I am a director of a RMCo. We had a spate of security and break-in problems and installed a CCTV system. The security problems appear to have been solved but a group of residents are now complaining of loss of privacy, What is the Company’s legal position?
The service chargeable items in most modern leases contain a clause to the effect that additional services can be installed from time to time and it is probably such a clause on which you relied to install this CCTV system at a service charge cost. Having done so, it is one of the common services and the Company now has an obligation to maintain it just like all the other common services.
Before you installed it, the Company carried out the statutory S.20 consultation and it was at that time that those concerned with privacy should have raised their objections. I assume that they did not, probably because, at that time, it did not occur to them that there might be a privacy problem. However, it is not only burglars who are deterred by CCTV security systems: the risk of immoral or illegal use of flats tends to be eliminated when this sort of security arrangement is installed and unsuitable sub-tenants tend to look elsewhere for accommodation.
My point is that CCTV camera systems do have much wider effects than just deterring burglars. The Upper Chamber (the appeal body from the LVT) has made it clear in more than one decision that many management problems have more than one solution which is within the brackets of reasonableness and, merely because one answer is reasonable, does not mean that there is no other reasonable answer. It was reasonable to have given lessees a monitoring facility and, if lessees had objected at the consultation stage, it would probably have been reasonable not to have given lessees an individual monitoring facility. Either decision could have been reasonable. If the Company now wishes to reverse its decision and remove the individual monitoring facility, some lessees may challenge the original cost and subsequent removal costs, effectively seeking repayment.
There is a further risk of those lessees who welcome the additional security possibly taking legal action to prevent any removal. Legal action is always expensive and risky. The Directors may wish to carefully consider the full impact of the CCTV system on the block, write out a short report to all lessees setting out the experience of advantages and disadvantages so far, put the two points of view, and ask for consultation replies. Not only should such an exercise assist in establishing a majority view and strength of feeling, it would also help to stop any risk of spreading misinformation and reduce the risk of anybody instructing lawyers and commencing speculative but potentially expensive litigation.
