We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Hugh Davenport please sign in and let everyone know.

Information relating to the footage acquired from Jacob's report "Safety Assessment of Chews Lane Pedestrian Crossing"

Hugh Davenport made this Official Information request to Wellington Regional Council

This request has an unknown status. We're waiting for Hugh Davenport to read a recent response and update the status.

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear Wellington Regional Council,

I would like to request the following information relating to footage acquired from a report produced by Jacobs titled “Safety Assessment of Chews Lane Pedestrian Crossing”, dated 30 May 2019. This report was provided to me by Matthew Lear (Manager Bus and Ferry Operations, previously Health and Safety Manager) on 21 June 2019.

I would first like to give a bit of context around this report and my request for information will follow.

This report outlined the outcome of recording the Chews Lane crossing on Willis Street between 6am and 9am from 2 May 2019 to 7 May 2019, and also 9 May 2019. This report was in response to the thousands of red light running incidents reported to Metlink (including Bruce Horsefield (then Manager Customer Contact)) since 25 Oct 2018 on that intersection. Video footage was provided for all these incidents. The footage was gathered using artificial intelligence techniques to determine whether a bus is running a red light, and found on average at least 50 buses ran red lights on this intersection every day. This report appears to be the only tangible outcome from the 9 months of reporting safety issues.

The results of the report showed that Jacob’s believed that a total of 3 buses entered the intersection on a red light during the recorded times. After receiving the report, I reviewed the footage I had and found that during the same recording times for the days of 2 May 2019 and 3 May 2019 there were 38 instances of red light running, which is significantly higher than 3 for the entire week. Again, there is video footage of these incidents.

This raised the concern about the reliability of the report supplied by Jacob’s, as it was potentially not reporting on other incidents during the same time period which skews the results of the report to appear more favourable for GWRC.

I emailed my concern, along with the videos the artificial intelligence produced and the times of the incidents, to Lisa Colebrooke (Business Advisor, PT). This prompted a response from GWRC:
“Jacobs have provided us with an independent expert report and we hope you benefited from the briefing Matthew organised for you with <redacted> from Jacobs. The report gives a clear methodology and practical examples of buses travelling through the Chews Lane crossing giving us assurance that there is not systemic red light running on this pedestrian crossing. As it was stated in the meeting with Matthew and <redacted>, the reason for the report was to get an independent expert view, not to prove or disprove your observations.
We recognise you may have a different view to this and acknowledge you have asked for further work to be undertaken. We are considering our position on this and will be in touch shortly. “

I responded reiterating that I wasn’t asking for further work to be undertaken, rather that the footage was reviewed for the times I provided. In the follow up email, I provided one instance that I had video of a bus entering a red light during the time Jacob’s was recording, but was not present in the Jacob’s report. The details of this bus were:
- Route 24
- 2 May 2019, around 7:55am
- Northbound
- The video footage I have for this is at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o7wfY1p...

I received a response from Greg Pollock (General Manager, PT):
“I am aware of your concerns relating to the Chew’s Lane Pedestrian Crossing report recently provided to you. We have watched the footage you noted as ‘entered on red’ and compared this with the time and date stamped footage from Jacobs, taking into consideration possible timing issues for your footage. We see nothing in the footage from Jacobs that would cause us to question their findings, or that supports the assertions in your email. We do realise that Jacobs had access to better camera citing as well as high definition cameras which record each frame. We acknowledge the camera position you have in your office window is dictated by your workplace, and that you have mentioned to us that every second frame is not recorded which makes your footage appear to speed up moving objects. However, as previously advised, our ongoing discussions with bus operators will focus on the promoting good driving practices, of which traffic light adherence is one.”

From this, I’m a bit concerned at the meaning of “We see nothing in the footage from Jacobs that would cause us to question their findings”, which seems to imply that the footage I have was simply created out of thin air.

**************

My request is as follows:

In order to make sure that we are both on the same page, and that there is confirmation about the reliability of Jacob’s report which was funded by tax payer money, I am requesting information from the footage provided by Jacob’s for the morning of 2 May 2019.

