By: Georgette Virgo

Security in UK residential buildings has long been measured in physical terms: locks, CCTV, entrance systems, and on-site guards. Controlled access and visible surveillance remain the foundation of how residents understand personal safety at home. Yet many of today’s most immediate safety conversations take place elsewhere — inside WhatsApp groups, Facebook pages, and unregulated messaging threads.

These informal channels have become the default for sharing warnings about suspicious activity, missing parcels, or unfamiliar visitors. But they are rarely limited to a single building, often include people who no longer live there, and offer little accountability over who sees what. The result is a growing disconnect between the physical systems that protect buildings and the digital spaces where residents try to protect one another.

Wavee AI, a London-based residential community platform, argues that the gap between physical and digital security is becoming a structural weakness. Its founder, Nikesh Panchal, believes that as buildings become more technologically controlled, resident communication around safety must also become more formally structured — not left to open platforms designed for mass social interaction rather than neighbourhood-level trust.

Rather than treating security as purely an issue of hardware and staffing, Wavee positions itself as a digital layer that mirrors the physical layout of real estate itself: buildings, entrances, roles, and verified occupancy. Within that framework, resident communication becomes part of the security infrastructure rather than something happening alongside it.

Verified Neighbours In an Age of Anonymous Platforms

At the core of Wavee’s model is the idea of verified neighbours. Residents cannot simply download the app and register freely. Access is tied to building records and concierge-managed onboarding, confirming that each profile belongs to a current resident of a specific property. Every user is anchored to a defined building network, and those networks remain closed to outsiders.

Each building operates within its own private feed. Maintenance updates, parcel notifications, management announcements, and safety alerts all appear inside this contained digital space. Residents posting there know their audience consists only of people who share the same corridors, lifts, and courtyards.

For building staff, the model offers a similar change. Messages no longer filter through loosely moderated group chats or widely shared social platforms. Communication occurs within a system where both the sender and recipient are identifiable by role and location. Inter-building communication is possible, but it is structured rather than anonymous.

When neighbouring buildings collaborate, selected alerts can be shared between properties. Concierge teams can connect directly with their counterparts across the street. Crucially, identity remains visible: residents see which building a message comes from, and staff accounts are clearly marked. In a landscape shaped by online anonymity, this insistence on accountability is one of the platform’s defining features.

Security here is framed less as a function of devices and more as a function of controlled information. Residents can raise concerns knowing exactly who will see them — and who will not.

When Risk Does Not Stop at the Front Door

Many of the risks residents face are not confined neatly to one address. Package thefts can affect multiple buildings on the same street. Unauthorised access attempts may shift from entrance to entrance. Patterns are visible only when information is shared.

Traditional security systems, however, remain fragmented. Cameras capture footage inside individual lobbies. Incident logs sit in separate software systems. Reports remain locked in individual email inboxes. Each building sees only its own fragment of a wider picture.

Wavee’s attempt to change this rests on the idea that verified, cross-building communication can make security more collective without dissolving boundaries. When neighbouring buildings are active on the platform, concierge teams can coordinate in real time.

An alert posted in one building about suspicious behaviour near communal storage can prompt checks at another entrance moments later. Residents may receive warnings that originated in a different block but relate directly to risks unfolding on their doorstep. When incidents are resolved, updates can travel back through the same channel, reinforcing trust that alerts are not simply messages sent into the void.

What emerges is not a single shared space for everyone, but a network of connected spaces that mirror the geography of the street itself.

The Economics of “Free” Platforms

Technology designed for building safety and resident communication is not new. Many developments already pay for multiple systems: one for messaging, another for parcels, another for incident logging. Licensing fees are usually passed on through service charges, often with limited transparency over long-term cost.

Wavee’s model diverges from that structure by offering the platform to buildings and residents at no direct cost. Instead, its revenue is generated through local businesses that pay to reach verified households inside the app’s marketplace and offer channels.

Supporters of the model argue that removing software licensing fees can free funds for physical security improvements: additional CCTV, better lighting, access system upgrades or increased staffing at key hours. For property managers, the lack of an upfront licence can also lower the barrier to introducing a new system across multiple buildings.

Critics, however, raise broader questions about the growing reliance on commercially funded infrastructure in spaces traditionally governed through service charge budgets. As digital platforms become more intertwined with safety systems, questions of long-term control, accountability and commercial influence become harder to separate.

Rethinking What “Secure” Means

Panchal is careful to stress that Wavee Ai does not see itself as a replacement for physical security. Cameras, access control, and trained security staff remain central to how buildings function safely. The platform’s role, he argues, is to make those tools more effective by improving how information moves between the people who rely on them.

When several buildings see the same risk pattern emerging, patrol routes can be adjusted collectively. Lighting in shared exterior areas can be reconsidered. Engagement with local authorities can be coordinated rather than isolated. Front-of-house staff gain a forum to exchange knowledge that would otherwise remain siloed.

Residents still share corridors and entrances as they always have. What changes is that the conversation around those shared spaces becomes structured, verified, and local rather than improvised and anonymous. Buildings that once managed risk in parallel begin to coordinate without losing their separate identities.

Wavee is currently active primarily in UK buildings, with plans to expand into additional cities and international markets in the coming years. The company’s language around its own role is deliberately restrained. Technology, Panchal suggests, should sit beneath daily life rather than above it.

“If we succeed,” he says, “people won’t talk about ‘using Wavee’. They’ll just feel that their building is more connected, more responsive, and more secure. That’s what a digital community should do quietly in the background — help people look after each other.”

Please visit Wavee AI’s website for more information.