Waste Dumped in Communal Bin Store - Tenant Denying Was Him
Discussion
At a property I let out there is a fob-access system and CCTV in various external areas. I received an email last night from the property management company with footage of two people using an access fob to gain entry to the bin store and leave a washing machine in there along with an invoice for removing it of £264.
Neither of the people in the footage appears to be my tenant and my tenant has denied it was him or anyone known to him. Furthermore, the washing machine in the flat is provided by me, so there's no reason for him to dispose of it.
I have asked the tenant to confirm the fob-numbers of the two fobs he has and the property management company have confirmed it was one of these. Frustratingly, when speaking to the management company to confirm this, they asked first which two fobs my tenant had before giving me the fob number used - In hindsight of course I'd have asked the other way around.
The management company are not backing down and my tenant is stating that he is concerned about security if an apparent duplicate fob is being used.
I'm at a bit of a loss as to what else I can use/request to show one way or the other who was responsible, or how else to resolve this.
I have requested further usage logs of the fob for the time preceding and following the entry to the bin store on the night in question, as well as any further CCTV image of the areas where the fob was used - But if it wasn't my tenant, and he had leant the fob to a friend for example, I'm trying to discover how I would prove this.
Could anyone offer any thoughts on this?
Neither of the people in the footage appears to be my tenant and my tenant has denied it was him or anyone known to him. Furthermore, the washing machine in the flat is provided by me, so there's no reason for him to dispose of it.
I have asked the tenant to confirm the fob-numbers of the two fobs he has and the property management company have confirmed it was one of these. Frustratingly, when speaking to the management company to confirm this, they asked first which two fobs my tenant had before giving me the fob number used - In hindsight of course I'd have asked the other way around.
The management company are not backing down and my tenant is stating that he is concerned about security if an apparent duplicate fob is being used.
I'm at a bit of a loss as to what else I can use/request to show one way or the other who was responsible, or how else to resolve this.
I have requested further usage logs of the fob for the time preceding and following the entry to the bin store on the night in question, as well as any further CCTV image of the areas where the fob was used - But if it wasn't my tenant, and he had leant the fob to a friend for example, I'm trying to discover how I would prove this.
Could anyone offer any thoughts on this?
motco said:
Has he still got the washing machine you provided? If so where would he have got the one he allegedly dumped?
One theory is that he provided the fob to a friend and allowed them to dump the machine. I'm just drafting an email to the property management company along these lines:Email said:
Could you also confirm if you have any clear images of the machine and/or could describe the make of the one removed from the store? If it was removed from my property it would match that of the machine provided at the start of the tenancy. I would be keen to see footage of the machine being carried out of the block to confirm this to be the same.
My thought process being that if it was a friend of my tenant the machine would not have been carried out of the block but would have come from a van or some other location. If it was carried out the block, and not my machine, it's a mix-up.Edited by romeogolf on Wednesday 17th April 12:27
dci said:
I would say the simple answer is that if the CCTV images do not match your tennant then your Tennant has lent his fob to the perp and is now denying this in the face of a £264 invoice coming his way.
This is 100% my thoughts, but I'd like something to pin it on him - For example, "here's footage of a van pulling up, someone gets out, goes inside, comes back with and unloads into the bin store with your fob, then goes back inside".Ok, draft email to property management co. I spoke to both colleagues this morning and have received a log of fob usage.
email said:
Hi G,
The log shows the fob was used both at 20:25:21 and again 14 seconds later at 20:25:35, at which time the CCTV shows two people still in the bin area. Could you explain this second entry? Secondly, as mentioned to J, the clocks did change not long ago and it is possible that either the CCTV footage or the fob log times are 1 hour out of sync causing a mix-up. Could this also be confirmed, perhaps with logs an hour before and after this incident being checked?
Do you have any clear images of the machine and/or could describe the one removed from the store? If it was removed from my property it would match that of the machine provided at the start of the tenancy. I would be keen to see footage of the machine being carried out of the block to confirm this to be the same as it does perplex me that the tenant would go to the effort of removing an appliance which would be my responsibility to replace were it to fail.
Many thanks,
R
Feedback on this welcomed before I send it...The log shows the fob was used both at 20:25:21 and again 14 seconds later at 20:25:35, at which time the CCTV shows two people still in the bin area. Could you explain this second entry? Secondly, as mentioned to J, the clocks did change not long ago and it is possible that either the CCTV footage or the fob log times are 1 hour out of sync causing a mix-up. Could this also be confirmed, perhaps with logs an hour before and after this incident being checked?
