Is it a fault that the home is stolen and the property cannot provide video materials on the grounds of camera damage, and should it bear corresponding responsibilities and compensation?

At first glance, it seems to be a division of responsibilities. The main responsibility for burglary lies with thieves, and the property may be found to be under secondary responsibility by the court because the camera is damaged but not repaired in time (but it needs specific analysis, such as whether there is an exemption clause of "under repair" in the owner's manual).

Let's look at the mitigation methods again. If a service contract is signed with the property, a civil lawsuit can be filed on the dispute over the property service contract, requiring the property to bear the liability for property damage compensation. If there is tangible evidence to prove that the property is at fault, the general court will make the property bear a certain proportion of economic loss compensation as appropriate. The evidential materials are as follows:

1. Your service contract with the property is valid: the property contract, and the property fee is invoiced;

2. The objective existence of the fact that the house was stolen: alarm receipt and alarm record;

3. The property camera is damaged but not repaired in time: alarm records and witness testimony of neighbors or police;

4. The specific amount of loss caused by your theft: the theft of valuables vouchers or documents can only prove the purchase of these things, but the theft case has not been solved, and it is impossible to judge the specific economic loss of theft at home in practice.