A mother-of-two has been left feeling ‘violated’ and ‘sick with worry’ after a major falling-out with her neighbour over what she describes as a ‘massive overstep’ of privacy.
The row erupted when the UK mum, who wishes to remain anonymous, discovered a new CCTV camera mounted on her neighbour’s property, positioned with a direct and unobstructed view into her back garden.
‘My stomach just dropped,’ she recounted. ‘This isn’t a camera for their security; it’s pointed squarely at our space, where my children play. It feels like we’re being spied on in our own home.’
The situation escalated when a simple, polite request to adjust the camera’s angle was met with outright refusal. The neighbour allegedly dismissed her concerns, insisting the camera was for their own security and would not be moved.
This has created an atmosphere of intense discomfort and anxiety for the family. ‘We don’t feel comfortable in our own garden anymore,’ the mum explained. ‘Every time we step outside, we’re conscious of being watched. It’s incredibly stressful.’
The Legal Grey Area of Domestic CCTV
The case highlights a growing and contentious issue across UK neighbourhoods: the use of domestic surveillance and its impact on privacy. While homeowners are perfectly within their rights to install security cameras, guidance from the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is clear.
Cameras should be positioned to capture images only within the boundary of the user’s property. Filming someone else's private space, like their garden or windows, can potentially breach data protection laws, as it unfairly invades the privacy of individuals who are not consenting to being filmed.
The mum has since sought advice, exploring her options which could include reporting the issue to the ICO or even pursuing legal action for harassment if the situation is not resolved.
A Community Divided
The dispute has sent ripples through the local community, with many residents taking sides. It serves as a stark warning to other homeowners about the importance of considering neighbours before installing surveillance technology.
‘It’s shattered any sense of community we had,’ the mum lamented. ‘It’s not about stopping them from having security; it’s about common decency and respect. A simple conversation and a slight adjustment of the camera could have avoided all of this.’
For now, the family continues to live under the unblinking eye of the camera, their hope for an amicable resolution fading as they consider taking formal steps to reclaim their privacy and peace of mind.