Do you have any clear images of the machine and/or could describe the one removed from the store? If it was removed from my property it would match that of the machine provided at the start of the tenancy. I would be keen to see footage of the machine being carried out of the block to confirm this to be the same as it does perplex me that the tenant would go to the effort of removing an appliance which would be my responsibility to replace were it to fail.
Many thanks,
R
xjay1337 said:
Don't know why the management company came straight to you.
If it's not your tenants then they (management company) need to prove it.... having a security fob is not a guarantee. Could have easily been dropped or lost etc.
Not sure who else they would come to other than the landlord?If it's not your tenants then they (management company) need to prove it.... having a security fob is not a guarantee. Could have easily been dropped or lost etc.
Surely if the fob was lost or dropped, it would still be my tenant's responsibility to report that for security. Even so, he still has both fobs allocated and sent me a photo of them last night to prove it as a lost fob was my initial thought, too!
Mr Pointy said:
Ask them for a print out from the key entry system for the whole day. That way you can check that it is your tenants fob & the management company aren't just saying it's the same fob number.
Has your tenant confirmed your machine is still in the apartment?
They've given a full usage log for the fob in question from just over a week before the incident. The tenant has two fobs, but there's nothing specifically untoward on the usage and the time stamp on the CCTV matches that of the fob log below for entry to the bin store. There are 3 entries to the main block, two are fob-controlled and the third is key-only (to which the tenant has a key). I suspect he uses the key entry most days as it goes straight into the stairwell, saving a trip around the main entrance area/postboxes.Has your tenant confirmed your machine is still in the apartment?
I've not asked the tenant about the machine, but at this stage suspect that if it had failed he'd have told me right away as he's been meticulous with every other repair.
strath44 said:
I think surely you have to 100% ascertain the tenant has his original machine in the property and its not the one sitting there?
I think you are being pretty nice to the tenant about this one, it shows its his keyfob I think some pressure needs put on him.
Total pita, can you not just go and uplift the machine and be done with it and put in place something to stop the situation occuring again?
£264 for an uplift is ridiculous and I would be doing everything I could to avoid that!
I've asked the PM company to confirm the machine removed (model/type) so I can cross check with tenant's. I would rather accuse them of inaccuracy than the tenant.I think you are being pretty nice to the tenant about this one, it shows its his keyfob I think some pressure needs put on him.
Total pita, can you not just go and uplift the machine and be done with it and put in place something to stop the situation occuring again?
£264 for an uplift is ridiculous and I would be doing everything I could to avoid that!
The machine has already been removed, so I can't go back and change that. I'm also not sure what I can do to stop a tenant from doing such things in future, if indeed it was them.
At this point I just want some concrete evidence that it was my tenant, or 100% his fob, used to access the store and leave the appliance there.
If the PM company can show the machine being removed from the building, I can cross-check that with what's in the flat to see if it's the same and if it's not, can demonstrate it came from another property and is likely to be a mix-up in fobs. If they show it being unloaded from a van, I can more credence to accuse the tenant of lending out his fob!
Nezquick said:
I wonder if your tenant used the fob to drop off some rubbish and then as he was leaving, someone asked him if they could quickly borrow it as they'd forgotten theirs - hence the entry 14 seconds later. That may explain why someone used your tenants fob and he may have just leant it out innocently not knowing what they were going to do?
The CCTV I've been sent shows two individuals carrying the machine up the path, one fobbing in to the bin store, shuffling it around (still being in there when the 2nd fob entry was logged), and then leaving. No one else comes or goes in the clip which is a little over a minute long.Sheepshanks said:
romeogolf said:
(still being in there when the 2nd fob entry was logged),
When you look at the CCTV, how did the 2nd fob entry get logged?Wrathalanche said:
ETA - just realised the time stamps are all from the same system, rather than CCTV time stamps, so if you someone fobbing in to the bins, and they don't come out 14 seconds later, then there's definitely something wrong with the fob log.
My current theory, pending a further reply from the PM, is that the fob log is correct, and the CCTV is also correct, but when the clocks changed one of the two did not update and they're in fact an hour apart. So my tenant may have taken his rubbish down and then fobbed back into the building a moment later, and an hour later someone else dumped a washing machine.Edited by Wrathalanche on Wednesday 17th April 12:50
The CCTV time for the first fob log is 20:26:02 but the fob system shows it instead as 20:25:21 - Only 40 seconds, but enough for it to make me doubt the accuracy of the system.
