Widow in tears over request to insure communal hall stairlift
AN 80-year-old Churston pensioner has been left upset after being warned of the consequences of installing a stairlift and security camera in a communal hallway.
Disabled widow Doris King feared falling downstairs at her first-floor flat after neck problems affected her balance, so she took action.
-
But after installing the devices, the on-site committee which manages the private accommodation blocks has told Doris she had no formal permission for structural alterations.
Committee members say she will have to move the camera and make sure the stairlift is insured and regularly maintained.
Doris said: "We all own our private flats here, but there is a management committee. I already pay a service charge which includes public liability insurance.
"The letter from the committee has really upset me. I cried for two days.
"In the block where I live, the only other resident on my floor is happy with the stairlift.
"My legs are so unreliable, it's the only way I could get out in an emergency myself."
Security also bothers Doris.
"There's no lock on the front door downstairs" she said.
"Anyone can get in. It even jams open sometimes, so I installed a small CCTV camera upstairs to make sure I knew who was coming upstairs and ringing my doorbell.
"They even objected to that. They said it could breach the Data Protection Act to film other people without their permission even though my only neighbour, who is 92, is happy with it. They told me I could be prosecuted. I was very upset."
Management company chairman Mrs Elaine Ellis, who also lives on site but runs a business elsewhere, said: "Mrs King has got it all out of perspective. We have taken legal advice from a Paignton solicitor and what action should be taken in the best interests of the estate.
"We are not happy that the CCTV points down the stairwell and have asked for changes by November 25 otherwise she will be breaking the law. Our insurers are also not happy with the structural changes in communal areas.
"We understand she needs the stairlift but we have to consider accidents. If anyone else is injured, she needs proper insurance.
"Hopefully, we can reach some kind of agreement but she will certainly have to move the camera, and make sure the stairlift is insured and regularly maintained."
6 Comments
by Top Gun, Torquay
Thursday, November 13 2008, 8:35PM
“In the Know? I don't think so.
Dear Doris, you are "NOT" subject to the DATA Protection Act, However you are expected to use your equipment correctly. Your camera should Not look out onto Public Space, i.e. your neighbours gardens or into their property. You must respect other peoples right to privacy.
You should display a sign by the entrance to your area and near the camera simply stating CCTV in use or similar wording. This may act as a deterant on it's own.
CCTV is a fantastic tool when used properly, but CCTV is not always the answer to the problem. You should have sought written permission first, however a "Good Management Team" should be able to sort this problem out easily. My only other advice would be to speak to your Local Police Crime Reduction Officer who can offer loads of advice.
Top Gun, Torquay”
by bustaco, spain
Friday, November 07 2008, 12:55PM
“in the know - OK so security cameras with recording need to be registered and by your statement there are hundreds of premises that do not - so why pick on an elderly person who is 1. trying to feel more secure and 2. has no intention of recording anyone. If the flats had a video door entry system I guarantee it would not be registered with the police!”
by In the know, Paignton
Thursday, November 06 2008, 5:58PM
“buscato - with regard to your comment, then no, a cctv camera does not break the data protection act - unless it is attached to a recording device - i.e. VCR, PC. If it does record (such as cameras around the town do) then the 'responsible person' or organisation must register under the data protection act with the Information Commisioners Office, which Police and Local Authorities would have done. Once signed up you then need to comply with the regulations regarding storage, security, sharing and disposal of any electronic information (which includes video footage and digital stills. Those that are likely to be in breach of this are shop owners who have cctv and may not be aware of the need to register.”
by Philip Godden, Brixham
Thursday, November 06 2008, 5:35PM
“From the details given in the article this lady is certainly not a resident. She is an owner/occupier. She has installed equipment in an area that she does not own. I guess that this is a leasehold property and the management company is made up of shareholders. The common parts are therefore owned by the company not Doris King as an individual. Permission to install should have been sought and consideration given on how to restrict the use of the apparatus to one person. The question of liability is paramount here and at the moment I am siding with the management company”
by Russell, Paignton
Thursday, November 06 2008, 11:33AM
“If htis management company is so concerned about claims etc the best thing would be for the 2 residents in question to check and see if the management company is insured in case one of them falls and injures themselves and sues the company. also why are residents of that age not provided with a means of getting up and down to their homes other than stairs and why is a main entrance not provided with some sort of security. it seems to me that this resident was only trying to make up for the inadequacies of the management company.”
by bustaco, spain
Thursday, November 06 2008, 10:44AM
“what a load of rubbish. Installing a security camera does not contravine the Data Protection Act, for if it did, all the spy cameras in the town are also breaking the law. As to the installation of a stair lift I agree that in today's climate of claim for everything it should be insured.”