A doctor is set to be awarded more than £100,000 in compensation after a judge ruled that her neighbours' Ring doorbell camera breached her privacy.
Dr Mary Fairhurst claimed she was forced to move out of her home in Thame in Oxfordshire as the security cameras were too 'intrusive', the Daily Mail reports.
A judge ruled that the cameras set up on Jon Woodward's property broke data laws and amounted to harassment.
Woodward told the court he set up four devices - including two fake 'dummy' cameras - around his home in an attempt to protect his vehicles, after an incident in 2019 which saw masked thieves try to steal his car.
However, Fairhurst said the cameras left her feeling as though she was under 'continuous visual surveillance'.
Speaking to the Daily Mail after the ruling, Woodward said: "I purchased a Ring doorbell and Ring motion activated camera in 2019, in good faith to protect my property and vehicles.
"To now be told these are harassment devices feels like a joke and I myself feel like I am being harassed. Many of my neighbours have cameras and smart doorbells."
The neighbours had lived side-by-side harmoniously for two decades, but the doctor claims Woodward became 'aggressive' when she complained to him about his cameras.
Yesterday Judge Melissa Clarke ruled that Woodward had breached the provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR.
The judge said the footage of Fairhurst caught on the camera was her personal data, and that Woodward had not processed this data in a 'fair or transparent manner'.
She went on to say Woodward had 'sought to actively mislead the Claimant about how and whether the Cameras operated and what they captured'.
Judge Clarke concluded that Woodward had collected data outside the boundaries of his property.
She said: "I am satisfied that on many occasions it [the shed camera] had a very wide field of view and captured the Claimant's personal data as she drove in and out of the car park."
The ruling means Fairhurst is now entitled to compensation, while Woodward has been hit with an order preventing him from continuing to breach her rights with the home security cameras.
Judge Clarke dismissed Woodward's claims that the cameras were used to protect his car from thieves, adding that 'crime prevention could surely be achieved by something less'.
She also said the cameras' audio recording range was not 'reasonable for crime prevention'.
Featured Image Credit: Daily Mail
Topics: UK News
Chosen for YouChosen for You
Most Read StoriesMost Read