I would like to know:
1) When each route 24 bus was seen going northbound for the morning of 2 May 2019, between 7:30am and 8:30am.

2) For each route 24 bus viewed on the footage, either (in order of preference):
a) A video of the bus going through the intersection from both cameras of Jacob’s
b) A still photo of the bus going through the intersection at the moment it crosses the intersection line (the end of the advanced cycle box) from both cameras of Jacob’s. Blurs can be applied quite easily for these still images to protect Privacy.
c) A description of whether the light was green, amber, or red at the time the bus crosses the intersection line. Please note that I would expect either a or b to be provided instead of this. A very good reason for refusing a or b would be required.

3) In order to correlate with actual traffic and to make sure that GWRC is not purposefully withholding results that show safety concerns, I would like to get the actual times that each route 24 was in that area during that time period by using the real time information.

4) If there are any buses shown as travelling in the area on the real time information, but were not found in the footage provided by Jacob's, then I would like:
a) a photo of the rear advertisement on all the missing buses that were not found on video. The point of this is to match it with the video I have
b) I would also like a brief explanation on why the bus was shown to be travelling on real time information, but was not found on the high definition camera feed that Jacob’s had used for the report.

5) If any of the route 24’s in 2) were found to be crossing the intersection line on a red light, then:
a) An explanation of why the Jacob’s report did not contain that incident in their report
b) An explanation of why both the General Manager of Public Transport (Greg Pollock) and the Manager of Bus Operations (Matthew Lear, previously Health and Safety Manager) did not find this when requested earlier and both responded that there was nothing of concern with the report.
c) An explanation of why multiple managers (Bruce Horsefield, Greg Pollock and Matthew Lear) have insisted there is no concern for safety after a large amount of evidence to the contrary.
d) What actions GWRC will take to ensure the reliability of the Jacob’s report
e) What actions GWRC will take to ensure that their Management team take safety reports seriously in the future.
f) What actions GWRC will take to ensure that their Management team react quickly to safety reports in the future.

I would imagine that given there is only an hour worth of footage requested, that the time to analyse this would be only a few hours.

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

From: Bryn Masters
Wellington Regional Council

Dear Hugh,

 

Acknowledgement of Request for Information under the Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

 

Thank you for your email dated 29^th July 2019, requesting information
regarding the reliability of footage acquired from a report produced by
Jacob’s titled “Safety Assessment of Chews Lane Pedestrian Crossing”,
dated 30 May 2019.

 

Your request is being followed-up and a reply will be sent to you within
20 working days of the request being received.

 

Yours sincerely,

Bryn Masters

 

for

Luke Troy

General
Manager                                                                            

Strategy

Greater Wellington Regional Council

 

ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named
recipient(s) only. If you are not the named recipient and receive this
correspondence in error, you must not copy, distribute or take any action
in reliance on it and you should delete it from your system and notify the
sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of
the organisation.

Link to this

From: Nichola Powell
Wellington Regional Council


Attachment OIA 2019 256 Hugh Davenport extension.pdf
59K Download View as HTML


Dear Mr Davenport, attached is a letter advising of an extension to your
OIA request to 10 October 2019.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Nichola

 

Nichola Powell |

Kaiāwhina Matua ki te Kaiwhakahaere Matua Waka

Executive Assistant to General Manager Public Transport  
GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL
Te Pane Matua Taiao
Level 2, 15 Walter Street

PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
T: 04 830 4179 | www.gw.govt.nz | www.metlink.org.nz

 

ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named
recipient(s) only. If you are not the named recipient and receive this
correspondence in error, you must not copy, distribute or take any action
in reliance on it and you should delete it from your system and notify the
sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of
the organisation.

Link to this

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

I'm a bit surprised about this extension. Would it be possible to get a bit of background why it is expected to take so long?

