CCTV THEN AND NOW -
Article by Dave Lawrie, Director NPHTA 0161 280 2800
info@nphta.co.uk
CCTV in licensed vehicles has been the subject of discussion for several years, with more councils looking at how to implement it, and whether to remain voluntary or move to a mandatory condition.
The DfT Statutory Standards issued in 2022, was written in a way to suggest, although not directly specifying, that councils should avoid making CCTV a mandatory condition unless they could show they have a high risk within their area, which let’s be honest about it, not many councils are likely to be willing to publicise.
As a result, the DfT Best Practice Guidance, released in November 2023, took a different approach, suggesting that local authorities SHOULD consider the benefits and advantages of CCTV, and incorporate it unless it could be shown that there was a low report rate. This has led to many local authorities launching consultations on this and many other aspects of the Best Practice Guidance.
Southampton City Council was the first to mandate CCTV back in 2007, followed by Portsmouth, Rotherham and Rossendale councils. More recently Lewes and Eastbourne, Bolsover and North East Derbyshire, Guildford, City of Cambridge and South Cambridge have gone down a mandatory route, with many more currently assessing the situation. Even TfL launched a consultation on the subject, but has not yet released any details of the results, or the decision based on the responses.
Now let’s be perfectly clear here, we are not suggesting that we are in favour of mandatory CCTV at all, we are merely examining the results, and discussing how things have changed within recent years.
PRE CCTV POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONERS
We’ve seen multiple reports, and many changes of opinion towards the industry and drivers, following CCTV being installed, whether that be mandatory, or voluntary, not only from the public, but from operators and licensing authorities, heck, even from the police and courts.
30
We have seen various PCCs recently suggesting, or announcing publicly, that all licensed vehicles should be required to have CCTV installed. Whilst this is fine and very much welcomed, we do not see any mention of funding or any support on any kind of financial level.
MAY 2024 PHTM
Prior to CCTV it was always assumed there was: “no smoke without fire” or “based on the number of allegations, and on the balance of probabilities, there must be something going on.”
Now we must accept that the whole “their word against yours” scenario simply does not work, nor does the whole “the customer is always right.” But the reality is that under civil law, the burden of proof that applies is on the “balance of probabilities”. This then comprises: “Were you there at the time?” - “Yes”, “Did you pick up that passenger?” - “Yes”. “Then it is possible that it happened as alleged.”
In a nutshell, that is the “balance of probabilities”.
But without some form of verification to support the opinion of either (or both) sides, it is quite literally a case of their word against yours, which when faced with multiple passengers, (drunk, high or otherwise) versus the view of one sole driver, it is an uphill battle for the driver to prove innocence.
AFTER CCTV
Everything has now changed; it is no longer your word against that of the accuser, there is undeniable evidence! This has nothing at all to do with being fit and proper person to hold a licence, (legal term), it has everything to do with protecting yourself from those who simply want a free ride, so will say anything to obtain a refund.
Once CCTV is installed, we have seen a change in the opinion, or more to the point recognition, from those investigating the allegation, and a much higher level of respect towards drivers.
Prior unjust assumptions that the driver must have done something wrong disappear and are rapidly replaced by the question: “Why would people make such stupid allegations, do they not realise the impact on the driver’s life that such reports could have?!”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80
