Key Points
- Anthony Burton has battled Hackney Council since 2007 over £2,000 in losses following a burglary at his Regent Estate home.
- The estate’s council-managed CCTV was not operational on the night of the burglary.
- The CCTV failure invalidated Burton’s insurance claim as the system was listed as part of his property’s security.
- The burglary took place around 1 a.m. on 2 June 2007.
- The burglar entered using a crowbar, stealing cash, electronics, and personal items.
- Metropolitan Police found no fingerprints, and the suspect was never identified.
- Hackney Council initially refused responsibility, citing maintenance issues with the CCTV.
- Councillor Ian Rathbone described Burton’s efforts as “something that should go in the Guinness Book of Records.”
- The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) investigated but ruled in favour of Hackney Council.
- Despite numerous letters, Burton continues his legal and moral campaign for compensation, stating, “I won’t give up.”
- Hackney Council maintains that the CCTV system was not guaranteed to be fully functional at all times.
- Nearly two decades later, Burton is still pursuing acknowledgment and fairness from the council.
Why has Anthony Burton been battling Hackney Council for 18 years?
An East London resident, Anthony Burton, has been locked in an extraordinary 18-year dispute with Hackney Council after a burglary at his home that he says cost him more than £2,000 — all because the council’s CCTV system wasn’t working on the night of the crime.
As reported by Josef Steen for MyLondon and the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS), Mr Burton’s fight began in June 2007 when a burglar broke into his family home on the Regents Estate in South Hackney. The intruder smashed through a glass door panel using what Mr Burton described as a crowbar to gain entry at around 1 a.m.
According to Mr Burton, the burglar escaped with a bag containing a purse with cash, a television set, a PlayStation console, and other personal items, totalling more than £2,000 in value. “The most heartbreaking part wasn’t just what was stolen,” Burton said in comments reported by MyLondon, “but how easily it might have been prevented if the CCTV had been working.”
What happened on the night of the burglary?
Mr Burton recalls that the night of 2 June 2007 was quiet until he heard a loud crashing noise.
“By the time I got downstairs, the glass was shattered, and the burglar was gone,”
he said. Metropolitan Police arrived roughly 20 minutes later, but they found no usable fingerprints or traceable evidence. The burglar was never caught.
Police inquiries quickly stalled, but Burton’s frustrations grew when he discovered that the estate’s CCTV, managed by Hackney Council, had been out of operation for some time. As he told LDRS,
“It’s a bit like if you’re taking out car insurance, and the insurer asks if it has an alarm — and you say yes. But then it turns out the alarm doesn’t work, through no fault of your own.”
How did the CCTV failure impact his insurance claim?
The home contents insurance Burton held at the time required that CCTV surveillance form part of his home’s security. Because the system was controlled and maintained by Hackney Council — and was not functioning — his insurer refused to pay out.
“The insurer made it clear — if the security protection you claim to have isn’t operational, you’re not covered,”
Burton explained. Thus, through no fault of his own, Mr Burton lost entitlement to the claim and faced costs exceeding £2,000.
As further reported by MyLondon, Burton argued that Hackney Council’s failure to maintain the CCTV amounted to negligence, making them indirectly responsible for his losses.
“I’m not asking for sympathy — I’m asking for accountability,”
he told the LDRS.
How has Hackney Council responded to his claims?
Hackney Council has consistently denied liability. According to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, council officials told Burton that the CCTV system on the Regents Estate was not guaranteed to be operational at all times and was “subject to technical faults and maintenance requirements.”
Over the years, multiple letters and appeals have been exchanged. In one correspondence viewed by MyLondon, Hackney Council argued that the system “was supplementary to police investigations” and “not intended to serve as a personal security measure.”
A Hackney Council spokesperson told MyLondon:
“We sympathise with Mr Burton regarding his experience, but the Council cannot be held liable for losses arising from thefts that our CCTV systems might have recorded had they been operational. Maintenance schedules inevitably involve downtime.”
What have the authorities said about the case?
Mr Burton’s case reached the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) after he lodged an official complaint in 2010. However, as MyLondon reports, the Ombudsman declined to support his claim, agreeing that Hackney Council did not owe a legal duty of care to individuals based solely on CCTV operation.
Despite this setback, Burton’s persistence over the years earned recognition from local councillors. Councillor Ian Rathbone described the saga as “something that should go into the Guinness Book of Records.” Speaking to MyLondon, Rathbone added:
“Anthony’s been incredibly determined. He’s been through every proper channel, and still there’s no closure. It’s not about the money anymore – it’s about justice.”
Why is Anthony Burton still fighting after 18 years?
For Mr Burton, the issue has long surpassed financial loss. “It’s about principle now,” he told LDRS.
“Hackney Council should admit they were negligent. The CCTV wasn’t working because they failed to maintain it, and that failure cost me.”
He added,
“It’s been nearly 18 years. I’ve written to councillors, MPs, the Ombudsman, and even ministers, but nobody wants to take responsibility. I’ll keep going — this isn’t over.”
Burton’s persistence is driven, he says, by his belief that local councils must be accountable to residents whose safety infrastructure they manage. He fears that similar failures could still affect others across council estates in Hackney.
What lessons does the case raise for councils and residents?
Legal experts told MyLondon that Burton’s case, though unusual in duration, highlights broader issues about liability in council-managed CCTV schemes. In most cases, councils clearly state that such systems are for “deterrence” and “public reassurance,” not guaranteed evidence capture.
Yet residents like Burton often rely on these systems for insurance and peace of mind. “It’s a terrible limbo,” Burton said.
“You trust the council’s systems to help protect you, but when they fail, you discover there’s no recourse.”
Councillor Rathbone echoed this sentiment, saying residents deserve greater clarity.
“If CCTV isn’t guaranteed to be working, councils should say so clearly in documentation. Otherwise, people like Anthony shoulder the cost of institutional failure,”
he said to MyLondon.
What happens next in Burton’s ongoing battle?
As of late 2025, Burton remains committed to his campaign for a formal apology and restitution. Though legal options appear exhausted, he continues to appeal to Hackney Council and the Ombudsman to reconsider his case.
He’s also urging other Hackney residents to verify the operational status of estate CCTV systems. “I wouldn’t wish this on anyone,” he told MyLondon.
“If you’re being told the cameras protect you, make sure they actually work.”
Hackney Council has reiterated its stance but confirmed it continues regular maintenance of CCTV systems across its estates. In a recent statement to LDRS, the Council insisted it has since upgraded monitoring technology “to reduce offline periods and improve accountability.”
