A burglary victim, whose home contents insurance became void due to malfunctioning council-operated CCTV, is now entering the 19th year of his compensation pursuit.
Anthony Burton has requested £2,000 from Hackney Council to compensate for his losses since 2007.
The incident occurred at the Burton family’s residence on the Regent Estate in South Hackney, where a thief gained entry and stole cash, a television, a PlayStation, and various personal items. The burglar has yet to be apprehended.
As leaseholders, the Burtons contributed to service charges payable to their landlord, Hackney Council, which funded a network of surveillance cameras across the estate.
At least one of these cameras had a direct view of the back door through which the intruder entered and the communal driveway where their car was parked during the incident.
Unfortunately, the family later discovered that none of the surveillance cameras were operational at the time of the break-in.
Mr. Burton contends that Hackney Council holds responsibility, as he had been billed for the CCTV service.
Since then, he has been engaged in a lengthy effort spanning nearly two decades to secure reimbursement from the council.
In statements to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, Mr. Burton mentioned that he was told by various council representatives since the burglary that he would receive compensation for his losses due to the inoperative CCTV, yet he has not seen any payment.
The Burtons sought legal counsel, but the solicitors indicated that, although they had a viable case, the potential recovery of £2,200 would not justify the legal expenses incurred.
At one point, Mr. Burton opted to halt his service charge and council tax payments until his losses were compensated, prompting the council to take legal action against him. He subsequently settled for £1,800 in arrears, alongside £200 in court fees.
Conservative councillor Simche Steinberger, who has been involved with the situation for years, remarked that the case should be recognized in the Guinness Book of Records due to its lengthy duration and the numerous councillors and officials involved.
Mr. Burton expressed to the LDRS: “Even if tomorrow [the council] said ‘Alright, we’re going to pay’ – if you evaluate it now, the amount is likely three or four times what it was.”
He criticized the situation, asking, “How many more individuals have been impacted by this?”
In response, the council expressed sympathy for Mr. Burton’s plight and noted that they have maintained consistent communication with him.
“Following our investigations, we have no record of a promise to refund service charges, as Mr. Burton has claimed.
“We now consider this matter resolved. If Mr. Burton remains dissatisfied with this decision, he should seek independent legal counsel.”
