P.S.A Prosecution (CCTV)

fred funk }{

Just received this in an email from the P.S.A this morning.



Daniel Szczesny trading as DCS (Daniel Cabling Systems) of Main Street,
Castlerea, Co. Roscommon was prosecuted by the Private Security Authority
(PSA) for installing a CCTV security system without a licence.

At a sitting of Castlerea District Court last Friday, the 3rd of October,
Judge Geoffrey Browne imposed a fine of €1,000 on Mr.Szczesny together with
costs of €1,537.50 costs.

Mr. Szczesny pleaded guilty to installing a CCTV security system at
McGourty’s Bar, Castlerea in August 2013. The Court heard that Mr. Szczesny
had previously been warned by a PSA Inspector not to carry out the
installation of CCTV systems and that he had undertaken not to do so. Judge
Browne regarded it as very serious that he had received this warning and
that the offence was committed after this warning had been given.

The prosecution follows ongoing investigations in the area by the PSA
inspector.

altor

Got that also.

Have to laugh as he had previously been warned by a PSA Inspector and still went ahead with the install. I would say he made a lot more than the fine for the install. That not being the point, just there is no deterrent in a small fine.

kub

Typical bloody civil service thinking right there, some clown actually sat down and decided that it would be a good idea to prove to us installers that the PSA are doing what the F*** they are being bloody well paid to do.

I did not notice any mention of the client being prosecuted, oh what a shocker.

PSA take a bloody hike lads will ye and stop wasting our time, remember we are the people paying yer wages.

altor

They will never prosecute an end user as they need them to testify they paid the person to provide the service. If they did then an end user could just claim they installed said system themselves. No breaking of the law there.

kub

altor wrote: »

They will never prosecute an end user as they need them to testify they paid the person to provide the service. If they did then an end user could just claim they installed said system themselves. No breaking of the law there.

So in other words the PSA are taking the easy way out, well as they are civil servants then I am not surprised.
The modus operandi so is getting the client to rat on the installer. Really impressive investigation there but again I am not surprised.

altor

kub wrote: »

So in other words the PSA are taking the easy way out, well as they are civil servants then I am not surprised.
The modus operandi so is getting the client to rat on the installer. Really impressive investigation there but again I am not surprised.

I am not surprised either.
They won't bring an installer to court unless they are certain of a conviction against him. How many cut and dry cases have we heard of that never made it near court.
Even here the installer got a warning before the install. I welcome the conviction tho, it's not a cheap industry we work in.

kub

altor wrote: »

I am not surprised either.
They won't bring an installer to court unless they are certain of a conviction against him. How many cut and dry cases have we heard of that never made it near court.
Even here the installer got a warning before the install. I welcome the conviction tho, it's not a cheap industry we work in.

The bottom line is all The PSA are is another tax on our business.

altor

kub wrote: »

The bottom line is all The PSA are is another tax on our business.

All they are to the likes of us are another fee.
Have you ever heard of anyone being refused a licence?