Restrictive covenants clause being used to remove cctv cameras

Miss_Samantha

Ah I had forgotten that this was another area you were expert in.

Guest101

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Ah I had forgotten that this was another area you were expert in.

Actually - yes.

davidmcn

Guest101 wrote: »

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

According to the ICO:

"CCTV used on your property will be exempt from the Data Protection Act unless you are capturing footage of individuals outside your property."

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/

Guest101

davidmcn wrote: »

According to the ICO:

"CCTV used on your property will be exempt from the Data Protection Act unless you are capturing footage of individuals outside your property."

https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/

Yes that's the automatic exemption.


But not being exempt doesn't mean that the act is breached. Data protection act is not all powerful.

ibruceuk

Guest101 wrote: »

Yes that's the automatic exemption.


But not being exempt doesn't mean that the act is breached. Data protection act is not all powerful.

But the DPA does require registration with the ICO if you are capturing images of identifiable people that are NOT on your property.

Guest101

ibruceuk wrote: »

But the DPA does require registration with the ICO if you are capturing images of identifiable people that are NOT on your property.

Presumably the images are of a quality that allows identification, otherwise it would be a waste of time.


But the OP is a security expert and presumably knows the regulations.

marksoton

11052016_user wrote: »

i decided to install cameras to cover my work van which has previously been broken into on a number of occasions, .

Fit an alarm on the van?

dc197

Let's separate the two issues.
1. CCTV possibly pointing at neighbours/public spaces.
2. "Altering" your property by installing devices (any devices - even a dummy camera) to it.

Am I right to say that your developers (the beneficiaries of the covenant) have placed no restrictions regarding and have no interest in (1) ? Then reply to your developer regarding only (2).
What loss or problem have the developers suffered? What is the "or else" they are threatening?

Satisfy the outstanding neighbours regarding (1). Perhaps your cameras, like mine, can have certain areas blocked-off or made insensitive to motion? This would possibly stop recording areas not of interest and stop being triggered unless someone comes onto your property.

eddddy

The owner of the land benefiting from the covenant could potentially take you to court and try to get an injunction - that would require you to remove the cameras.

Does the builder still own land (including unsold properties) near you? If so, they may be the beneficiaries of the covenant. If not, it would be your neighbours.

TBH - I can understand why the builder/neighbours might not like your cameras. They might give the impression that there is a crime problem in the area (so much so that a home owner has had to install cctv).

(That was certainly my assumption when I viewed a property with cctv cameras on it.)

That's likely to make people wary of buying nearby properties, and so reduce property prices.

11052016_user

So this is the covenants i have susposingly breached by fitting a cctv camera:

"Not for a period of five years following compleation of your purchase to construct or erect any building or other structure (including any garden shed or other building), construct any extention or make any alteration to the external appearance of any building or structure"

And now this one:

Not to permit to be done any act or thing in or upon the property or any part thereof or any part of the development which may or grow to be a damage nuisance or annoyance to the management comany ot any occupiers of the dwellings or to the neighbourhood.

Not to add to or alter any building on the property in any way so as to affect substantially the external appearance thereof without the prior written consent of the management company such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed and in the event of any rebuilding it shall so far as reasonably be possible in conformity with the buildinc which it renews or replaces.

These are being used to make me remove the cctv cameras, are they right?