Barga said:
xjay1337 said:
Barga said:
Why are you involved with this?
They have cctv footage and the fob time.
Tell the management company to chance tenant for the money.
That's not how it works when you own the property lol. They have cctv footage and the fob time.
Tell the management company to chance tenant for the money.
DonkeyApple said:
Could it be a previous tenant?
I considered this, but the only way that would be the case is if they had duplicated the fob as the fob used to access the store according to the PMC's records is the same as the one held by the current tenant. And if fobs can be duplicated, it could be anyone.So this is still dragging on, with the management company avoiding questions. This morning they emailed as below:
I called to discuss this and was spoken over and interrupted by one of the property managers who told me that the "evidence is clear" and no further details needed to be given. I asked her for the details of how the fob could be used in two places at once and she said "we've given you all the evidence". I had to interrupt her at one point because she wasn't listening and she told me to call back later when I've calmed down.
I emailed after the call.
If I do pay this charge, and try to re-charge my tenant - How would the DPS review it if there is a dispute? What evidence would I then need to produce?
Email said:
Whilst I understand that you feel this is unjust, the evidence clearly shows that is was your tenants.
Should the need arise for continued protracted correspondence on this matter, we will be charging you a further administration charge for this.
All flat owners and residents where given ample advance warning that CCTV would be in operation and it is, and has been grossly unfair that over the years all flat owners have paid for to have bulk items removed from the bin store for which they were not responsible for leaving, which I am sure you will appreciate. This is a legitimate charge that you can forward to your tenant, but how you personally wish to deal with it, is up to you.
If payment is not made directly into the bank account, with the next 48 hours interest will then be applied along with further administration charges if necessary.
It doesn't 'clearly' show anything, especially not my tenants. It shows two people moving a washing machine but neither of them is my tenant. They have also avoided a specific question I asked about fob use during the time in question. Their original fob-log record shows it being used to open the bin store, and 14 seconds later on another door. Despite asking how this is possible, when the fob is still in the pocket of the man on CCTV, they have not answered this question.Should the need arise for continued protracted correspondence on this matter, we will be charging you a further administration charge for this.
All flat owners and residents where given ample advance warning that CCTV would be in operation and it is, and has been grossly unfair that over the years all flat owners have paid for to have bulk items removed from the bin store for which they were not responsible for leaving, which I am sure you will appreciate. This is a legitimate charge that you can forward to your tenant, but how you personally wish to deal with it, is up to you.
If payment is not made directly into the bank account, with the next 48 hours interest will then be applied along with further administration charges if necessary.
I called to discuss this and was spoken over and interrupted by one of the property managers who told me that the "evidence is clear" and no further details needed to be given. I asked her for the details of how the fob could be used in two places at once and she said "we've given you all the evidence". I had to interrupt her at one point because she wasn't listening and she told me to call back later when I've calmed down.
I emailed after the call.
My Email said:
G,
I had hoped to catch you by phone to discuss this amicably and request further details but instead spoke to J who spoke to me in the most condescending manner and refused to answer any questions.
The individuals in the CCTV are not my tenants, and the machine removed from the building is not the one provided within the apartment. Before I further accuse my tenants of wrong-doing I wish to have all the evidence available. You have avoided answering my question on 17th April. At 20:25:35 on 14/4/2019 your log shows the fob being used at another entrance ((14) Prox Ent (DEP17) GP5), during which time the two individuals are still in the bin store. Could you explain how this is possible?
Please also provide me with your complaints procedure and the terms of my lease which permit both this charge and the additional administration and interest fees you propose.
Kind regards,
R
I have a telephone appointment at 10:30 this morning with the Leasehold advisory Service to see if they can help, but at this point I'm wondering whether it's worth cutting my losses and paying £260 just to get this closed, or if it's worth pushing forward. I had hoped to catch you by phone to discuss this amicably and request further details but instead spoke to J who spoke to me in the most condescending manner and refused to answer any questions.
The individuals in the CCTV are not my tenants, and the machine removed from the building is not the one provided within the apartment. Before I further accuse my tenants of wrong-doing I wish to have all the evidence available. You have avoided answering my question on 17th April. At 20:25:35 on 14/4/2019 your log shows the fob being used at another entrance ((14) Prox Ent (DEP17) GP5), during which time the two individuals are still in the bin store. Could you explain how this is possible?
