AimTo review security reports provided by Monjon over a six-month period providing further information to that the OC's, and owners in general, are more familiar with the range and frequency of security issues managed in BPSE.

MethodAll security reports from January to June 2017 were reviewed. Location and day of the week of each event was logged along with the time and details into a database established for this purpose. Once an interim analysis was available Monjon and the Building Manager were interviewed to assess their review of and suggestion following the analysis.

ResultsCopies of 124 security reports were provided over this six-month period. Saturday and Sunday had the highest frequency of reports. However, the early hours of Saturday relate to Friday evening, and similarly the early hours of Sunday relate to Saturday evening (Figure 1)

➤ NIGHT: With this in mind, a further days of week assessment was undertaken considering that each day was 6:00AM to 6:00PM. As such events on the same night are grouped together (Figure 2). The busiest evening for security reports was Friday evening, accounting for 24% of all reports, p=0.01. The second busiest evening was Saturday, with 20% of all reports, p=0.025. There were no statistical difference between events on any other nights.

➤ TIME: The busiest hour for security reports was between 11:00PM and midnight. This hour accounted for 22% of all reports by time, p=0.06. However, confidence limits were assessed and then a trend line based on time of night was developed, Figure 3. Incidents were spread over a flat curve between 8:00PM AND 2:00AM.

➤ BUILDING: 57% of incidents occurred in and 43% in common areas. The incidence of events per building was broadly consistent with the number of apartments in each building, Figure 4.

➤ LEVEL: The number of incidents were spread among levels, Figure 5. There was no residential level that was statistically more problematic than others. However, powering to determine such a difference was inadequate. It was projected that at least two years of data would be needed to determine any difference in levels to statistical significance. Such a long-term analysis was not warranted.

➤ WHERE: The apartments (36%, p<0.001) and car park (31%, p<0.001) were the sites of the majority of incidents. Other sites where incidents occurred were: foyers, bin rooms, lounge, pool, gym, lift, mail room and restaurants and resident's lounge. There was no difference of significance between incidence of events in these other locations.

➤ TYPE: Parties on apartments accounted for the largest issue being addressed by Monjon security, accounting for 24% of all security reports, p<0.001. The remaining incidents were all in small numbers and are detailed in Figure 7 and 8.

➤ REPEATS: Seven properties were repeat offenders, with security involved on more than one occasion over the six-month period. Four of these properties were parties happening in serviced apartments. Two properties not let for short-term usage were the subject of more than one security report, ―again largely associated with parties. A restaurant was the final property that was subject to more than one complaint, ―noise late at night.

➤ ADDED SERVICES: Whilst not strictly security related, it was apparent that many other issues managed by Monjon were value adding for our owners. This includes cleaning up lifts that have been subjected to vomit, and securing clothing left in open areas.

➤ LESSER MATTERS: A number of reports were apparently about trivial issues. These included; lights left on in the resident's lounge, the air conditioner left on in the gym, an occupant requesting an extra swipe card, and someone who left their only swipe inside their apartment. Reports also included; door left open and car window not closed fully.

Other incident reports were; bike lock broken, children unsupervised in pool, police attending for a welfare check, moving furniture at night, lift out of order and a pool party.

➤ ALCOHOL: Evidence of alcohol being a factor was associated with 23% of incidents, ―predominantly with parties in apartments.

➤ SERVICED APARTMENTS: It was noted that serviced apartments disproportionately accounted for incidents within apartments. However,, those service apartment providers that offered 24hour service were less likely to have an incident requiring Monjon services than those that do not offer all night assistance to their guests.

Monjon InterviewMonjon were invited to review the above findings and asked for their input and advice in light of the types and numbers of incidents identified. Hermann Pinto attended on behalf of Monjon, along with BPSE building manager, Marc Drew.

Hermann advised that a present his guards patrol our BPSE complex 6 times per night. It is the same every night. He contrasted this with the nearby Nolan building. We were advised that Nolan have a guard permanently stationed in their building on Saturday and Sunday nights for 8 hours. He considered that his allowed issues to be managed quicker and with more with more time if and when required. Nolan have an advantage over our complex in that they have a single foyer, contrasting our three foyers.

