| |
Passengers can use cameras on the buses
• THERE is nothing in the Public Vehicles Act (1981) or the Conduct Regulations (1991) which makes a driver’s failure to let someone on or off a bus a criminal offence (Passenger’s fury as bus driver bans wheelchair, December 13).
There appears to be no sanction or means of seeking redress unless a serious criminal offence has occurred.
I hope Andrew Lisicki receives an adequate response to his complaint, but I doubt it because complaints are often handled at arms-length from the operator by Transport for London, who are of the view that the rise in the number of complaints against drivers is nothing to do with drivers.
It is apparently “almost entirely due to the steps we have taken to improve access to the complaints process” (see the London government website).
So it’s the fact that Mr Lisicki had the cheek to complain that caused him to be treated in this shoddy manner!
But Mr Lisicki is not alone: there has been a big rise in the number of complaints against drivers and, curiously, CCTV does not appear to be a deterrent.
I propose this solution – anyone subjected to brazen misconduct is entitled to request a copy of the CCTV footage of the incident using the Data Protection Act (1998). Simply send a section 7 request to “the Data Controller” by recorded delivery, to the address of the bus operator as soon as possible, asking for a copy of the footage (saying something like “this is a section 7 request for...).
State the time and date, driver number if possible, route number, including a cheque for £10 as well as a photo of yourself. If the footage is not forthcoming within 40 days, a detailed explanation should be given of why it cannot be divulged.
Failure to reply within 40 days is a criminal offence.
Should it transpire that the footage has been overwritten, which is likely, or if any other lame excuse is given, you can apply to a court for a section 14 order to have that footage “rectified” that is, undeleted, followed by a reconsideration of the original section 7 request.
This unfortunately will cost £70 if you do it yourself. The relevant paragraphs are: 7(b) (ii) – what is the purpose of the processing which led to blocking the disclosure of the footage, and 7(d) – what is the logic involved that justifies the automated overwriting that does not contradict the original intent of having CCTV in the first place).
That should give them something to chew on.
Bus passengers are entitled to an explanation as to why CCTV is not disclosed when they have reasonable cause to request it and only frequent requesting will make CCTV a deterrent. Anything else can only protect, excuse, defend and encourage misconduct.
MICHAEL NANDRIS
Patchull Road, NW5
|
 |
|
| |