My concern is that the footage to view is only an hour long, and when requested similar information (minus the screenshots), Greg Pollock was able to view the footage (a larger amount than requested here) in the space of 2 weeks. Now it seems that the council is unable to view an hours worth of footage in over 2 months. I find it extremely unusual as Greg Pollock found nothing of concern when he previously viewed the footage, so it should be quite straightforward to view and collate the response this time, or is the council actively trying to hide something?

Can I please make another request to the council:
- Time spent on consulting for this request since 29 July 2019
- Who was consulted, and when, and what about
- The expected time needed for consulting for this request since 26 August to 10 October 2019
- Who is planned to be consulted, and when during that period, and what are they planned to be consulted about
- The expected time needed for consultation for each of the questions asked.

For the above, I would imagine that this information is very fresh and should be able to be responded to promptly as this information was undoubtedly used when determining the extension required.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

Just confirming that you received my further request about the consultations needed for this request. By my calculations, this new request will be due September 24, and should not interfere with the existing extension of the original request. Please note that given you have already decided to extend based on necessary consultations, then the information must surely be readily accessible by the council and under the LGOIMA it should be released as soon as reasonably practicable. I note that the 20 working days is probably quite a long wait for such information that is readily available, and if the council chooses to wait until then they are failing to meet the standards and principles of the LGOIMA.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

From: Darrell Young
Wellington Regional Council

Dear Hugh,

 

Acknowledgement of Request for Information under the Local Government
Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

 

Thank you for your email dated 27 August 2019, requesting information
regarding OIA 2019-256:

 

·         Time spent on consulting for this request since 29 July 2019

·         Who was consulted, and when, and what about

·         The expected time needed for consulting for this request since
26 August to 10 October 2019

·         Who is planned to be consulted, and when during that period, and
what are they planned to be consulted about

·         The expected time needed for consultation for each of the
questions asked.

 

Your request is being followed-up and a reply will be sent to you within
20 working days of the request being received.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Darrell Young

 

 

for

Luke Troy

General
Manager                                                                                  

Strategy

Greater Wellington Regional Council

 

 

 

ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named
recipient(s) only. If you are not the named recipient and receive this
correspondence in error, you must not copy, distribute or take any action
in reliance on it and you should delete it from your system and notify the
sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of
the organisation.

Link to this

From: Nichola Powell
Wellington Regional Council


Attachment OIA 2019 256 Hugh Davenport.pdf
67K Download View as HTML


Dear Mr Davenport

Attached is our response to your OIA 2019-256.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Nichola Powell |

Kaiāwhina Matua ki te Kaiwhakahaere Matua Waka

Executive Assistant to General Manager Public Transport  
GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL
Te Pane Matua Taiao
Level 2, 15 Walter Street

PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
T: 04 830 4179 | www.gw.govt.nz | www.metlink.org.nz

 

ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named
recipient(s) only. If you are not the named recipient and receive this
correspondence in error, you must not copy, distribute or take any action
in reliance on it and you should delete it from your system and notify the
sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of
the organisation.

Link to this

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

Thanks for that response. I'm glad that the GWRC is finally allowing me to follow up on this.

As I've been given the opportunity to view the footage again (which I note was revoked from me before), I won't require the information in 1 and 3, as that was covering the situation when GWRC claimed there was no buses running red lights in the footage, as they have done in prior emails. In regards to that, am I correct in that I would not be required to pay the 3 hour fee for point 3, and just the fee for point 2?

There is a chance that GWRC will provide me the wrong footage for me to view, in which case I will make a further request for the information in point 3 at that time, and will be happy to pay the fee if that is the case. I would find it concerning if GWRC do intentionally provide the wrong footage though, but I would not be surprised given prior interactions with the council.

Understand about the refusal for point 4, and am happy for that to be excluded due to me being able to come view the footage in person. Again, this was just covering the situation where GWRC may claim that buses were not present in the footage, and by viewing the footage myself this should not be a concern.

