When wheelchair-bound Steven Persaud, 65, installed a Ring doorbell in his Birmingham home he thought he had purchased some peace of mind in his retirement. 

Unbeknownst to the vulnerable pensioner, the innocuous act would prove to be the catalyst for a terrifying five years of shocking verbal and psychological abuse that he would suffer at the hands of his volatile neighbour: convicted criminal Stephen Groves. 

Jobless menace Groves, 59, was so irked by the doorstop gadget that he used it to justify a warped and increasingly aggressive personal vendetta against both Persaud and his carers who lived in constant fear of his outbursts. 

Over five terrible years, Groves, who claimed the doorbell violated his human rights, launched a relentless campaign of hate against his neighbour resulting in 25 court hearings, repeated police callouts and a catalogue of shocking abuse. 

He was caught on camera wielding a claw hammer, making rude gestures and screaming vile threats, including telling one of Mr Persaud’s carers he would ‘chop her up and put her in the bin’.

In another bizarre moment, he was filmed removing the hinges from a shared gate – only for it to fall backwards and nearly flatten him.

Despite a 24-month restraining order, an electronic curfew, and being hauled before the courts time and time again, he remained in his council property until this month, when he was finally booted out.

His victims say they are now living in fear that he will return or wreak havoc on his new neighbours and insist that the only suitable accommodation he deserves is a ‘tent with the rats.’ 

New footage shows the moment Groves was escorted from the one-bed bungalow, in Birmingham’s Shard End area, for the final time.

Mr Persaud’s niece, Victoria Rascinskis – who fought tooth and nail to get Groves removed – told MailOnline of the ‘full-time battle’ it took to protect her uncle and how the system ‘failed every step of the way’.

She said: ‘It’s been absolute hell. Groves should have been in prison in my opinion. Instead, we had five years of abuse and fear. We’re lucky no one was seriously hurt or worse.

‘He locked carers out, bolted gates shut and screamed through the windows in the early hours. He was a danger to everyone.

‘Yet the system protected him – not my uncle.’

Mr Persaud’s nightmare began in 2020 when Ms Rascinskis installed the smart doorbell to monitor her vulnerable uncle after concerns over Groves’ erratic behaviour.

Groves reacted furiously claiming that the camera was ‘spying’ on his bungalow and repeatedly tried to sabotage the camera with a hammer and broom – only for his attempts to be picked up in crystal-clear definition.

His antics led to him being hauled to court for criminal damage when CCTV showed him snipping its wires with pliers.

And on another occasion, Groves was filmed taking a hammer to the camera – before being filmed attempting to deface the Ring’s lens with a marker pen.

Grim footage also shows him spitting on the camera and blaring Guns and Roses’ Welcome To The Jungle at full volume.

Groves would also play electronic dance music late at night – leading to police being called, though they would often not turn up, said Ms Rascinskis.

Carers were left so frightened that one quit her job, while others had to sit in their cars until Groves disappeared.

Despite multiple convictions, including harassment and criminal damage, Groves exploited every loophole available to stay put.

He was handed injunctions and warned over his anti-social behaviour, yet continued to repeatedly breach them with impunity.

Ms Rascinskis said: ‘He completely played the system. Claimed human rights, claimed he lacked capacity. Two doctors proved he didn’t – but he knew exactly how to manipulate the process.

‘The council, the police, even the courts – it was like they didn’t talk to each other. No one had a clue. We were constantly told, ‘just one more report’, ‘just log it again’. It became a running joke.

‘The council would tell us it’s a police matter. The police would say it’s a council matter.

‘If I hadn’t kept pushing, he’d still be next door. It’s taken over our lives.’

In one chilling incident, Groves was caught hammering Mr Persaud’s windows at 1am while blaring music, leaving the disabled man terrified and sleep-deprived.

‘I was pleading with my uncle over the phone not to open the door, said Ms Rasckinskis.

‘We had an injunction in place with power of arrest, but the police wouldn’t come. Again and again, they told us it wasn’t a priority.’

