CCTV Privacy in Community Schemes

By Auren Freitas dos Santos

Questions about CCTV cameras come up constantly in community schemes. Owners want to protect their homes and families. Trustees worry about privacy, conflict between neighbours, and potential liability for the scheme. Until recently, there has been limited direct guidance from our courts on where the line is drawn when private CCTV cameras overlook neighbouring properties.

The Western Cape High Court’s decision handed down on 17 September 2025 provides important clarity. While the case arose from a bitter dispute between neighbouring freehold properties, the legal principles articulated by the Court are directly relevant to sectional title schemes, homeowners’ associations, and estate living.

This article extracts those principles and explains how trustees and owners should approach CCTV cameras in community schemes.

Brief summary of the facts

The dispute concerned two neighbouring freestanding properties in a secluded residential suburb on Cape Town’s Atlantic Seaboard. The appellants installed CCTV cameras at their home, ostensibly for security purposes. Two of those cameras had a clear line of sight into the neighbour’s property, including:

• a swimming pool and entertainment area;
• a courtyard/patio; and
• part of a bedroom, which required curtains to be kept closed.

The cameras were capable of 24-hour monitoring. The neighbour objected and demanded that the cameras be removed or repositioned. The appellants refused, arguing that the cameras were necessary for security and that any intrusion was justified by crime concerns.

The High Court (and later the Full Bench on appeal) found that:

• the cameras infringed the neighbour’s constitutional right to privacy and dignity;
• the infringement was not justified by speculative or generalised security concerns; and
• the continuous monitoring of private areas constituted an actionable nuisance.

The appellants were ordered to remove or reposition the cameras so that they no longer had a line of sight into the neighbour’s property.

The core legal principles from the judgment

Although the case involved freehold neighbours, the principles apply equally (and often more strongly) in community schemes.

1. Privacy is constitutionally protected – even against neighbours

Section 14 of the Constitution protects the right to privacy. Importantly, the Court reaffirmed that privacy is closely linked to human dignity and extends beyond physical intrusion to include unwarranted observation and surveillance.

The Court emphasised that certain areas of a home attract heightened protection, including:

• swimming pools;
• patios and entertainment areas; and
• spaces where people relax, socialise, or may be partially undressed.

These are areas where a person is objectively entitled to expect privacy, even if the property is visible from certain vantage points.

In a community scheme, this principle applies not only to sections but also to exclusive use areas such as gardens, patios, and balconies.

At the same time, it is important to distinguish between private spaces and common property. By choosing to live in a community scheme, owners and occupiers must reasonably anticipate a degree of visibility, observation, and incidental intrusion in common property areas such as:

• access roads and driveways;
• parking areas;
• walkways and entrances; and
• shared recreational facilities.

An expectation of complete privacy on common property is generally not reasonable. CCTV coverage of common property for legitimate security or management purposes will therefore attract a lower level of constitutional protection, provided it is proportionate and not abusive.

However, this reduced expectation of privacy on common property does not extend to private sections or exclusive use areas. Residents remain entitled to privacy within their homes and designated exclusive areas, even where those areas are adjacent to or visible from common property.

2. “Security” is not a blank cheque

The Court accepted that security concerns in South Africa are real. However, it made it clear that:

• general crime levels;
• load shedding; or
• vague fears of intrusion

are not, on their own, sufficient to justify invasive surveillance of a neighbour’s private space.

A limitation of privacy must be reasonable and justifiable under section 36 of the Constitution. This requires, among other things, consideration of:

• the extent of the intrusion;
• the importance of the purpose (security);
• whether the surveillance actually achieves that purpose; and
• whether less restrictive means are available.

In this case, the appellants failed to show why alternative measures (such as alarms, beams, fencing, or repositioned cameras) would not achieve security objectives without invading privacy.

For community schemes, this is critical: trustees should not simply accept “security” as an automatic justification for any camera placement.

3. Line of sight matters more than intention

A key takeaway is that the Court focused on effect, not motive.

Even if cameras are installed with no malicious intent, the decisive question is whether they:

• have a direct line of sight into private areas; and
• enable continuous or systematic monitoring.

Once it was common cause that the cameras could see into the neighbour’s pool and entertainment area, the invasion of privacy was effectively established.

In schemes, this means that trustees should assess:

• what the camera can see;
• how much of the viewing angle is directed at neighbouring sections or exclusive use areas; and
• whether masking, repositioning, or angling could eliminate the intrusion.

4. Continuous surveillance can amount to a nuisance

The Court confirmed that privacy infringement and nuisance often overlap.

An actionable nuisance arises where there is unreasonable interference with a neighbour’s use and enjoyment of property. Continuous CCTV surveillance was described as:

• persistent;
• unrelenting; and
• psychologically intrusive.

Living under 24-hour observation was held to exceed what neighbours can reasonably be expected to tolerate.

In community schemes, nuisance claims are particularly relevant because schemes have an obligation to promote harmonious living and to prevent conduct that disturbs other residents.

5. Less intrusive alternatives must be considered

A recurring theme in the judgment is the availability of less restrictive means.

The Court was critical of the refusal to even consider alternatives such as:

• repositioning cameras;
• relocating cameras to different mounting points;
• limiting angles or using privacy masking;
• using alarms, beams, or fencing instead of visual surveillance.

For trustees, this principle is vital. A blanket prohibition on CCTV is unnecessary, but approval should be conditional on the least invasive solution being used.

Practical guidance for trustees and managing agents

Based on the judgment, a balanced and defensible approach would include the following:

1. Require approval for external CCTV cameras
   Cameras mounted externally or overlooking common property should require trustee approval.
2. Assess line of sight, not just location
   Approval should depend on what the camera can actually see, not merely where it is installed.
3. Prohibit surveillance of private areas
   Cameras should not have a direct line of sight into private spaces where individuals can reasonably anticipate a lack of intrusion, such as:
   • neighbouring sections;
   • exclusive use gardens or patios;
   • balconies, pools, or entertainment areas.
4. Insist on mitigation measures
   Where cameras are approved, trustees should require:
   • repositioning;
   • angle limitations;
   • privacy masking; or
   • fixed lenses where appropriate.
5. Avoid blanket rules based on fear of liability
   The judgment does not say CCTV is unlawful. It says intrusive CCTV is unlawful. Trustees should regulate, not reflexively prohibit.
6. Document decisions carefully
   Decisions should record that privacy, alternatives, and reasonableness were considered. This protects trustees if disputes arise.

Guidance for owners

Owners are entitled to protect their homes, but they should understand that:

• ownership does not include a right to monitor neighbours;
• privacy expectations increase in living, leisure, and intimate spaces; and
• refusing reasonable adjustments to camera placement may expose them to legal action.

Before installing CCTV, owners should engage with trustees early and be willing to adapt their systems.

Conclusion

This judgment sends a clear message: security concerns, however genuine, do not trump the constitutional right to privacy. In community schemes, where homes are closer together and shared living is unavoidable, this message carries even greater weight.

The law does not prohibit CCTV. It requires proportionality, reasonableness, and respect for neighbours’ dignity. Trustees who apply these principles thoughtfully will reduce conflict, limit risk, and foster healthier communities.

---

Specialist Community Scheme Attorney (LLB, LLM), Auren Freitas dos Santos, is a Director of The Advisory, a boutique consultancy specialising exclusively in community schemes law. Reach out to him via email at info@theadvisory.co.za  for a no-obligation quote to discuss this topic in more detail.