I’d be having the video pointing at my property for security reasons, and if in the corner there was ‘accidentally and unavoidably’ a bit of something else then plead innocence.

Meant by pointing at the property, I meant something along the lines of straight into their windows which would be taking the piss. The camera is pointed at our drive however you can see the neighbours drive at the edge of the screen.

Anyway, a slight update. My wife has called the ICO this morning, who confirmed I do have justifiable reason to have the camera pointing where it is so I'm covered.