Does anyone know if you need to display a sign by law if you have CCTV at your house for it to be used in evidence by the police?

Found 2nd May 2015
Does anyone know if you need to display a sign by law if you have CCTV at your house for it to be used in evidence by the police?

Read this on a website, but just wondered if anyone knows for sure or experience in this sort of thing?

From website
For CCTV cameras installed in domestic premises, there is also no requirement in law for CCTV signs.

Video evidence is just as admissible in court, whether you inform the subjects or not.


as long as its only recording your property and any offence occurs on your property then you can use it I'm evidence, you don't need signs up.
signs must be used for commercial property to tell you that you are being recorded

Bit of a grey area. My friend had his house burgled and had CCTV evidence of the criminals entering the property and then driving away in his car. Get this. Because the scum were only seen entering the property and they couldn't be seen taking anything or driving away in the car, the court stated that the footage was inadmissible.

I have CCTV at home but have it inside and outside the house now.

I've also been told that I must display a CCTV sign for it to be admissible.

Signs must be visible with a contact phone number, recording must have date and time recorded onto the video stream. If you want it to stand up in court of law. Any areas of coverage that look at private property must be blanked out on the controller/dvr.

I have CCTV. Recently recorded a crime on my property. I don't have signs though camera's are very visible. It did count as evidence. If it had any other clips outside of my own land that had to he hidden or clipped out. The main factor seemed to be the quality of the images.

We have CCTV and the police have downloaded some footage of a crime happening at a neighbour's house, which happens to be in the line of one of our cameras. We only have a window sticker saying we have CCTV on the premises. I am assuming we are ok legally or the police would have informed us when they came and viewed the footage?
Not sure if it will be used in court tho'

There is absolutely no need for a private citizen to display warning signs on residential property for CCTV that covers their property.

Only commercial systems need these signs as they are data maintainers. The sign is there to inform you how you may contact them in order to obtain a copy of video footage which you or your property features in, as required by the Data Protection Act.

CCTV footage on private property is admissible as evidence providing it is of satisfactory quality and shows something relevant to the case. Signage does not come into it.

I have four stationed around my house that covered the property and partial areas of around the house such as part of the street my car is parked on.

No signs needed as the majority of the image is inside my property boundaries with id say about 30% looking into public space and not directly at anyone house.

As for buying If you want top quality for evidence purposes towards any potential crime then I cannot stress the need for HD-SDi camera which output at 1.3-2 mega pixels and a decent quality on zoom enough to to read a car reg plate clearly,

Also noted that the DVR has to be able to record in a high enough resolution to be justify the camera. A decent 4 camera set up for HD will be around £300-500

No. Private property is exempt from any signage. U can record what's on your property and further like the road in front. In the case where a crime has been commuted any footage is exempt and can be used even if no signage present. The only problem is to try and keep the time correct as it can be an issue in court.

Edited by: "kash2013" 3rd May 2015

Latest I have learned on CCTV footage being admissible in a UK court of law isn't good news. It would appear that if a CCTV camera is directed at a Public area, such as a road or footpath, evidence of any criminal activity is inadmissible. So, it's not clear cut that even if you have such evidence on CCTV, that it will lead to a conviction. And this from a Housing Association's ASB Officer having difficulty prosecuting someone for allowing their dog to foul on a public footpath and failing to clean it up. The court threw it out, suggesting the CCTV infringed the dog owner's privacy rights. I wonder would they adopt the same view if I caught him in the act and rubbed his flaming nose in it!

As long as you don't have the ability to track (IE not a ptz camera but fixed) and it doesn't look directly in to someone elses property, has the focus on yours , you are permitted to cover public areas recording if someone walks past etc through that field of view.

If it's admissible in court is decided on a case by case basis, usually based on quality of recording but certainly for now domestic properties are exempt from many of the CCTV laws for now .
I have a six camera set up and don't blank out overlooking g areas but use the masking tool to focus the motion sensors to record only when in areas of my property, that said it will continue to record when they then walk out of that etc. Police have contact me before asking if the cameras caught an incident on the other side of the road before to help then, which it did, so they had no problems with placement at that time.

we were always told there needs to be adequate signage up of at least A4 size when I used to be an installer some 20 years ago for it to stand up in court.
Post a comment