It’s Not the Security Guards’ Job

Some residential areas provide for security services (i.e. security guards or guard patrols) to deter suspicious activities. Security is tighter in apartments/condominiums as it is one of the services provided for by the management.

A few months ago, I accompanied a friend to view an apartment unit he intended to buy. While waiting in the office of the management, we came across a newspaper article highlighting burglaries in apartments/condominiums. It highlighted a decision of the Consumer Claims Tribunal which rejected a resident’s claim for RM46,000+. He took a claim against the management and the security services.

Why do you think he lost?

The chairman of the tribunal decided that the duty of the security guard was not to prevent burglaries from happening – it is merely their obligation to call the police should they suspect something amiss. The guards are not required to deliberately make a chase and whack the robbers.

[Source: bigfoto.com]

Based on the agreement or arrangement with the management, the security service provided for by the management is for the care of common area and not for each individual unit. Extra precaution such as grilled doors and insurance cover for the apartment should be taken by the resident.

In the event that you think you should take legal action against the security firm, you will need to prove a strong case. Was the security guard derelict in his duty – was he asleep, not covering the CCTV, failed to patrol around the area at its designated hours, etc.

In legal jargon, this means that you have to prove that the security firm or management was negligent (meaning careless) in carrying out its duty.

So don’t go screaming at the management office or security guards if you get robbed. It’s not their fault!

Reference:
Judging the scope of security
Gated community residents upset over suit rejection

Maybe our 2 lawyers can help us shed some light on this.