Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum
.
Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
article index - [here]
 tomorrow - Railfuture Severnside
21/11/2019 - WWRUG / update from GWR
22/11/2019 - TWSW AGM
25/11/2019 - GWR Customer Panel, Plymouth
27/11/2019 - MRUG Melksham Rail User Group
05/12/2019 - Meet the GWR Team, Paddington
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
November 15, 2019, 10:38:26 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[97] Two Track, Now!
[67] IETs into passenger service from 16 Oct 2017 and subsequent pe...
[61] Collision between Azuma and HST at Neville Hill, Leeds, 13/11/...
[56] Insufficient capacity - Oldfield Park and Keynsham
[54] HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general dis...
[46] Community by bus ... pleasant example
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Cornwall woman gets payout after suing Great Western Railway for 'poor service'  (Read 4730 times)
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27069



View Profile WWW Email
« on: May 21, 2019, 01:15:37 am »

From Cornwall Live

Quote
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’.

Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and of RailFuture
Rob on the hill
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 329


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2019, 10:21:03 am »

Quote
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.
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4255


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2019, 12:40:52 pm »

Quote
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.

This was in the IEP requirement:
Quote
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.

There may be more in the MARA/TARA/Franchise (with the empahasis on "more"), but that would need to flatly contradict the requirement for CCTV images to be unavailable just because Hitachi say so.
Logged
Pb_devon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 235


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2019, 01:00:07 pm »

It only takes a bit of dithering or misunderstanding for the one month time limit to be exceeded, and images overwritten.
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10074


View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: May 21, 2019, 01:42:51 pm »

Quote
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.

GWR can't access it - the Police need to go to Hitachi direct & request it....is how I read that.
Logged
Pb_devon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 235


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2019, 03:04:36 pm »

Quote
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.

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

Hence my comment.....if no-one told BTP that contractual issue, they probably sent the CCTV request to GWR, who then found it was an IEP, so sent it back, and by the time it got to Hitatchi the images were gone. Classic!!!
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10074


View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2019, 03:14:05 pm »

Lack of communication within the BTP...pretty sure GWR would have informed them of the new arrangements for the IETs
Logged
old original
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 685


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2019, 04:31:02 pm »

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

Wouldn't bet on it...
Logged

7 Billion people on a wet rock - of course we're not happy

Life - nature's way of keeping meat fresh
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 27069



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2019, 05:11:42 pm »

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

In which case the signage inside the IET is confusing

Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and of RailFuture
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4255


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 22, 2019, 05:33:51 pm »

According to the TARA, GWR is data controller for the CCTV (so that sign is correct) and Agility Trains West Ltd. (i.e. Hitachi) is data processor:
Quote
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.

The bits about data protection and data processing by the TSP cover more than just CCTV data, and the main CCTV section starts off about making sure it works and there is a data cartridge in place to record onto:
Quote
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.

So it appears that Hitachi can't supply data unless the controller - GWR - says so, but in that case must do so (if it still exists). Whether statute law, or any contract directly between Hitachi and HMG, gives BTP any supervening rights I have no idea.
Logged
eightonedee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 479



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 22, 2019, 06:58:32 pm »

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?
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4255


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 22, 2019, 07:44:23 pm »

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?

And how would that help?

If you read down that CornwallLive article, it says:
Quote
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.

So, once again, an award was made against a TOC with no evidence heard or judgement made based on it. That means we have no idea what really happened, and all we get is a jumble of quotes and "facts" from outside sources.

We've all assumed from the mention of Hitachi that the CCTV was in an IET. But was it? Was her train likely to have been an IET in any case?  If the camera was involved for some other reason then maybe it was under Hitachi's sole control and we know nothing about the background to that.

That supposed GWR comment "GWR told police that Hitachi owned the rights to the CCTV and GWR could not access it." - must come to us via several steps of Chinese whispers, so it could be true (i.e. GWR said it ti BTP - if it was BTP) or not, or it might apply to some event not mentioned in the report. If it was about on-board CCTV on an IET, then it's not true (or the TARA isn't).

So, all in all, we know remarkably little about this!
Logged
eightonedee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 479



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 22, 2019, 08:17:04 pm »

Fair point Stuving - it may not have helped in this case.

However, if both Hitachi and GWR automatically received copies of all downloaded material it should make it easier for each to provide the footage promptly if required.
Logged
nickswift99
Full Member
***
Posts: 37


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: June 13, 2019, 11:00:13 pm »

If BTP make a request for access to CCTV then this falls into one of the purposes for which it is collected in the first place. As a processor or controller, refusing to supply it would render the organisation collecting images foul of the Data Protection Act if they don't provide it.

I have spoken to a Crime Manager from BTP who told me that GWR have refused to supply video footage to support their investigations. If this is true (and my personal experience supports this - see my previous posts on this forum), then GWR have not only an issue under the Data Protection Act but also a moral issue towards their customers who would expect them to support the police force which they fund.
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page