Hermann considered the spectrum and incidence of events over the six months to be broadly in line with his expectations.

He agreed that Friday and Saturday were the nights most likely to have issues, as well as event nights at nearby Etihad stadium. Hermann also commented that on weekends there as a tendency for security incidents to be later in the evening than might be experienced earlier in the week. Monday and Tuesday nights were recognized as their quieter nights.

Hermann confirmed that he would have expected that car park incidents and parties in apartments would be the two major issues addressed by their staff. We were advised that patrolling on the 4th floor podium level was the most effective way to pick up on excessively noisy apartments above.

There was some discussion regarding the role of serviced apartments and their disproportionate association with security incidents. Both Marc and Hermann considered that the Sebel apartments were a stand out with respect to after hours management. Sebel were recognized for dealing with any issues themselves quickly, including noisy occupants at night. Hermann commented that they need only ring Sebel when one of the managed properties was causing a disturbance, and the matter would be managed effectively. Sebel have staff available and on duty 24hours per day.

Both Marc and Hermann considered the other operators as secondary to the Sebel performance. There were two operators identified as being very poor at addressing after hours issues with respect to apartments they lease short term. These operators were identified by Monjon and Marc, but will not be named in this report.

Hermann commented that late-night spillage and garbage issues have become more problematic recently, especially on Friday and Saturday nights along with event nights.

Hermann and Marc considered that our OC's might consider copying Nolan in having a guard full time on BPSE on Friday and Saturday nights along with event nights. They considered in the light of above, that if such enhanced service was implemented on those nights, that patrolling the car park levels and podium level regularly would be especially beneficial.

LimitationsThe six-month analysis period proved to be insufficient for some assessments, such as events per floor level.

Some OC committee members sought of obstruct / delay the completion of this assessment. OC3 (Boyd) committee unanimously approved the completion of this report at its January 2018 meeting, ―for distribution to Boyd owners and other areas of BPSE should this be requested.

StatisticsAnalysis was univariate, with variance assessed using Tukey post-hoc analysis and chi-square test as appropriate.

DiscussionCar park issues and parties in apartments are out two major issues. While there was no reported theft in this six-month period, car park theft remains a concern with several incidents since this six-month period. It appears that owners and residents could take further steps of their own to secure their vehicles and belongings in the car park area. Owners are asked to report any thefts to the police.

The difference in events between serviced apartment operators who provide 24hour service and those that do not may be due to several factors. The number of issues may be lower in these apartments. However, the difference could be in part, attributable to the operators addressing late night issues themselves without the need for Monjon assistance.

Some immediate changes were identified early and simple to implement. For example, a time switch on lights in the resident's lounge and the air conditioner should prevent the need for security to report such appliances being left on, as well as assisting energy usage.

If there was on change that Monjon and our building manager suggest we consider, it was having a security guard working in our complex full time between 8:00PM and 4:00AM on Friday and Saturday nights along with Etihad event nights. If such an adjusted service was considered, they would envisage the guard spending regular time in the car park identifying issues on patrol, along with our podium level.

ConclusionThe service provided by Monjon appears to be thorough and, in the main meeting our needs as owners of BPSE. There was no area identified where a major adjustment was required in service delivery.

There is the prospect that the routine security patrols of an evening might benefit from more time patrolling car parks.

Serviced apartment operators who do not provide assistance throughout the night should consider adding this service in the interests of all owners and residents.

the Owner's Corporation may consider employing a guard to our buildings alone on Friday and Saturday evenings along with Etihad event nights. Such an additional service would come at an additional cost. The added cost may or may not balance benefits from such an added service.

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank Monjon Security and our building manager, Marc Drew, for their cooperation in completing this study.

Anthony J. Dixon PhD MB BS FACRRM MAOCD
Chair OC3 438893N (Boyd Building)
February 2, 2018
© Anthony Dixon