As for point 5. I understand that using the LGOIMA is potentially not the right medium for that. After viewing the footage, and getting the still images for point 2, which will undoubtedly show that there was more buses running red lights than shown in the Jacob's report that you have provided me. When this is shown, I will be taking this matter further.

Finally as for the fee (for point 2, as point 3 is no longer required), this is up to 3 hours estimated. What would the new deposit be, and would I get a refund if this work takes less than 3 hours time (as it is only an hours footage, I would expect this to take only slightly longer than an hour, as both sides do not need viewing in entirety, and only required to get the still images I've requested). Once you have responded to this, I can provide the deposit as you wish.

As for a suitable time to visit, are you free tomorrow? Otherwise what are some suitable times next week?

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

From: Nichola Powell
Wellington Regional Council

Dear Mr Davenport, in response to your email, I will provide confirmation and possible dates early next week.

Yours sincerely

Nichola Powell | Kaiāwhina Matua ki te Kaiwhakahaere Matua Waka
Executive Assistant to General Manager Public Transport
GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Nichola Powell
Wellington Regional Council

Dear Mr Davenport

1.We’ve booked a room at GWRC Walter Street for 3 hours to allow ample time to view the footage, but you will only be charged for the time actually taken. The dates for the viewing are:

Tuesday 24 September 2019 between 1.00 and 4.00 pm
Wednesday 25 September 2019 between 9.00 and 12.00 pm
Thursday 26 September 2019 between 1.00 and 4.00 pm
Friday 27 September 2019 between 9.00 and 4.00 pm

Please advise which date suits you best

2.As outlined in our letter/email to you of 12 September 2019, the first hour will have no charge, the second hour is $76.00, and we will require a deposit of $38.00 then you will be charged $38/half hour or part thereof used (including, if required, the time taken to create images from the footage for your reference which removes personal identifiers). The deposit as requested in the letter will need to include the particulars and reference column with the remittance being sent to [email address]

3.Lisa Colebrooke (Business Advisor- Councillor Liaison (PT)) will be present during this time to supervise access to the footage only – there is no expectation that she will answer any queries that you may have about the footage or OIA. We would suggest that if you have any questions that you note these in writing and we will respond accordingly
.
4.Any technical queries requiring a response from Jacobs or other specialists may incur additional costs.

5.You may find it helpful to bring your own laptop with access to your footage to provide a comparison.

If you have any further questions relating to the viewing of the footage please let us know.

Nichola Powell | Kaiāwhina Matua ki te Kaiwhakahaere Matua Waka
Executive Assistant to General Manager Public Transport
GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

Thanks for that.

I am free Friday 27 September 2019 at 9am, I can stop by then and stay until the footage is reviewed.

I've just paid the new deposit using the same details as in the letter. I'm assuming that if I get everything I need within the first hour then I'll get that refunded, and if I need more time I'll be contacted to make further payment.

Understand that Lisa may not be able to answer questions. Any follow up I will do in writing.

I don't foresee any reason why Jacob's would need to be contacted to view the footage as you hold that footage in its entirety. If there is technical issues regarding your systems that prevent me from viewing the footage, then I don't think it is particularly fair that I have to pay to wait seeming as those issues would be entirely to do with your system. Can you please elaborate on what technical issues you could foresee that would require me to pay extra?

I will bring my laptop along so that I can correlate with my footage.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

From: Nichola Powell
Wellington Regional Council

Dear Mr Davenport, you should have received a meeting invite for the 27 September to your gmail account. In respect of your payment, you are correct that if you get all the information you require in the first hour your payment will be refunded. If you exceed the first 1 hour and 1/2 you will need to make a further payment.

When we refer to "technical queries" we are referring to information relating to the Jacobs footage eg time, dates, angle of the camera, speed of the recording. We can't answer these type of questions as we don't have the information. These would need to be deferred to Jacobs.

