Plumber, 45, fears he will lose home after judge ruled his Ring camera breached ...

A plumber who has been could be forced to pay his neighbour £100,000 after a judge ruled his Ring smart doorbell cameras breached her privacy has warned he will lose his £275,000 home.

Jon Woodard, 45, from Thame, Oxfordshire, said the court ruling in favour of Dr Mary Fairhurst is 'going to ruin my life' and admitted he 'can't even afford £5,000'.

The audio-visual technician said he had been left 'extremely disappointed and shocked' by the verdict and is 'petrified' he will be left bankrupt.

The judge found Mr Woodard's use of his cameras broke data laws and his behaviour during his dispute with Dr Fairhurst amounted to harassment.

She claimed she was forced to move out of her home in Thame because the internet-connected gadgets were 'intrusive'.

The doorbells, owned by US giant Amazon, notify the absent homeowner via a smartphone when a visitor arrives at the door.

The owner can then use an app to watch and talk to the visitor by using the doorbell's built-in camera and microphone.

Mr Woodard insisted 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.

But holistic healthcare company director Dr Fairhurst told Oxford County Court the devices placed her under 'continuous visual surveillance.'

Tuesday's ruling is thought to be the first of its kind in the UK and could set precedent for more than 100,000 owners of the Ring doorbell nationally.

The court heard:

Mr Woodard told the Sun: 'This court ruling means I am probably going to have to go bankrupt and close the business down because I can't afford £100,000, I can't even afford £5,000. How is that fair?

'It's going to be over £200,000 and I'm petrified. I know I'm going to lose my house and my business, it's horrific. I won't ever own my own house again. It's going to ruin my life.'

Dr Fairhurst, who had lived peacefully next to Mr Woodard for two decades, claimed he had harassed her by becoming 'aggressive' when she complained to him about the cameras, the court heard.

Judge Melissa Clarke on Tuesday found Mr Woodard had breached the provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR.

Dr Fairhurst is now entitled to compensation and orders preventing the Mr Woodard from continuing to breach her rights with his security devices.

In her ruling, Judge Clarke said the images and audio files of Dr Fairhurst captured on the Ring devices were classed as her personal data.

She found Mr Woodard had failed to process her data in a 'fair or transparent manner' in accordance with his role as a 'data controller' as laid out by the Information Commissioner.

Judge Clarke said Mr Woodard had 'sought to actively mislead the claimant about how and whether the cameras operated and what they captured.'

She concluded Mr Woodard had collected data outside the boundaries of his property and, referring to the shed camera, added: '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.'

Mr Woodard had also installed a driveway camera, which he claimed was a dummy. The judge dismissed his claim and ruled it captured images and audio on Dr Fairhurst's property including her gate, garden and parking spaces.

The judge dismissed Mr Woodard's claim the driveway camera was used legitimately to deter thieves from stealing his car. She said 'crime prevention, could surely be achieved by something less' than the device.

Taking particular issue with the camera's audio range, she added: '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.'

Speaking after Tuesday's remote hearing, Mr Woodard said he was 'extremely disappointed and shocked' by the judge's decision.