The cameras link to automated number plate recognition (ANPR) technology. WOF data is compared with ANPR records which then detects any discrepancies.
The trial focused on Hamilton and ended with a thumbs-up.“NZTA now wishes to adopt [the] platform as part of its standard inspection compliance toolkit to support investigations and regulatory decisions,” said a report last October brought to light in RNZ’s inquiries.
The tests used cameras in two networks last year to see if they would help with 13 investigations.
In those 13, they spotted things 28 times that could have “significantly advanced those investigations”. As it was a test, they didn’t actually use the information.
Plugging holes
The trial arose out of regulatory holes.
“Following an investigation into fraudulent Warrants of Fitness (WOF) a pattern of out-of-region vehicle ownership among delinquent Inspection Organisations (IOs) was revealed,” the October report said.
“Despite deploying resources to follow up on this lead, the inquiry yielded no actionable results, raising concerns about the efficiency of investigative methods and prompting questions about the underutilisation of available surveillance tools like vGrid.”
The vGrid tool is the platform used in the tests.
It runs CCTV footage through ANPR – in this case, from cameras in the billboards of advertising company LUMO, and from other cameras run by Hamilton City Council, mostly at major intersections. LUMO has 69 ANPR cameras nationwide.
Run by Auckland firm SaferCities, vGrid is already used by police to identify vehicle owners about a thousand times a day.
RNZ revealed the WOF camera tests last July.
The tests proved the agency got “usable and valuable evidence for investigations” this way.
“The platform yielded promising results, including successful data matches that would not have been otherwise obtainable,” the October report said.
NZTA only used it where it had a suspect garage it was targeting.
“It does not operate these [camera] networks and does not conduct mass surveillance.”
Put on pause
Fraudulent inspections “pose serious safety risks”, the report said.
Nevertheless, the agency had hit stop.
“The use of vGrid has been paused since mid-2025,” it told RNZ.
“While the use of VGrid or similar tools could add an additional option to support investigation activity, NZTA is currently prioritising our finite regulatory resources in other areas,” the agency said this week.
It declined an interview.
The investigation into out-of-region WOFs was ongoing so it couldn’t be specific, it said.
But in general, when it identified that a vehicle inspection service was doing a higher than average number of warrants on cars from outside its region, staff would contact the owner of the vehicle to find out if it was in the same place where the WOF was issued.
“Tools like vGrid provide an alternative way of identifying whether a vehicle was in the same region as the inspecting organisation at the time the WOF was issued.”
Though the agency has hundreds of its own speed-safety cameras nationwide, it would be “inconsistent” and an “unauthorised secondary use” to tap into these this way, its October report said.
Use with care
Number plates are regarded as personal information because they can show someone’s movements.
The police’s widespread and growing use of ANPR is subject to legal challenge with a Court of Appeal ruling expected as early as next month.
Waka Kotahi did the WOF camera tests first then, when it worked, got a privacy impact assessment done later in the October report.
“Recent Official Information Act (OIA) requests and commentary suggest that the public is particularly sensitive to issues of scope creep and mission drift, where surveillance tools are used beyond their originally stated purposes,” the assessment said.
If NZTA adopted vGrid, it must “ensure that its use of surveillance technologies remains lawful, proportionate, and aligned with public expectations”.
Its use complied with privacy principles so long as there were safeguards, the assessment concluded.
That should include minimising incidental footage of vehicle occupants. However, it noted the footage might be subject to the OIA.
There must be “clear boundaries for data use” plus auditing to ensure the data at vGrid – which stored ANPR images in Australia – was secure.
“Only certification investigators involved in serious cases (eg, potential prosecution or authority revocation) may access footage,” was one control suggested. Another was to retain the footage for a maximum of three months.
ANPR systems often hold footage of a vehicle for six months.
The assessment noted the agency had a transparency statement about data collection on its website. That statement did not mention ANPR but did mention CCTV.
It also said, “In limited cases and with additional governance, management, and legal oversight” the agency might collect information “by observing regulated parties in public places”. Regulated parties include WOF issuers.
Should you be told?
The impact assessment said NZTA was not “currently required” under privacy principles to tell individuals about the collection of their information where it had been collected from a third party.
That was to change in May 2026, it noted, so the agency should be very open with the public about what it was doing on its website and through media.
The fact it might adopt vGrid had been discussed with key vehicle inspection groups and the Motor Trade Association “who have all expressed support”. It planned to formally engage with all inspectors if it adopted it.
LUMO said, “There has been nothing new since and NZTA have not had access to the camera network since that trial”.
RNZ approached the council for comment.
‘Increased effectiveness and efficiency’
NZTA spends almost $120 million a year monitoring inspection organisations like garages.
It easily exceeded its target in 2024-25 of taking 3500 monitoring activities hitting almost 5400, according to its 2025-26 statement of expectations.
It then lifted the target to 4000 “to reflect our increased effectiveness and efficiency, and our strengthened approach”.
“But our level of delivery … is also resource dependent,” it said.
How ANPR works
The October report that contains the privacy impact assessment gave a primer on automated number plate recognition, which has spread countrywide in the last decade.
Councils, businesses and community groups owned cameras – they are called “producers” (of data). “Producers must have a lawful basis under the Privacy Act to disclose personal information.”The Privacy Act allows information to be shared to prevent a serious safety risk – hence producers can share the data.They nominate “users” as part of the disclosure chain.The users upload data to vGrid which processes it “without using it for its own purposes”.vGrid allows authorised parties – in this case NZTA – to retrieve and analyse data “from a diverse range of sources such as CCTV cameras, mobile devices and drones”.