Landlords role in restricting occupants liberty

It would be really helpful to hear from providers of a range of supported housing on the following:

There is a view that it is not a Tenancy Agreement that deprives someone of their liberty, but their care and treatment. Yet the reality on the ground may be different.

•Is it the case that sometimes in practice it is the landlord who puts restrictions in place (whether or not a care plan has explicitly specified them), for example: locked doors and other physical barriers; monitoring devices like CCTV cameras, door opening alerts, out-of-reach door handles?
oHow common-place or routine is this on the ground?
oAre there particular customer groups to whom it applies?
oWhy is it done?
?Were these features part of the original building specification, or were they put in place in response to individual circumstances?
?And then how likely it is they might be removed when that individual either no longer requires them, or no longer lives there?

It seems it may also be the case that support providers who do not deliver any registered care may be responsible for restricting the liberty of the people they support, and that the local authority may not have been involved in the arrangements.
•How common is this in supported living settings?

These questions are relevant to two aspects of the Law Commission’s proposals on mental capacity and deprivation of liberty:

1.The first is whether lacking capacity to consent to restrictive “care and treatment” covers all the scenarios in which people living in supported housing may have restricted liberty or even be deprived of their liberty.

2.The second relates to regulation. If CQC has no remit to regulate and inspect the physical environment, who should be doing so, to ensure that people are not deprived of their liberty unlawfully?