Vantage Strata will implement a best-practice CCTV policy despite being cleared of any wrongdoing in a case against it in the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
The Canberra-based strata management firm was accused of failing to exercise reasonable care in securing a basement car park, resulting in its former tenant's motorcycle being stolen in early 2025, and in its handling of the CCTV footage during the police investigation afterwards.
However, in a decision released on Wednesday, the tribunal dismissed the case, finding there was no duty of care owed by Vantage and that, even if there had been, the company would not have breached it.
Chief executive Rupert Cullen said the decision was a "vindication" of his employees' professionalism under the "unwarranted" strain of the tribunal matter and media scrutiny.
Mr Cullen said he had sympathy for the tenant, Brody Schmidt, who had suffered a loss when his motorcycle was stolen, but he was pleased to have some clarity around the expectations and laws regarding CCTV footage in strata buildings.
"Sometimes it takes cases like this to draw attention to some of those nuances and intricacies," he said.
"We went through this process because we wanted clarity and we wanted to understand how the law is applied in this situation, because it is complex when it comes to CCTV and privacy."
Mr Schmidt brought the case against Vantage Strata and the body corporate of his former rental accommodation after returning from a three-day camping trip to find his motorcycle gone.
He was told police did not have the resources to look through three days' worth of CCTV footage, and was asked to pay a $210 an hour fee to have Vantage do it.
He asked for almost $7000 in compensation for the price of the motorcycle, registration, psychology sessions and tribunal fees, claiming Vantage had been negligent in both failing to secure the car park after the roller door was broken, and in its review of the CCTV, ultimately leading the police to close the case.
The footage was later deleted, which Mr Schmidt said left him with little evidence to present to the tribunal.
Tribunal senior member Jennifer Francis found Vantage and the body corporate did not owe Mr Schmidt a duty of care to protect his property from the acts of third-party criminals, and that a comprehensive review of the CCTV footage did eventually take place at no cost.
There was also no breach of duty in failing to preserve the footage, Ms Francis said.
Mr Schmidt said he was "pretty disappointed" with the decision.
"My worry would be that with what the decision says, there's not really any motivation for a strata or security company to review footage," he said.
Mr Schmidt said he was ultimately unable to present enough evidence to the tribunal to prove misconduct.
"One of my main arguments was that the lack of evidence was a result of their misconduct, but then obviously it was found that they had no reason to retain the footage, which I felt was quite frustrating," he said.
Despite the tribunal deciding in Vantage's favour, Mr Cullen said the company would take the opportunity presented by the case to improve its processes.
"We're reviewing our policy and updating it to reflect some of those privacy matters, particularly when the police get involved, making sure we act quickly," he said.
"We'll do some education to all our committees and all our owners as well over the next couple of months about what the outcome was and what we're doing in terms of the learnings."
The company would adopt a company-wide policy against charging for reviewing CCTV as part of a police investigation, and would preserve footage where there had been a crime as standard practice, rather than on request, Mr Cullen said.
A best-practice CCTV policy covering camera placement, privacy, access, retention and police liaison had been developed and would be implemented across all buildings managed by the company to "bring a consistent, transparent standard", Mr Cullen said.
Mr Schmidt, who estimated he had spent about $1200 on legal fees, said he would like to appeal the decision but did not currently have the time or money.