Please also provide me with your complaints procedure and the terms of my lease which permit both this charge and the additional administration and interest fees you propose.
Kind regards,
R
If I do pay this charge, and try to re-charge my tenant - How would the DPS review it if there is a dispute? What evidence would I then need to produce?
craigjm said:
Flibble said:
You could always refuse to pay and make them take you to court (or threaten that and see if they sort themselves out). A judge is not going to have any truck with "the evidence is clear" as the only proof.
Think I would go down this route. There is no real evidence that it’s anything to do with your tenant strath44 said:
If you are going the legal route I would get a bit of proper advice, you can get a solicitors letter drawn up fairly cheaply if you hunt around, asking in writing for specific evidence required and requesting valid reasons for any problems with the clear evidence such as the time frame inaccuracies. Some places might roll over at the thought of a legal dispute - I don't know how these guys operate! You could come and go a bit in writing then go for a gesture of goodwill to settle upon a lower figure ie £100 which would have realistically been closer to the actual removal with several hours worth of admin fee added at that!!!
Its worth noting that legally a landlord cannot just automatically recover management or legal costs from a tenant, you would need to check the definitions within the lease agreement to justify, normally there would be clauses to help you make sure it was ok to do this as you mention and subtract it from the deposit.
I am a little unsure as to why you are not putting a bit more pressure on the tenant? ie Was the property supplied with a w/machine and if so is that one still there? Also is there nothing that the tenant could help with to prove it wasn't anything to do with him?
The issue is that any legal advice is likely to outweigh the £260 removal charge very quickly.Its worth noting that legally a landlord cannot just automatically recover management or legal costs from a tenant, you would need to check the definitions within the lease agreement to justify, normally there would be clauses to help you make sure it was ok to do this as you mention and subtract it from the deposit.
I am a little unsure as to why you are not putting a bit more pressure on the tenant? ie Was the property supplied with a w/machine and if so is that one still there? Also is there nothing that the tenant could help with to prove it wasn't anything to do with him?
The machine provided with the flat is still there and the one in the images is a different colour to the one provided by me. The tenant isn't in any of the CCTV images shown. There's I can do to 'pin' this on the tenant - Not least without sufficient evidence from the management company who have given patchy details at best.
bad company said:
This, 100%.
They have very little evidence and hope the op will just pay up. They’d be mad to try to enforce payment in Court.
Call their bluff op.
I suppose the question is how reliable electronic fob-access records are. That's the evidence they're using to pin it to me - That the fob allocated to my flat was used to open the bin store, regardless of who was using it at the time.They have very little evidence and hope the op will just pay up. They’d be mad to try to enforce payment in Court.
Call their bluff op.
ManicMunky said:
About as reliable as any other electronic system. The data behind it however can be very easily changed.
My point is, will this hold up in small claims court? Is a judge more likely to trust their system as being correct, or the fact that the footage isn't my tenant/not my washing machine and that there's a mistake? I hate the fact that I'm being charged for someone else's waste being removed, but I'd rather pay £260 than lose in small claims.
Herbs said:
Before going nuclear on them and ending up in a situation where there is no winners, ask to see the CCTV footage (before it is wiped) of 5 minutes either side of the hour before and the hour after the alleged offence took place.
If they cannot or are unwilling to provide this then I would spin the evidence back on them that the fob being used 14 seconds later is proof that your tenant was a) not one of the men responsible or b) provided access to bins to a 3rd party.
Make it clear that you have nothing to gain or to lose in this situation and you consider it closed unless they can provide some evidence that doesn't contradict itself.
They provided CCTV of the machine being carried out the building and the timestamps matched with the next bit of footage in the bin store (although they haven't provided fob records for this). Currently I believe the fob-time issue is correct, but I do have a query regarding how it was used 14 seconds later and have asked them to explain this.If they cannot or are unwilling to provide this then I would spin the evidence back on them that the fob being used 14 seconds later is proof that your tenant was a) not one of the men responsible or b) provided access to bins to a 3rd party.
Make it clear that you have nothing to gain or to lose in this situation and you consider it closed unless they can provide some evidence that doesn't contradict itself.
If (A), then that's easy enough to drop it. But if (B) it's still my issue, so it doesn't help unless I can prove he didn't - Which currently I can't.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff