22 minutes ago, OccyVRS said:

Recording in a public place is perfectly legal,

Yes, but.... and it is the "but" that gets expensive.

This is a good guide https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property/domestic-cctv-using-cctv-systems-on-your-property

as is this one https://www.amazon.co.uk/McNaes-Essential-Journalists-Si-C3-A2n-Harrison-dp-0198898827/dp/0198898827/ which is updated every 2 years.

This one covers video, photography and a lot of associated things. It is very useful when the Police try to tell you otherwise. Again, to be fair, this is usually an area they are not experts on unlike the crimes they usually have to deal with.

Yes, agreed - however, there is a difference between having a camera pointed at the street, versus having half of it pointing in your neighbours lounge window. One is fine, the other, less so.

The legislation in the UK is, like with a lot of other things, outdated and significantly behind the curve.

Did you know it’s an offence to be drunk, and in charge of a cow? Heck, until 1960 it was a legal requirement for any man aged 18-69 to keep in regular practice with a bow and arrow.

Often, the letter of the law and the practice of the law, are two different things. As long as you deploy common sense with a CCTV system, you’ll be fine.

1 minute ago, OccyVRS said:

Often, the letter of the law and the practice of the law, are two different things

Agreed. However

1 minute ago, OccyVRS said:

As long as you deploy common sense with a CCTV system, you’ll be fine.

Absolutely not. A Police Officer can and will use the letter of the law (as they see it) regardless of common sense. Hence, saying not to involve them at all.

Just now, chills said:

Agreed. However

Absolutely not. A Police Officer can and will use the letter of the law (as they see it) regardless of common sense. Hence, saying not to involve them at all.

In the same way that they can and will prosecute you for doing 31mph in a 30mph zone - I've never met a police officer that was so rigid.

They have better things to do than worry about CCTV placement. Agreed, don't bother with them at all, but if you do, they are still very unlikely to care.

5 minutes ago, OccyVRS said:

In the same way that they can and will prosecute you for doing 31mph in a 30mph zone - I've never met a police officer that was so rigid.

I have been in a Speed Awareness course where one of the people that according to the paperwork she had was doing 32 in a 30 limit.

There were also 2 with 33 in the same spot.

Also having been a UK firearms owner and seen some of the nit-picking by police over the decades apart from complete lack of knowledge a lot of the time I am less charitable.

As a photo/video journalist again the police really didn't have a clue most of the time hence https://phnat.org/ Even now, whist it has generally improved, it is not good.

So don't involve the police unless you really need to. Besides, they have more than enough to do.

Where I am, we got together and came to an agreement all the cameras overlap and cover, so there are no blind spots. As you suggested, none go directly into anyone's windows. Then again, there is enough distance between the houses to do this easily. There are also multiple self activating lights.

Just now, chills said:

I have been in a Speed Awareness course where one of the people that according to the paperwork she had was doing 32 in a 30 limit.

There were also 2 with 33 in the same spot.

Also having been a UK firearms owner and seen some of the nit-picking by police over the decades apart from complete lack of knowledge a lot of the time I am less charitable.

As a photo/video journalist again the police really didn't have a clue most of the time hence https://phnat.org/ Even now, whist it has generally improved, it is not good.

So don't involve the police unless you really need to. Besides, they have more than enough to do.

Where I am, we got together and came to an agreement all the cameras overlap and cover, so there are no blind spots. As you suggested, none go directly into anyone's windows. Then again, there is enough distance between the houses to do this easily. There are also multiple self activating lights.

32 in a 30 is tough... do you know if that was a speed gun, or speed van? I only ask as the latter is a 'civillian' operator.

I did actually comment about out of date UK laws, but deleted it. I find my local force to be alright with the FAC, but as with everything YMMV. I know some can be very difficult, although perhaps this is for good reason.

The average plod wouldn't know anything about these laws, as you have said. An email to a force might get a better answer, but I still wouldn't bother.

With the last part, do you think the security lights are effective? I am on the fence. Part of me agrees that if the area is well lit, someone is less inclinced to do dodgy stuff, but by the same token, the number of ignored false triggers often means it just gives someone light to work.

On a lighter note i would love to be nicked for being drunk in charge of a cow ,thats so funny

Ps i dont own any cows 😁

8 minutes ago, OccyVRS said:

. do you know if that was a speed gun, or speed van? I only ask as the latter is a 'civillian' operator.

I believe it was a speed van. A hand held speed gun can be challenged on that sort of reading +/- 2 mph

For FAC I think it is down to the officer more than the force. It was very hit-and-miss if you pardon the pun.

Lights... it depends on location. We are effectively a cul-de-sac with no through traffic. It is generally dark at night unless anyone comes down and then they get floodlit. If they have done any recce, they will know there are multiple cameras on multiple houses and multiple lights. The problem then is there is only one way back out for them.

2 minutes ago, Mickvrs220 said:

On a lighter note i would love to be nicked for being drunk in charge of a cow ,thats so funny

Cue comments about the lady with you..... :-)
I know what you mean, though. It would be fun in court, like something out of Allo, Allo.

About half a century ago, I did know someone who got caught shagging a sheep....

I say "did know" we went to the same school and a few years later he got caught in a field by two police men with torches.

The field was over a river on the side of the town. There was a footbridge and being a farming area prone to poachers, someone heard a sheep making a noise late at night. Assumed it was poachers, called the police, who went to investigate....

Edited 8 June, 20258 Jun by chills

6 minutes ago, chills said:

I believe it was a speed van. A hand held speed gun can be challenged on that sort of reading +/- 2 mph

For FAC I think it is down to the officer more than the force. It was very hit-and-miss if you pardon the pun.

Lights... it depends on location. We are effectively a cul-de-sac with no through traffic. It is generally dark at night unless anyone comes down and then they get floodlit. If they have done any recce, they will know there are multiple cameras on multiple houses and multiple lights. The problem then is there is only one way back out for them.

Yeah, generally the speed vans are jobsworths. On a motorway, the police likely wouldn't bother looking twice below 80mph. Speed vans however, will do you for 73mph because they have nothing better to do (10% + X guidance is not for them).

Agreed - also depends if it's S1 or S2, in my experience.

13 minutes ago, Mickvrs220 said:

On a lighter note i would love to be nicked for being drunk in charge of a cow ,thats so funny

Ps i dont own any cows 😁

Over the years I've had a few systems, of course Swann, a couple of the generic IP systems sold on Amazon and a NAS based Synology system.

Last year I installed a Reolink NVR and now have eight cameras of different styles around the property. The trackmix and duo cameras I'm really impressed with.

I went for Reolink after watching Paul Hibert Tech reviews on youtube.

The entire system has been 100% reliable and I'm more than happy with the system, web interface, app and the notifications.

I don't have security on/off lights but have seven LED floods on dusk to dawn to keep the property permanently illuminated. Reolink apparently do some great colour nightvision cameras but I don't need them.

Track mix at night.

Edited 8 June, 20258 Jun by logiclee

2 hours ago, OccyVRS said:

From personal experience, if footage was needed and we saw there was a CCTV camera, we'd get ROCU or local plod to go and knock on the door. You're perfectly entitled to say no and it won't be held against you.

I've had the Police ask for footage at my own property and at a rental I have.

For both they have not asked for a complete data dump. They have been happy for me to look through the footage and clip anything I think relevant.

So data protection is one of my hats as well.

the rules around CCTV are actually quite complex and you have to take into account case law and published government guidance as well, just reading the letter of the law is not the whole story.
But...long story short.

Just like the majority of the law don't take the p!ss and you'll be fine.

Longer story...

You are perfectly entitled to use CCTV on your premises but you should avoid that CCTV recording video across other peoples properties. Most CCTV systems include software to block out portions of your video feed to avoid that where physical positioning cannot complete the job properly. I do this on my own system. I've told the neightbours and offered to show them that I'm not recording their houses but tbh they don't care.

Recording the street is generally considered to be ok, you actually do not have a right to not be recorded in the street but you do have the right to not have your image used for profit or business without consent. Street scenes are generally not considered to be recording individuals unless an individual is the subject of the video. Where that can get more complex is in a less busy street whre there may be a series of identifiable individuals walking past.

