Great Western Coffee Shop

A woman who has embarked on a crusade against Great Western Railway (GWR) has been awarded a pay-out after taking them to court for problems she has faced while travelling.

Law student Rema Ince has been awarded a payout after using consumer rights laws to take the train company to court.

Mrs Ince who each day travels between her home in Redruth and St Austell workplace complained of 63 late trains, allegedly being trapped on a train in a station for over an hour when there was an explosion and assaulted twice by drunks. After being attacked Mrs Ince was told criminal action could not be taken because the CCTV request by the police was refused.

GWR told police that Hitachi owned the rights to the CCTV and GWR could not access it.  Mrs Ince claimed that the train service was not ‘performed with reasonable care and skill’.

GWR told police that Hitachi owned the rights to the CCTV and GWR could not access it.

Interesting fact, and if correct, could affect any future legal cases.

The Saloon CCTV system must incorporate the following functionality:
• each IEP Vehicle shall contain sufficient CCTV cameras to view all public accessible areas (excepting inside toilets) and to minimise blind spots. The passenger areas to be covered shall include vehicle saloons, doorways, vestibules, gangways, publicly accessible catering areas and other public spaces;
• cameras fitted shall, so far as possible, be resistant to tampering and vandalism;
• the CCTV system shall record, without overwriting, for a minimum of 1 months IEP Train service operation;
• the recorded picture shall be in colour and shall be of sufficient clarity to enable the
DIdentification of individuals to the same standard as that defined in clause 7.6 of BS TEN 50132-7:1996 ‘Alarm Systems – CCTV surveillance systems for use in security applications – Application guidelines’;
• recorded images may need to be used as evidence in a prosecution. To facilitate this the system shall be able to support a clear evidential trail so as to allow the integrity of the recording to be demonstrated;
• the system shall be able to be operated so as to comply with the legal requirements with regard to data protection;
• the CCTV picture capture frame rate shall be sufficient to allow the visible actions of persons within all public accessible areas to be identifiable. Consideration shall be given to increasing this frame rate after an 'emergency event' trigger, such as a passenger alarm handle being actuated; and
• the CCTV system shall allow the following to be viewed in a secure train crew area:
  o live (i.e. a delay of no more than two seconds) images from any CCTV camera; and
  o recorded images from any CCTV camera.

Interesting fact, and if correct, could affect any future legal cases.

GWR can't access it - the Police need to go to Hitachi direct & request it....is how I read that.

Lack of communication within the BTP...pretty sure GWR would have informed them of the new arrangements for the IETs

GWR can't access it - the Police need to go to Hitachi direct & request it....is how I read that.

3.2 For the purposes of the Data Protection Act, the Operator shall be the data controller and the TSP shall be the data processor of any personal data contained in the CCTV, FFCCTV and seat reservation data that the TSP may collect, retain and process pursuant to this Agreement. Any such personal data that the TSP may process shall be the Personal Data.

On-Set CCTV or Forward Facing CCTV Systems
2.4 The Operator shall be entitled to access any of the Sets at any time during the Operational Day and remove any data cartridge from the on-Set CCTV and/or Forward Facing CCTV Systems on such Sets, provided that the Operator notifies the TSP Control Room Contact of such removal before the end of that Operational Day.
2.5 Following any removal of such data cartridge from the on-Set CCTV and/or Forward Facing CCTV Systems on such Sets, the Operator shall return any such data cartridge to the TSP as soon as reasonably practicable.
2.6 If:
(a)  the Operator has removed any such data cartridge without providing the notification to the TSP pursuant to Paragraph 2.4; and
(b)  such Set is Handed Over by the TSP on the following Operational Day without the necessary data cartridge for the relevant on-Set CCTV and/or Forward Facing CCTV Systems but such Set would otherwise comply with the requirements as set out in Paragraph 1.4 of Part B (Handover) of Schedule 2 (Availability),
such Set that is made available shall not be regarded to have suffered any Category Three Handover Failures or Presentation KPI Standards Failures that are wholly or mainly attributable to an insufficient number of data cartridges for the relevant on-Set CCTV and/or Forward Facing CCTV Systems.
TSP Information
2.7 To the extent the TSP Contract Manager collects any of the following information, the TSP Contract Manager shall retain:
(a)  any downloads of on-Set CCTV or FFCCTV footage (which shall include footage from the passenger area, forward and rear facing and external body side cameras) for such period and in such manner as may be required by Applicable Laws and Standards and in accordance with this Agreement;
(b)  any 'On Train Monitoring Recorder' downloads for such period of time as may be agreed by the parties;
(c)  downloads of each Set's fault-monitoring systems, sufficiently frequently to ensure an accurate and complete history of each Set's fault history is maintained for such period of time as may be agreed by the parties; and
(d)  such other information in relation to the management of performance and reliability of the Fleet as may be agreed by the parties.
2.8 The TSP Contract Manager shall, at the reasonable request of the Operator Contract Manager, make records of each of the matters listed in Paragraph 2.7 (whether information retained by the TSP Contract Manager in accordance with Paragraph 2.7 or the corresponding contemporaneous information held on a Set at the time of such request) available to the Operator Contract Manager and any other relevant person or authority that may reasonably require access to such records in such format as the TSP Contract Manager and the Operator Contract Manager may reasonably agree from time to time.
2.9 The TSP Contract Manager shall, at the reasonable request of the Operator Contract Manager, make available any other information reasonably required, and/or reasonably incidental to the services provided to the Operator, by its insurance advisors or insurers that the TSP holds to the insurance advisers or insurers of the Operator (subject, where such information constitutes Commercially Sensitive Information, to the provisions of Schedule 13 (Confidentiality)).
2.10 The TSP Contract Manager shall maintain a server and shall provide the Operator with access to such server to enable the Operator to retrieve the following information:
(a)  GPS location data in respect of the train location as described in item 7 of annexe W of the Train Technical Description;
(b)  TMS remote data transmission as described in item 20 of annexe W of the Train Technical Description;
(c)  On-Train maintenance recorder data as described in item 11 of annexe W of the Train Technical Description;
(d)  Passenger count data as described in item 13 of annexe W of the Train Technical Description;
(e)  Energy consumption data as described in item 5 of annexe W of the Train Technical Description;
(f)  Train maintenance recorder event data in respect of events onboard the train as described in item 18 of annexe W of the Train Technical Description;
(g)  Daily timetable data as described in item 2 of annexe W of the Train Technical Description;
(h)  Seat reservation data as described in item 8 of annexe W of the Train Technical Description; and
(i)  Passenger information system real time messages as described in item 12 of annexe W of the Train Technical Description.

Although this is a "it's easy to be wise after the event" comment - why did they not agree that all the data would be downloaded and copies made/supplied to both parties automatically, with each being responsible as data managers for the copy each had?

Judgment was awarded against GWR on May 3 because the company didn't respond to the court papers in time.  Mrs Ince has been awarded £325 in compensation by the court and GWR has confirmed a cheque is on its way.

A GWR spokesman has said that Mrs Ince has been responded to regarding every query she has raised and been provided refunds when appropriate. He added that there a number of reasons why the company could have failed to respond to the claim but that it will honour the payment regardless.