Groves, who previously served time in prison for wounding with intent, claimed he believed the doorbell intruded on the entrance to his home and admitted his antics were ‘pathetic’ during a court case in 2021.

He said: ‘It’s pathetic, I know. But I feel like a prisoner. I open the gate and the camera is looking straight at me. It’s just not right.

‘But I did some silly things and I regret it.’

In 2022, Groves admitted three charges of harassment at Birmingham Magistrates Court against his neighbour and two carers, and was ordered to pay £100 compensation to each of his victims.

He was also arrested in 2023 on suspicion of the same charges, having previously also been convicted in 2021.

Groves’ eviction came only after a five-year ordeal, and over two dozen hearings – each appeal delaying the inevitable.

Birmingham City Council claimed he had disturbed other residents by blaring loud music and was seen ‘buying drugs’.

Ms Rascinskis, said: ‘He breached every term of his tenancy. He was first caught with a hammer back in 2020. That alone should’ve been enough. But it dragged on for years.

‘We went through more than seven gates – he either bolted the carers out or put the catch down so the carers or myself couldn’t enter. We drilled in holes so we could look through to check he wasn’t laying in wait on the other side.

‘I’m emotionally overwhelmed. Ecstatic he’s gone, but furious it took this long. The whole street suffered. We’ve had carers locked in, carers locked out, abuse, fear, damage. All while the council tiptoed around him.’

Groves was seen moving items from the bungalow, in the Shard End area of Birmingham, days before his eviction. It is understood he has been moved to temporary accommodation.

Ms Rascinskis, said: ‘I dread to think where they’ve put him. Hopefully not next to another vulnerable person.

‘He should be in a tent with the rats.

‘It doesn’t even feel real that’s he’s gone. I still panic. I’m scared he’ll come back. But for now, we’re free.’

A Birmingham City Council spokesperson said: ‘We can confirm that Steven Groves has been evicted due to breaches of the tenancy agreement.

‘We know that Mr Groves behaviour has caused significant distress for Mr Persaud. We can assure him that any new tenant will have to comply with our tenancy conditions and our improved anti-social behaviour policy that we have introduced.

‘No tenant should have to tolerate anti social behaviour and we will use the appropriate tools and powers available to us to address it.’

—————————————————————————————-

The new neighbour rows being waged over Ring doorbells: Smart devices behind troubling rise in feuds after highly sensitive cameras pick up snippets of private conversations from as far as 40ft away

By Eirian Jane Prosser and John James  

Neighbourhood rows over bins, noisy teenagers and even overgrown hedges have been a longstanding problem in suburbia, capable of dividing the friendliest of communities.

But now these arguments are being taken to the next level, with gossipers and grumblers being left unaware that their petty squabbles are being recorded by Ring doorbells.

Many people have reported catching local residents talking behind their backs after it was picked up by the contraption’s sensitive video camera.

The high tech cameras sold by suppliers like Ring are capable of taking instantaneous footage of streets with wide angle lenses meaning that other people’s property and activities are often recorded without their consent.

They are also equipped with deceptively powerful microphones that can pick up the slightest sound disturbances in the area, often catching snippets of private conversations as far as 40ft away.

These smart devices are fuelling a troubling rise in feuds, with mother-in-laws being caught red handed moaning about their ‘insane’ grandchildren and ‘stupid’ pets.  

One woman said: ‘Heard my neighbour bitching about us through my Ring doorbell and now I feel like a spy!’

Feuds within some communities have become so out of hand that mediators have been brought in to resolve the ongoing issues – and frenzied rants recorded on doorbells only exasperate the issues further, experts have said.

Dr Mike Talbot, chief executive of UK Media, told MailOnline he is seeing more instances of disputes caught on doorbell cameras within the last year.

He said: ‘What tends to happen when people overhear these conversations, is that people tend to fly into revenge.

‘If neighbours are already arguing about something – parking, pets, the bins, DIY – sometimes we hear of people b****ing about them on their Ring doorbells.

‘People do not find it funny and see it as an absolute betrayal of trust. It becomes like gossip spread on social media – people they are alone so they say what they like and make stuff up.

