Authorisation of Smart Car Cameras

Dear Richmond upon Thames Borough Council,

I have read that Richmond Council has a service contract with NSL
Ltd for the hire of two Smart Cars used for CCTV parking
enforcement in the borough these, as I understand, it being
operated by NSL Ltd employees.

I know that every item of video/CCTV camera apparatus must be
certified as an approved device before it may be lawfully operated
for the purposes of parking enforcement so, to enable NSL Ltd to
provide a lawfully-operated mobile surveillance service provision
to Richmond Council with their vehicles, the camera equipment
belonging to NSL Ltd and installed in their vehicles must be
certified as approved devices.

For each of the two NSL Smart Cars, one white and one black, please
advise the make and model number of the camera equipment installed,
and sufficient evidence to confirm that the stated camera equipment
is what is actually installed in these two NSL vehicles.

Please also provide a copy of the approved device certification of
the camera equipment installed (that being the certification
supplied to the camera owners NSL Ltd) and also a copy of the
letter to Richmond Council from NSL Ltd with which they provided
copies of their certifications to make the necessary assurance to
the council that their vehicles may be lawfully operated in the
borough by NSL Ltd for parking enforcement purposes.

Yours faithfully,

Roger Green

Dear Bunmi Ogunseye,

Thank you for your reply and the information that you have
terminated your contract with NSL Ltd. However, I am not satisfied
that you have provided the information I requested.

I remain concerned with the approval status of the cameras CCTV
cameras installed in the two NSL Smart Car vehicles that were used
for parking enforcement in Richmond until the end of 8th January
2011. I am advised that two separate cameras are installed in these
vehicles, both of which must be devices authorised for the purpose
of parking surveillance to enable such enforcement to be lawful.

You advise that the responsibility for obtaining camera
authorisation is that of the Council and not that of the owner and
service provider user of the vehicles (NSL Ltd). However you have
not clearly identified the make and model of each of the cameras in
each of the vehicles with supporting evidence as I requested. You
cannot know whether these four vehicle cameras were authorised to
enable lawful surveillance of parking restrictions unless you have
evidence that confirms what cameras they were.

Please provide copies of dated correspondence and related documents
provided to the Council by NSL Ltd or other provider which had
certain knowledge of the cameras installed in these two vehicles)
that informed the Council for the first time what cameras were
installed.

To repeat my prior request:
For each of the two NSL Smart Cars, one white and one black, please
advise the make and model numbers of the camera equipment
installed, and sufficient evidence to confirm that the stated
camera equipment is what was actually installed in these two NSL
vehicles.

For the avoidance of misunderstanding, I also wish to see evidence
of the date(s) when the Council first had device approval documents
in its possession that related to these specific four Smart Car
cameras together with copies of the certifications (if not already
provided).

Yours sincerely,

Roger Green

To: Bunmi Ogunseye
Subject: Re: Request for information under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000

5th March 2011

Dear Bunmi Ogunseye,

I wrote to you on the 19th January as follows-

- - - -

19 January 2011

Dear Bunmi Ogunseye,

Thank you for your reply and the information that you have
terminated your contract with NSL Ltd. However, I am not satisfied
that you have provided the information I requested.

I remain concerned with the approval status of the cameras CCTV
cameras installed in the two NSL Smart Car vehicles that were used
for parking enforcement in Richmond until the end of 8th January
2011. I am advised that two separate cameras are installed in these
vehicles, both of which must be devices authorised for the purpose
of parking surveillance to enable such enforcement to be lawful.

You advise that the responsibility for obtaining camera
authorisation is that of the Council and not that of the owner and
service provider user of the vehicles (NSL Ltd). However you have
not clearly identified the make and model of each of the cameras in
each of the vehicles with supporting evidence as I requested. You
cannot know whether these four vehicle cameras were authorised to
enable lawful surveillance of parking restrictions unless you have
evidence that confirms what cameras they were.

Please provide copies of dated correspondence and related documents
provided to the Council by NSL Ltd or other provider which had
certain knowledge of the cameras installed in these two vehicles)
that informed the Council for the first time what cameras were
installed.

To repeat my prior request:
For each of the two NSL Smart Cars, one white and one black, please
advise the make and model numbers of the camera equipment
installed, and sufficient evidence to confirm that the stated
camera equipment is what was actually installed in these two NSL
vehicles.

For the avoidance of misunderstanding, I also wish to see evidence
of the date(s) when the Council first had device approval documents
in its possession that related to these specific four Smart Car
cameras together with copies of the certifications (if not already
provided).

Yours sincerely,

Roger Green

- - -

Your response is excessively long overdue. Please provide the
information without further delay

Yours sincerely,

Roger Green