What’s the legal take of no turning signs on private roads

[HantsRat]

dmsims said:

Don't you have to put up CCTV signs? I wonder if the ICO knows........

You don't need to register anymore... Also their is a huge CCTV sign directly under the camera on the pole.

All their guidance on private CCTV is here: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv...

[dmsims]

HantsRat said:

Also their is a huge CCTV sign directly under the camera on the pole.

Does that sign (which looks like a speed camera sign) cover this ?

"You will also need to:

Let people know you are using CCTV by putting up signs saying that recording is taking place, and why."

[dmsims]

HantsRat said:

You don't need to register anymore... Also their is a huge CCTV sign directly under the camera on the pole.

All their guidance on private CCTV is here: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/domestic-cctv...

How does it come under domestic CCTV when it is not within the curtilage of a house ?

[McGee_22]

So GDPR only applies beyond the boundary of your property; for most this means to the extent of the garden abutting a neighbour, pavement or road but if you are on a private road, and you own the road outside your property then you may film and record to the extent of that boundary as well.

This is pretty much what those of us who have CCTV on this road do, and it means you can capture number plates and even driver images with ease and free of any data restrictions.

[HantsRat]

dmsims said:

How does it come under domestic CCTV when it is not within the curtilage of a house ?

It's on private land. It comes under the same rules from ICO. If it records public area then that's when you need to put up signs to say recording is taking place.

They may however blank off any public areas from the recording like I do with mine which means you don't need to put up signs etc as no public recording is taking place.

[dmsims]

To quote verbatim from the rules:

"The phrase ‘domestic CCTV system’ refers to the use of any video surveillance equipment mounted or fixed on your home. It can include cameras fitted to doorbells."

which is not what you are saying ???

[HantsRat]

dmsims said:

To quote verbatim from the rules:

"The phrase ‘domestic CCTV system’ refers to the use of any video surveillance equipment mounted or fixed on your home. It can include cameras fitted to doorbells."

which is not what you are saying ???

In that case they don't publish any rules for private land CCTV. Essentially it's your land to do what you want with. If CCTV covers any public areas then I would guess the same rules apply as they do for domestic. Either way, private CCTV rules are rarely enforce by ICO.

[dmsims]

Has it been established that the land is private?

Looking at the double yellows they seem to be a continuation of those on the main road.

[SS2.]

dmsims said:

Has it been established that the land is private?

Looking at the double yellows they seem to be a continuation of those on the main road.

When I drove past the end of Leigh Place a few days back, it looked very much like the private road could have / should have started from the gates, with what was between the gates and the main road still being 'maintained at public expense'.

[blueg33]

SS2. said:

dmsims said:

Has it been established that the land is private?

Looking at the double yellows they seem to be a continuation of those on the main road.

When I drove past the end of Leigh Place a few days back, it looked very much like the private road could have / should have started from the gates, with what was between the gates and the main road still being 'maintained at public expense'.

Land registry will tell you.

[Gareth79]

blueg33 said:

SS2. said:

dmsims said:

Has it been established that the land is private?

Looking at the double yellows they seem to be a continuation of those on the main road.

When I drove past the end of Leigh Place a few days back, it looked very much like the private road could have / should have started from the gates, with what was between the gates and the main road still being 'maintained at public expense'.

Land registry will tell you.

Looks like the grass frontage to the right is unregistered land, it may or may not be public/council, but it's fenced off by them regardless. The access road is divided into two parcels, one registered under 33885244 the other under 33894483. The access road runs right up to the footpath/road line.

https://imgur.com/a/pAamamW

You can see that the double-yellows end at the footpath with a bar, but have been continued on almost perfectly - I wonder if somebody saw them painting it and slipped them a tenner to carry them up to the gate!

Edited by Gareth79 on Tuesday 10th September 18:56

[Trophy Husband]

Wind the residents up or don't wind them up.
To me it is very simple.
They are your choices. If it were me I'd choose not to wind them up.
They've established their character by the very existence of the array of blockers.
Giggle and move on.
Worry about big stuff maybe?

[Swervin_Mervin]

blueg33 said:

SS2. said:

dmsims said:

Has it been established that the land is private?

Looking at the double yellows they seem to be a continuation of those on the main road.

When I drove past the end of Leigh Place a few days back, it looked very much like the private road could have / should have started from the gates, with what was between the gates and the main road still being 'maintained at public expense'.

Land registry will tell you.

Rarely tells you if land forms part of the adopted highway. In fact, I've never come across any title that does so.

[Swervin_Mervin]

Gareth79 said:

blueg33 said:

SS2. said:

dmsims said:

Has it been established that the land is private?

Looking at the double yellows they seem to be a continuation of those on the main road.

When I drove past the end of Leigh Place a few days back, it looked very much like the private road could have / should have started from the gates, with what was between the gates and the main road still being 'maintained at public expense'.

Land registry will tell you.

Looks like the grass frontage to the right is unregistered land, it may or may not be public/council, but it's fenced off by them regardless. The access road is divided into two parcels, one registered under 33885244 the other under 33894483. The access road runs right up to the footpath/road line.

https://imgur.com/a/pAamamW

You can see that the double-yellows end at the footpath with a bar, but have been continued on almost perfectly - I wonder if somebody saw them painting it and slipped them a tenner to carry them up to the gate!

Edited by Gareth79 on Tuesday 10th September 18:56

Title means nothing regarding adopted highway - it simply tells you who holds the title to the land. You'd have to check the limits of adoption with Surrey CC

And you can have double yellows on unadopted public highway. However, it does look like the markings have been "extended" beyond their likely legal limit

[Hol]

Trophy Husband said:

Wind the residents up or don't wind them up.
To me it is very simple.
They are your choices. If it were me I'd choose not to wind them up.
They've established their character by the very existence of the array of blockers.
Giggle and move on.
Worry about big stuff maybe?

+1