AN Edinburgh couple have spoken of suffering years of "harassing surveillance" by a neighbour who snooped on their family by directing cameras and listening devices at their home.

Debbie and Tony Woolley have been awarded over £17,000 compensation after their downstairs neighbours, who run a guest house, installed CCTV and audio recording equipment which covered their front and back gardens, and left them afraid that conversations in their Murrayfield home could be recorded.

The couple, who have two grown up children, said that, fearing they were being spied on, they felt forced to pursue the action but have already spent £30,000 in legal costs, using their savings and borrowing, against the Akram family, who own the downstairs business but who live in Granton in the Scottish capital,

Mrs Woolley, 50, said: "We are relieved that the case was found in our favour.

"It has obviously been a stressful time for the whole family.

"We have suffered greatly due to the over-zealous and harassing surveillance directed at our home."

She added: "You could see that the scope of the camera must be looking in our bay window.

"I only hope she will reposition her cameras at the front and remove all audio which picks up our (conversation) and other members of the passing public.

"We have requested she does this in an email."

Sheriff Nigel Ross found in favour of Mrs Woolley, a nanny, and her husband, who works in finance, at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.

The sheriff said the actions of Mrs Nahid Akram had been "intrusive, excessive and unjustified".

Mrs Woolley said her daughter was in her teens when cameras were first installed at the guest house downstairs at the Corstorphine Road semi.

Problems began in 2013 when the Akrams applied to change the use of their part of the property from a guest house into a bail hostel for 18 people awaiting trial.

The Woolleys opposed this application and it was refused.

The Akrams installed four CCTV cameras and four audio recording boxes, which operated 24-hours a day and were set to record permanently, and at one stage the Woolleys had cameras installed.

The Woolleys' system covered the front of their house, a staircase to their entrance door at the side, and their garden area.

Sheriff Ross said that the Akram's CCTV cameras were deliberately set to cover the Woolleys' private property.

The cameras at the front of the house recorded every person approaching the Woolleys' house and, at the rear, their private garden area.

The sheriff said the coverage was highly intrusive and added: "There was no legitimate reason for the nature and extent of such video coverage."

The audio recording boxes were capable of picking up conversations in the Woolleys' rear garden.

Sheriff Ross said Mr Akram, on one occasion, taunted the Woolleys about his ability to listen to them as they spoke to each other in their garden.

Two of the audio boxes were situated immediately below the Woolleys' front bedroom windows and they feared their conversations inside their home were also being record.

Sheriff Ross declared that the Woolleys and their two adult children had suffered "considerable distress".

He said: "They have all been severely restricted in the use and enjoyment of their own home.

"They voluntarily restrict their external movements. They restrict their conversations, both inside and outside their home, as they aware that they are being recorded and do not know the extent of the coverage.

"They require to warn visitors about the coverage.

"They cannot use their rear garden at all as they do not want their activities to be recorded.

"They have suffered extreme stress as a result of the defender's unfair processing of their personal data".

He awarded Mr and Mrs Woolley £8,634 each.

The Akrams could not immediately be contacted, but it is understood they are considering appealing the sheriff's judgement.