Yours sincerely

Nichola Powell | Kaiāwhina Matua ki te Kaiwhakahaere Matua Waka
Executive Assistant to General Manager Public Transport
GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

Thanks, got the invite this morning. Noted on your definition of technical queries, I shouldn't need to ask anything like that.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

From: Nichola Powell
Wellington Regional Council

Dear Mr Davenport, with you attending GWRC on Friday 27 September, do you still require the OIA 2019-304

"Can I please make another request to the council:
- Time spent on consulting for this request since 29 July 2019
- Who was consulted, and when, and what about
- The expected time needed for consulting for this request since 26 August to 10 October 2019
- Who is planned to be consulted, and when during that period, and what are they planned to be consulted about
- The expected time needed for consultation for each of the questions asked.

For the above, I would imagine that this information is very fresh and should be able to be responded to promptly as this information was undoubtedly used when determining the extension required."

Or can OIA 2019-304 now be cancelled, look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

Nichola Powell | Kaiāwhina Matua ki te Kaiwhakahaere Matua Waka
Executive Assistant to General Manager Public Transport
GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

Thanks for asking. As I'm still unsure why this request was extended, I would appreciate a bit of transparency on why it was extended and whether GWRC extended it with a valid reason for the LGOIMA, so I would still require a response to my supplementary request. I continue to stand by my comment that this information should be fresh and shouldn't require 20 working days to respond, as the information was likely used in the councils decision to extend this request.

If however, the council did not actually have a valid reason for the extension, and therefor don't have the supplementary information that I requested, then that would be a concern that I would inform the Ombudsman about. The council needs to ensure that their responsibilities under the Act are performed satisfactorily. Purposefully extending a request for the purpose of hiding information is not OK which I believe is what has happened here. There is already a complaint with the Ombudsman in regards to the extension (as somehow your team managed to view the footage within 2 weeks, yet when asked for over FYI it is for some reason going to take 2 months).

Given that this request is aiming to get transparency about the councils negligence under the Health and Safety at Work Act, my supplementary request will aid myself in getting more evidence of the council trying to cover up their negligence.

I appreciate that you probably have the view that this supplementary request is adding to the councils time commitments for responding to requests, but again I outline that the information should be extremely fresh and was most likely used to extend this request so it really should not impose a burden to the council to respond with the information. If it is for some reason a burden on the council, then the council most likely did not have a valid reason to extend the request in the first place which was the only reason I made the supplementary request.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

From: Nichola Powell
Wellington Regional Council

Noted

Nichola Powell | Kaiāwhina Matua ki te Kaiwhakahaere Matua Waka
Executive Assistant to General Manager Public Transport
GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Nichola Powell
Wellington Regional Council


Attachment Response to Hugh Davenport OIA 2019 304.pdf
66K Download View as HTML


Dear Mr Davenport

Attached is our response to your recent OIA.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Nichola Powell |

Kaiāwhina Matua ki te Kaiwhakahaere Matua Waka

Executive Assistant to General Manager Public Transport  
GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL
Te Pane Matua Taiao
Level 2, 15 Walter Street

PO Box 11646, Manners St, Wellington 6142
T: 04 830 4179 | www.gw.govt.nz | www.metlink.org.nz

 

ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named
recipient(s) only. If you are not the named recipient and receive this
correspondence in error, you must not copy, distribute or take any action
in reliance on it and you should delete it from your system and notify the
sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of
the organisation.

Link to this

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

Thank you. As I can see, the council is upholding their anti-transparency stance. I'll see you on Friday to determine how much the senior management team has attempted to hide in terms of health and safety. I will be laying a complaint with the Ombudsman for the refusal of my follow up request, which is related to the complaint about the extension of the first request.

Just a small note, as you extended my original request due to consultations, you should have had the information about the consultations quite readily available. By quite readily available, I mean I would have expected the response with all the consultations to be provided within a day or two. If you did not have the information available at the time I made the request, then you can't possibly have used that consultation to determine that you needed an extension. My request for what consultations were done was to show transparently whether the council had a legitimate reason to extend the original request or not. One can make the assumption that after 20 days the council is choosing to refuse to provide the consultations, that the council did not actually make any consultations and rather just extended the request for no reason except to further remove transparency.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

Hugh Davenport left an annotation ()

Complaint made to the Ombudsman:

Hi,

The council have now responded to my request about what consultations they did in order to decide to extend my original request. They are refusing to provide what consultations they made that caused the extension of the first request, on the grounds that it is frivolous. 

