Restrictive covenants clause being used to remove cctv cameras

11052016_user

Hi,

I live in a freehold property and I am a security enginner by trade so naturally i decided to install cameras to cover my work van which has previously been broken into on a number of occasions, this was all that was needed but whilst doing the works I also fitted one to cover the front door. My property is surrounded by common grounds where anyone can walk & a communal carpark at rear therefore the cameras could view people if they crossed the path of the cameras. The cameras are zoomed & focused to only view my van & front door although a small amount of surrounding area is also viewed, this would be nessasary to see anyone committing a crime and understandably could be of concern of my neighbours.

I have now been informed by the house builder that I am in breach of a restrictive covenant where they say the cameras have alteted the apperance of the building. (The cameras are very small & painted to match brickwork colour) On calling the house builder they say its following a complaint from a neighbour.

I have written to all the neighbours who could possibly be concerned & attached screenshots of the camera views. Most have come forward in favor of the camaras however i'm not sure if i trust what i'm being told. Anyway the house builders solicitors are now instructing me to remove the installation within 14 days or else...

Can anyone offer any advise please?

Shall i remove them and re-fit in a covert fasion so the covenant is not breached, although this could give the impression of suspicious intent. Or shall i fight it & stand my ground. In the letter it accuses me of viewing their children which i found quite offensive!! i'm just tring to protect my property.

Thank you.

Miss_Samantha

Since you are able to do the work yourself easily (I presume over, say, a week end) I am thinking that changing the installation would be the path of least resistance and aggravation whatever the actual position with respect to the covenant might be.

However, I think that you might also be in breach of CCTV and privacy regulations if any of your cameras point straight at a public space.

11052016_user

Thank you for your reply, i didnt want to fit covert cameras as it could give the impression of suspicious intent. Although this now appears to be my option avoid the legal path.

AdrianC

11052016_user wrote: »

I have now been informed by the house builder that I am in breach of a restrictive covenant where they say the cameras have alteted the apperance of the building.

It doesn't matter who told the builder what, or what the view from the cameras is. If you are in breach of a covenant, you are in breach of a covenant - and the beneficiary of the covenant is entitled to enforce it.

Guest101

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Since you are able to do the work yourself easily (I presume over, say, a week end) I am thinking that changing the installation would be the path of least resistance and aggravation whatever the actual position with respect to the covenant might be.

However, I think that you might also be in breach of CCTV and privacy regulations if any of your cameras point straight at a public space.

No he isn't. Given there's no right to privacy in public, that would be impossible.


Anyone can film anything (with some very extreme restrictions not applicable here) in public.

11052016_user

The covenant clause speaks of sheds, extentions & other simlar structures I thought a small camera would not be covered by this & i may well be right on this clause. However the house builders solicitors is refering to another clause saying i should not permit anything to upset or disturb the managing agents, i find this a pretty open clause. As anything could "distrub" the managing agents... They are using these clauses as cover to make me remove the cameras, but could equally make me change my choice of dinner if it "distrubed them"....

thesaint

11052016_user wrote: »

However the house builders solicitors is refering to another clause

Have they written to you referring to this clause?

AdrianC

11052016_user wrote: »

The covenant clause speaks of sheds, extentions & other simlar structures I thought a small camera would not be covered by this & i may well be right on this clause. However the house builders solicitors is refering to another clause saying i should not permit anything to upset or disturb the managing agents, i find this a pretty open clause. As anything could "distrub" the managing agents... They are using these clauses as cover to make me remove the cameras, but could equally make me change my choice of dinner if it "distrubed them"....

I think you need to post the exact wording of the covenants.

11052016_user

I shall post the exact clauses later when i get home.

Miss_Samantha

Guest101 wrote: »

No he isn't. Given there's no right to privacy in public, that would be impossible.

Anyone can film anything (with some very extreme restrictions not applicable here) in public.

If you install a CCTV camera pointing directly at a shared car park outside your land you may still run foul of a number of laws and regulations (from allegations of harassment to data protection).
Not to mention that it might also have the neighbours' properties in direct sight, which would intrude on their privacy.

Guest101

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

If you install a CCTV camera pointing directly at a shared car park outside your land you may still run foul of a number of laws and regulations (from allegations of harassment to data protection).
Not to mention that it might also have the neighbours' properties in direct sight, which would intrude on their privacy.

You 'may' run foul of the law, but its not likely.


1: Harassment - if in public, there is no expectation of privacy, and assuming the OP isn't following his neighbours with the cameras, its not going to apply.


2: Data protection? Rubbish, there is no private data being recorded.


- Yes pointing CCTV into your neighbours property is a no-no. Though taking pictures or video of others property in of itself is not an issue.