‘It results in a person storming downstairs after they’re have overheard the conversation or sometimes they will be listening in from work.

‘We have started to this more within the last year.’

The internet is replete with examples of residents exposing their neighbours with the technology. 

One user said: ‘Overheard somebody slagging off my Dad’s cat via his ring doorbell tonight, so I immediately started talking to them through the microphone. The facial expressions were priceless.. ‘

Another person claimed they had a rude encounter with a delivery man, saying: ‘Got myself a Ring doorbell and the first experience I have of it is my Chinese takeaway man slagging off my dogs for barking at the door.’

And it’s not just neighbours who have been caught red handed – delivery drivers and even family members have been also been busted by the sneaky technology.

One frustrated individual wrote: ‘I asked your driver to deliver my parcel to my neighbour through my Ring Doorbell as I wasn’t in.

‘I stayed on the camera and heard your driver, quite frankly, bitching to my neighbour about how I could have used a drop off point. I have this on camera recorded.

‘I just ordered the item. I did not get a choice of who they shipped it with, nor did I get a choice to send it to a drop off.

‘It took him about 30 seconds to go next door to my neighbour, then he moaned for about three minutes.’ 

Another woman writing on Reddit had a run-in with her in-laws after they were recorded speaking near the door – sending a notification to her phone.

It was her mother-in-law with her own mother, openly talking about the family. She said: ‘I wouldn’t have thought anything more of it until I heard her start talking badly about my family.

‘So when she left and the doorbell recorded her again, I went back and listened. She was immediately on about our “stupid ass cat” and told her mother “there’s your dose of insanity for a while” referring to visiting my children.

‘[She] then proceeded to go on about how “weird” my five-year-old son with special needs is.’

Another wrote on Twitter: ‘Caught my mum bitching about me not watering the hanging basket on our ring doorbell.’ 

The doorbell cameras can be used for more serious squabbles as well.

In May this year, Ring footage helped to expose pensioner Kevin Lawrence’s pyjama clad nighttime raids on his neighbour Carole Buckley’s wall – costing her £1200 in damages.

The source of the disgruntlement was that Mr Lawrence wrongly believed the wall encroached on his land.

The 84-year-old ex-builder was filmed sneaking out the back door of his cottage to hack at the brick work with a chisel, hammer and drill, before filling some of the holes he had made with glue-soaked lollipop sticks.

He was eventually convicted of criminal damage and was ordered to pay £900 in compensation, as well as a fine of £100 with £40 costs.

It’s not just wanton vandalism the camera’s catch either.

Earlier this year, the Labour party candidate for Bournemouth East Tom Hayes was caught apparently removing a rival’s leaflet from a letterbox.

Interesting footage showed the Cambridge graduate looking straight at the camera while wearing a red Labour rosette, before removing the Green leaflet and replacing it with one of his own.

In another example of doorbell vigilantism, a dog abuser was brought to justice after his concerned neighbour passed sickening footage of an attack over to the RSPCA.

Michael Hilton, 61, was caught abusing his terrified lurcher, named Ben, in a ‘sustained physical attack’ in Leigh in Wigan on December 6 last year.

The distressing footage which was captured on a nearby resident’s Ring doorbell resulting in the RSPCA taking him to court for animal cruelty.

Meanwhile, another expert warned that Brits could be unknowingly violating their neighbour’s privacy and by doing so being in breach of numerous GDPR regulations.

Martin Cheek, managing director at SmartSearch, the UK’s leading expert in digital compliance, told MailOnline: ‘Ring doorbells are designed to help with security and convenience and many residents find them extremely useful.

‘You can review footage from outside your home as well as communicate with say delivery drivers when you’re out.

‘But they do raise a number of privacy concerns. Because these doorbells come with cameras that record in the area outside of your front door and often beyond, you run the risk of capturing footage of neighbouring gardens and areas, including private spaces like windows or entrances to doorways, without the neighbour’s consent.

‘The cameras have motion sensors triggered by movements in order to film people approaching your front door, so you may find your doorbell is capturing the movements of a neighbour, meaning they’re being filmed.