Due to that, I would like to raise a complaint about the refusal of my request of what consultations were made. I'm unsure about your workflow, but this may be suited to be wrapped up in the original complaint of the extension as they are highly related. I would say that my reasoning for requesting the consultations was to open up transparency with the council on why they extended the original request. Especially given that the original request involved looking at 1 hours worth of footage, I'm unsure how it required 73 working days to deliver rather than 20 as required by the LGOIMA.

I would imagine that the council was incorrect to extend the request, and the council is likely not the hold the data regarding the consultations due to their being none made. I aimed at using the LGOIMA to determine whether that is the correct assumption, however the council is refusing to apply the principle of availability, yet again.

Cheers,

Hugh

Link to this

Hugh Davenport left an annotation ()

Original complaint to Ombudsman, made on 27 Aug 2019:

I'm making a formal complaint about the extension of this request for information. Previously the council has viewed the footage asked for (an hours worth) and made comments on it in the space of 2 weeks. Now it seems that they require more than 2 months to "make consultations". I would not expect consultations need to be made if the General Manager of the agency is able to view the footage in the past with no consultations and in a timely manner.

I believe the council are actively trying to hinder this request. For context, they recorded video of an intersection and said only 3 buses ran red lights in the time they were recording. At the same time I was recording the same intersection with a different camera, and found that over 30 buses ran red lights on just one day. There is a discrepancy here, and a safety concern that the council appear to not be taking seriously.

I have made a follow up to determine what consultations they believe are necessary for this request, but this is the only follow up I will attempt to send them, as in the past they have not been easy to deal with in regards to information requests.

Cheers,

Hugh

Link to this

Hugh Davenport left an annotation ()

Response from Ombudsman 20 Sep 2019:

Good afternoon,

I tried to call you today regarding our complaint against the Greater Wellington Regional Council about the extension they put in place for this FYI request.

I did not manage to get hold of you, but wanted to discuss the recent engagement between yourself and the Council. It seems at this point that the Council are set to respond to your request regarding the consulting which caused the extension.

At this stage, I am putting a hold on any further action from this Office regarding your complaint about the extension, as it is likely to be resolved by the Council’s response which is due back to you on 24 September 2019. I will contact you after the deadline for the Council to respond to your request has elapsed to discuss their response and what next steps you would like to take.

If you have any questions or queries, please email me at this address or call me on (04) 460 9731 during work hours.

Link to this

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

Thank you for letting me view the footage this morning. I believe I took 15 minutes to get what I wanted, and am requesting 6 still images. At the estimated 5 minutes each, this should take an additional 30 minutes, making the total 45 minutes. As this is under an hour, and the first hour is free, I would like my deposit refunded as soon as possible.

The images I am requesting are in relation to the incident I reported, and your senior managers Greg Pollock (General Manager, PT) and Matthew Lear (Manager Bus and Ferry Operations, previously Health and Safety Manager) both concluded that there was nothing of concern in the video relating to this incident:
- Route 24
- 2 May 2019, around 7:55am
- Northbound
- The video footage I have for this is at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o7wfY1p...

For the record, the approach I used was to speed up the video footage to the fastest possible, skip to around 7:45am (10 minutes before the reported incident), and watched until I saw the incident at 8:00am (5 minutes after the reported incident). I then skipped to the correct timestamp on the opposite viewing video. This process took 15 minutes.

