Caught on camera, protected by the law

For larger blocks, it is not uncommon to have parcels stolen. Many leaseholders opt to get CCTV installed in a bid to find the perpetrators. In practice, this is more difficult than it seems. The main reason is that data protection laws protect the identity of the suspects.

When a theft occurs in a residential building, the presence of clear CCTV footage presents a legal dilemma. Despite capturing an incident, property managers are legally restricted from publicly displaying images of a culprit to warn residents or aid in identification.

The common reaction from both residents and management following such an incident is to consider displaying the perpetrator's image in communal areas. However, this action is prohibited. The issue mirrors the widely reported challenges faced by retailers, who have been advised by the UK's Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) that posting images of suspected shoplifters contravenes data protection regulations, specifically GDPR.

The legal framework places property managers in a difficult position. An individual's image is classified as 'personal data', and data protection law is built upon the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. Consequently, a person captured on CCTV is legally a suspect, not a convicted criminal. The footage, while strong evidence, does not constitute a legal verdict and does not override the suspect's right to privacy. Publicly displaying the image amounts to a public accusation, creating liability for defamation and data protection breaches for the building's management.

Legally, the only appropriate action is to provide the unedited CCTV footage to the police as evidence for their investigation. While this is the correct procedure, reliance on a system that can be slow-moving often leaves residents feeling vulnerable, as the suspect remains unidentified. This creates a challenging communication scenario for property managers, who must explain why clear evidence cannot be shared with the resident community.

This situation raises a wider debate about the balance between an individual's data privacy and a community's right to safety and security. Critics argue that the application of GDPR in these scenarios may unintentionally shield those committing crimes, leaving residents and property managers with limited immediate recourse.

Until there is a change in law or guidance, clear evidence of theft will remain confidential, accessible only to law enforcement, while communities seek better ways to manage their security within the current legal framework.

Beyond the legal complexities, there are also practical considerations. The time required for a property manager to search through hours of CCTV footage to locate a specific incident can be substantial. In many cases, the cost of the manager's time, when billed at an hourly rate, can easily exceed the monetary value of the stolen parcel. This creates a difficult cost-benefit scenario when deciding whether to dedicate resources to investigating minor thefts.

Therefore, an emphasis on prevention and resident responsibility is crucial. Residents should be encouraged to treat communal areas with the same caution they would a public space. Leaving a parcel unattended in a lobby is akin to leaving it on the front doorstep of a house, visible from the street. While the area is private to the block, its accessibility to numerous residents, guests, and delivery personnel means it does not offer the same security as being inside one's own locked apartment.