Should you have a sign up that asys you are recording, technically yes. Although you are unlikely to be prosecuted in any way for not displaying a sign for a domestic system. A sigh is good thing for preventing crime anyway, tbh I recommend a sign even if you have no cctv. I'm considering a fake cameras in a few locations in addition to the real ones.

So.. where you do record identifiable individuals (i.e. Ring doorbell) you technically become a Data Controller under UK-GDPR by doing that and you are required under law to process that data in a lawful manner. You could find youself subject to a legal demand for the CCTV footage you hold. Similarly should you think it funny to publish something on YouTube from your camera system you may be subject to legal action if you do this without consent.

The police may also request then demand footage from your camera system for the purpose of investigation.

Should your video feed been thought to be inappropriate i.e. you failed to stop your cameras recording the teenage daughters bedroom next door either by positioning the camera or by failing to use software option you may be subject to other legal action such as you being a stautory nusance or other anti-stalking legislation.

Are you likely to have problems with your CCTV? If you don't take the p!55, no you are very unlikely to have an issue. But be aware that otehr people may have right to the data you are recording and a failure on your part to respond properly might cause you issues.

1 hour ago, Aspman said:

the rules around CCTV are actually quite complex and you have to take into account case law and published government guidance as well, just reading the letter of the law is not the whole story.

Absolutely! That is why you don't want to involve plod as they are not up on all this. They have far more important and urgent things to do and have to keep up on the ever-changing criminal laws.

Also, this is a shifting quagmire and can be situational. What was right yesterday isn't today, but might be tomorrow.

I did come across a case where Person A's CCTV recorded over Person B's front garden. Person B's car was broken into/damaged, and Person A's CCTV video was used to secure a conviction.

Followed a couple of weeks after the conviction by a Solicitors letter from Person B demanding that Person A's cameras do NOT cover any of Person B's garden..... Allegedly a True Story™ (because I can't find the source)

21 hours ago, chills said:

Absolutely! That is why you don't want to involve plod as they are not up on all this. They have far more important and urgent things to do and have to keep up on the ever-changing criminal laws.

Also, this is a shifting quagmire and can be situational. What was right yesterday isn't today, but might be tomorrow.

I did come across a case where Person A's CCTV recorded over Person B's front garden. Person B's car was broken into/damaged, and Person A's CCTV video was used to secure a conviction.

Followed a couple of weeks after the conviction by a Solicitors letter from Person B demanding that Person A's cameras do NOT cover any of Person B's garden..... Allegedly a True Story™ (because I can't find the source)

Quite believable and Party A are completely within their rights in both cases.

6 minutes ago, Aspman said:

Quite believable and Party A are completely within their rights in both cases.

I think you mean party B.

Party B used Party A's CCTV to get a conviction and then sent a solicitors letter to stop Party A's CCTV covering their front garden.

Also, the laws and as noted, Case Law changes all the time.

So.... play nice with neighbours and work together.

No need to involve local plod as they are not fully up to speed with the CCTV stuff. It's not their main concern. When the Police do need to get involved with CCTV they use specialist units which is a very different game. .

2 minutes ago, chills said:

I think you mean party B.

Party B used Party A's CCTV to get a conviction and then sent a solicitors letter to stop Party A's CCTV covering their front garden.

Also, the laws and as noted, Case Law changes all the time.

So.... play nice with neighbours and work together.

No need to involve local plod as they are not fully up to speed with the CCTV stuff. It's not their main concern. When the Police do need to get involved with CCTV they use specialist units which is a very different game. .

I think you're right, Party B.

Plod have form for abusing CCTV themselves.
Misuse of CCTV is normally unlawful as opposed to illegal so plod won't get involved and will leave it to the regulator the ICO. The ICO in turn are completely overwhelmed and are unlikely to investigate anything that isn't a very serious breach of the legislation.

So really to some extent you can do what you like but pointing the camera at a neighbours bedroom IS illegal and plod will step in.

Edited 10 June, 202510 Jun by Aspman