‘The same goes for audio recording thanks to the built-in microphones, so private conversations or sensitive sounds could possibly be captured too, depending on the sensitivity settings.

‘Neighbours may not be aware they’re being recorded on a Ring doorbell or have given their consent for their images or activities to be shared.

‘This problem can widen when local communities share footage of suspicious activities in their area – this could include a neighbour’s activities or movements.

‘Ring doorbells send alerts to users’ smartphones when someone approaches the door. If two neighbouring front doors are close together enough, a resident may be alerted every time their neighbour approaches their own front door, which can be an invasive or surveillance-like experience for the neighbour.

‘There have been instances of Ring devices being hacked, which means people who aren’t authorised to access the footage, can. In these cases, the privacy of both the device owner and neighbours could be violated.

‘I’d strongly advise those with Ring devices to configure the motion detection zones and set the camera angle to focus on their own property only – it can be tempting to want to cover a wider area but people must understand they could land themselves in hot water if they do so.

‘Residents should make their neighbours aware they have a Ring doorbell and implement security practices to ensure no unauthorised access to the device and its recordings.’

A spokesman for Ring said: ‘We strongly encourage our customers to respect their neighbour’s privacy and comply with any applicable laws when using their Ring device.

‘We’ve put features in place across all our devices to ensure privacy, security, and user control remain front and centre – including customisable Privacy Zones to block out ‘off-limit’ areas, Motion Zones to control the areas customers want their Ring device to detect motion, and Audio Toggle to turn audio on and off.

‘We have and will continue to provide our customers with the features, tools and information to help them use their devices responsibly and in respect of the privacy of others.’

What can you do about it? 

It’s never nice to be spied on- especially by people who share the same postcode as you but luckily, there are measures the average Brit can take to protect their privacy from nosy neighbors. 

Doorbells with cameras and microphones risk breaking data protection laws, as these can be so sensitive that they can film video and sound outside the boundary of the property.

That becomes a problem if it breaches a neighbour’s privacy, for example by recording into their home, or recording their children. 

Under UK data protection laws, Ring users could face a £100,000 fine for breaching their neighbours privacy if it is proven in court. 

The most famous example of this was seen in 2021 when a judge at Oxford County Court ruled that Jon Woodard’s use of his Ring cameras broke data laws and that he had pursued a course of harassment during his dispute with Dr Mary Fairhurst. 

Dr Fairhurst was forced to move out of her home in Thame because the WiFi-connected gadgets were ‘intrusive’.

Audio-visual technician Mr Woodard insisted that he fitted four devices including two ‘dummies’ around his property to protect his vehicles from masked thieves who tried to steal his car in 2019.

However, Judge Melissa Clarke dismissed Mr Woodard’s claim that the driveway camera was used legitimately to deter criminals from stealing his car and ruled that ‘crime prevention, could surely be achieved by something less’ than the devices.

She concluded that the devices captured images and audio on Dr Fairhurst’s property including her gate, garden and car parking spaces, that this was all Dr Fairhurst’s personal data, that Mr Woodard had breached UK GDPR by failing to process her data ‘transparently’, and that he then ‘sought to actively mislead the Claimant about how and whether the Cameras operated and what they captured’.

The judge also took particular issue with the camera’s audio range, concluding: ‘I am satisfied that the extent of range to which these devices can capture audio is well beyond the range of video that they capture, and in my view cannot be said to be reasonable for crime prevention’.

‘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,’ she added.

A spokesman for Ring said: ‘We strongly encourage our customers to respect their neighbour’s privacy and comply with any applicable laws when using their Ring device. 

‘We’ve put features in place across all our devices to ensure privacy, security, and user control remain front and centre – including customisable Privacy Zones to block out ‘off-limit’ areas, Motion Zones to control the areas customers want their Ring device to detect motion, and Audio Toggle to turn audio on and off.

‘We have and will continue to provide our customers with the features, tools and information to help them use their devices responsibly and in respect of the privacy of others.’