From the Jacob's footage, I would like to request the following images from the videos:
- From the file HeadingTowardsLambton/02-05-2019/074603_02-05-2019.avi, the following times:
* time 14:48 in video, datestamp shows 08:00:52:37, bus shown in focus
* time 14:54 in video, datestamp shows 08:00:58:83, bus at intersection line on red
* time 14:57 in video, datestamp shows 08:01:00:44, bus gone through intersection on red
- From the file HeadingTowardsManners/02-05-2019/0900-0800 02-05-2019/1_20190502-074602_0025h.avi
* time 14:52 in video, datestamp shows 08:00:55:81, bus shown orange light, starting to overtake cyclist over yellow lines
* time 14:55 in video, datestamp shows 08:00:57:47, bus shown red light
* time 14:58 in video, datestamp shows 08:01:00:25, bus gone through red light

I'm a bit appalled that two of your senior management team have lied about safety concerns about the Jacob's report when it was brought to their attention. In addition, they then tried to suggest that the videos I had were fake, which is a physiological torture technique known as gaslighting, which aims to manipulate the victim into doubting their own sanity. I find it concerning that senior managers of a public office perform such techniques on members of the public raising legitimate concerns.
Now that I've seen that the Jacob's footage has exactly the incident I reported, only 5 minutes off from the time I suggested to start looking, it is clear that my footage was not fake, and those senior managers either neglected to look at the footage when prompted by a safety concern, or simply do not believe that buses running red lights have a safety concern to the public.
I would appreciate an apology from both those managers for their actions.

I will be raising this with Worksafe NZ as a breach of the Health and Safety at Work Act, spanning almost a years worth of neglect by the Greater Wellington Regional Council of legitimate health and safety concerns to members of the public.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

From: Nichola Powell
Wellington Regional Council

HI Hugh, can you please provide me with your bank account details so that the refund can be arranged.

Regards

Nichola Powell | Kaiāwhina Matua ki te Kaiwhakahaere Matua Waka
Executive Assistant to General Manager Public Transport
GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL

show quoted sections

Link to this

Hugh Davenport left an annotation ()

Emailed separately.

Link to this

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear Nichola Powell,

I'm just making the council aware that I am yet to receive the information that was collated on Friday morning. I remind the council that under the LGOIMA, information requests must be released without undue delay after making a decision.

As you made the decision to release me some of the information on September 12, and I performed all the tasks required for you to collate the information on Friday September 27, and the remaining work required an estimated 30 minutes and you had a 3 hour slot for this work planned for Friday September 27, I would have expected that information to be released on Friday September 27th. As you have not done so, the information is now being delayed for some unknown reason.

I find it a bit concerning that some of your officers are planning on deleting this information before releasing it to me in order to cover up their corruption that this information proves. I would be a lot happier if the council adheres to the requirements of the LGOIMA and releases the data without undue delay. To me, that would be today as you failed to do so on Friday. Failure to do so will result in another complaint to the Ombudsman in regards to this request.

Yours sincerely,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

From: Nichola Powell
Wellington Regional Council

Hello, I may not have access to my email's this week.  If your email is
relation to Greg Pollock could you please forward to
[email address] as she is her EA

Regards

Nichola

ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named
recipient(s) only. If you are not the named recipient and receive this
correspondence in error, you must not copy, distribute or take any action
in reliance on it and you should delete it from your system and notify the
sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of
the organisation.

Link to this

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear Wellington Regional Council,

I'm just making the council aware that I am yet to receive the information that was collated on Friday morning. I remind the council that under the LGOIMA, information requests must be released without undue delay after making a decision.

As you made the decision to release me some of the information on September 12, and I performed all the tasks required for you to collate the information on Friday September 27, and the remaining work required an estimated 30 minutes and you had a 3 hour slot for this work planned for Friday September 27, I would have expected that information to be released on Friday September 27th. As you have not done so, the information is now being delayed for some unknown reason.

I find it a bit concerning that some of your officers are planning on deleting this information before releasing it to me in order to cover up their corruption that this information proves. I would be a lot happier if the council adheres to the requirements of the LGOIMA and releases the data without undue delay. To me, that would be today as you failed to do so on Friday. Failure to do so will result in another complaint to the Ombudsman in regards to this request.

