Managing Agents Installed CCTV in Block of Flats
CJB
Heathrow. Only about 10 of these have live-in leaseholders, the rest
are sub-let to tenants. Some of these tenants have been put in by
Social Services, some have mental health problems. They're the real
problem. They don't give a damn. So last year one of them, a drug user
and drunk, got pi$$ed off with the commual corridor doors slamming at
night and decided to pull all of the door closing mechanisms off the
doors. The fact that the Managing Agents had not serviced these latter
was why the doors kept slamming.
Anyway the Managing Agents have now installed CCTV to cover the
communal car park, entrance, and commumal corridors - but not the
stairwells.
The CCTV system cost about £25,000 which will be passed onto
leaseholders in the exorbitant service charge.
The Managing Agents also got 12.5% of this cost for 'management fees.'
They are estate agents and this is how they have kept in business,
sacking the manager for their blocks of flats properties saving an
annual salary - but now nothing ever gets done, and initiating
expensive 'improvement' works for which they take a hefty fee.
They failed to inform at least two leaseholders that the work was to
be carried out and by which installation company beforehand. And they
have failed to tell leaseholders how much the system will cost to run
and maintain.
But is such an installation legal? And what protection do residents
have in law about being 'spied' on? Apparently it transmits the video
images from about 12 cameras to the offices of the Managing Agents via
the Internet. Three of the cameras are placed directly opposite to the
front doors of three of the flats so that they can see in when the
said doors are opened.
Many thanks - Chris Brady
Adrian
saying:
> Anyway the Managing Agents have now installed CCTV to cover the communal
> car park, entrance, and commumal corridors - but not the stairwells.
> But is such an installation legal? And what protection do residents have
> in law about being 'spied' on?
Given that the system doesn't cover private areas, only the communal
areas, I don't think they have any real grounds for complaint - assuming
the normal caveats and restrictions on any CCTV security are conformed
to, of course.
> Three of the cameras are placed directly opposite to the front doors of
> three of the flats so that they can see in when the said doors are
> opened.
So all that will be visible of the private areas is what would be visible
to a passer-by anyway.
bod
I certainly wouldn't like a CCTV camera pointing at my front door.
Bod
Bill
<c93c8acf-afa6-4773...@a20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, CJB
<chris...@gmail.com> writes
> Three of the cameras are placed directly opposite to the
>front doors of three of the flats so that they can see in when the
>said doors are opened.
I would be surprised if they are looking directly at the door, maybe a
wide angle view with the door in shot, in which case the detail through
the door will be minimal. Can you see where the camera is actually
looking?
There can be a plus point with such a system, I installed one in a very
similar block last year. Mainly to cut down on the dealing that was
going on, they moved elsewhere. But to make it more acceptable to the
inmates, sorry residents, I put a feed of the front door camera around
on the TV distribution system so that when they had a visitor ringing
the bell they could see them on TV as well as speak to them. This was
"sold" to them as one of the obvious benefits of the system.
--
Bill
Justin Credible
"CJB" <chris...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c93c8acf-afa6-4773...@a20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> We live in a speculative purpose built block of 36 flats near
> Heathrow.
Yep, there's your problem.
Right there.
I bet you're one of those London muppets who spend Sundays driving around
the M25 hoping to spot a shunt on the hard shoulder.
Londoners do that. A lot. Don't know why but they do.
bod
Ha! There's some nutter from Devon (I think) who spends two weeks every
year driving round and around the M25. To him, it is exciting!...Weird.
It was in the papers a few years ago.
Bod
Francis Burton
bod <bodr...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> So all that will be visible of the private areas is what would be visible
>> to a passer-by anyway.
>
>I certainly wouldn't like a CCTV camera pointing at my front door.
What's the problem? If you have nothing to hide, you have
nothing to fear. It's not as if there are any privacy issues
here, surely?
(Playing devil's advocate - I wouldn't like it either!)
Francis
CJB
> In article <86pr9oF9k...@mid.individual.net>,
>
> bod <bodro...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> >> So all that will be visible of the private areas is what would be visible
> >> to a passer-by anyway.
>
> >I certainly wouldn't like a CCTV camera pointing at my front door.
>
> What's the problem? If you have nothing to hide, you have
> nothing to fear. It's not as if there are any privacy issues
> here, surely?
>
> (Playing devil's advocate - I wouldn't like it either!)
>
> Francis
The issue is that the system was installed at our expense without
proper consultation or warning. The legal processes of consultation
were not carried out for such an expensive project. As leaseholders we
should have been offered the chance of finding our own contractors.
The installation guys (Knight Security) simply turned up one day and
did the work, and we've now got hit for the bill = £25,000 And we
don't know what use will be made of whatever is recorded. How long the
recordings will be retained. Whether we have any right to see them.
What the annual cost will be. CJB.
Ste
The setup itself is certainly legal, and the management company can,
subject to any explicit contractual restrictions, do what they like to
the block, since they own it. However, I would certainly expect that
some argument can be made about the cost of the CCTV, if they are
expecting to recover the cost from leaseholders - especially if the
agents who made the decision are getting bungs.
gareth erskine-jones
Dude. photons don't belong to anyone. I get confused when people are
upset about what other people do with photons that have bounced off
them, or which they've emitted.
Perhaps more photons are required?
This camera. It's in a fixed position?
Perhaps, as everyone is interested in photons, you should contribute
some?
A nice laser pointer. Very cheap. Stuck on your door. Pointing at the
camera. They want to collect photons - you provide photons!
Everybody happy.
GSEJ
tim....
"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73e191f6-c6c3-41a3...@b21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The tendering for the work must conform with S20 Landlord and Tenant act
1985, which doesn't appear to be available online.
If it doesn't, the tenant can ask the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal to decide
if, and how much, if the cost they are obliged to pay.
I don't think the fact that two of the tenants didn't receive notice will be
sufficient for the LVT to rule against the work, but the lack of sufficient
competitive tendering will be.
tim