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

Hugh Davenport left an annotation ()

Complaint laid with Ombudsman:

I would like to make an addition to my complaint about this request to include:
- Unfair charging for information
- Failure to release information without undue delay

On September 12, they responded to my request outlining that I would be charged for the request, and I would be allowed to view the footage myself.
They estimated that it would take 3 hours of staff time to view the footage to determine the times needed to take still images from the footage. However they were not actually using GWRC staff to perform that task, and instead required myself to take time off to come in and perform the task myself. I find it unusual that I would in essence be paying GWRC for my own time and labour, rather than their own. Due to this, I reduced my scope dramatically in order to reduce the amount of my personal time I would have to spend. If the council was charging for their time and labour instead, I would have been happy to pay for that information.

As for whether it was costing GWRC staff time, during my time at the GWRC I was accompanied by Lisa Colebrooke (Business Advisor, PT) while I reviewed the footage. It was clear that she was spending that time on other GWRC matters, and not on this request. As such, I do not believe that the charge for time was reasonable, as the cost for GWRC was 0 hours, not 3 as they estimated.

In regards to the undue delay to release the information. I provided all the details for GWRC to collate and release the information at 10am on Friday 27th September, with the knowledge that GWRC had allowed from 9-12am to process my request. The remaining time required for the information to be collated was estimated to be 30 minutes, so I thought it was a reasonable assumption that the information would be released on Friday 27th September. On Monday 30th September I reached out to the Council about my concern about the delay of releasing information, as at COB I had not heard back from them. I note that this request was also extended for some unknown consultations which I requested what the consultations were and was refused access to that information.

Overall, I believe the council has handled this particular request extremely poorly, and appear to not have a grasp on their requirements laid out under the LGOIMA.

Cheers,

Hugh

Link to this

From: Hugh Davenport

Dear Wellington Regional Council,

Just informing you that I am still waiting for the information I requested, as well as the refund for the deposit. Can I ask when both of these will be provided to me? Understand that your delay is breaking the law.

Yours faithfully,

Hugh Davenport

Link to this

From: Sharon Hornal
Wellington Regional Council


Attachment HeadingTowardsLambton 1.jpg
1.2M Download

Attachment HeadingTowardsLambton 2.jpg
1.2M Download

Attachment HeadingTowardsLambton 3.jpg
1.1M Download

Attachment HeadingTowardsManners 1.jpg
1.0M Download

Attachment HeadingTowardsManners 2.jpg
1.0M Download

Attachment HeadingTowardsManners 3.jpg
1.0M Download

Attachment Response to Hugh Davenport October letter.pdf
209K Download View as HTML


Dear Mr Davenport

 

Please find attached a response from Greater Wellington Regional Council
regarding recent LGOIMA correspondence and attached photos in response to
LGOIMA request 2019-256.

 

Ngā Mihi

 

Sharon Hornal | Kaiwhakahaere Matua ki te Kaiwhakahaere Matua

- Executive Assistant to Chief Executive, Greg Campbell
GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL
Te Pane Matua Taiao
Shed 39, 2 Fryatt Quay, Pipitea, Wellington 6011 | PO Box 11646, Manners
St, Wellington 6142
T: 04 830 4234 | M: 027 661 4677
[1]www.gw.govt.nz | [2]www.facebook.com/greaterwellington

 

ATTENTION: This correspondence is confidential and intended for the named
recipient(s) only. If you are not the named recipient and receive this
correspondence in error, you must not copy, distribute or take any action
in reliance on it and you should delete it from your system and notify the
sender immediately. Unless otherwise stated, any views or opinions
expressed are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of
the organisation.

References

Visible links
1. http://www.gw.govt.nz/
2. http://www.facebook.com/greaterwellington

Link to this

We don't know whether the most recent response to this request contains information or not – if you are Hugh Davenport please sign in and let everyone know.

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Wellington Regional Council only: