A CCTV system, costing £15,000, designed to cut down on anti-social behaviour in Neyland does not work properly, police have said.

At a meeting on Monday (September 5), town councillors were told the cameras they purchased last year were not providing enough evidence to help officers crack down on crime at Brunel Quay car park.

PC Jon Dunn said the system “does what it says on the tin during the day” but was not doing what the police asked for at night.

He said the images produced were not clear enough to identify problem drivers or their number plates.

The view of one of the cameras was also obscured by a tree – meaning a space big enough for 15 cars remained hidden.

“If any of the boy racers wanted to be sitting there they would be totally out of the way,” he said.

PC Dunn said the base unit was also the wrong way round, making access difficult.

Mayor Cllr Simon Hancock said: “We were told at the outset that these cameras would be good for evidence by reading number plates and identifying drivers.

“That was absolutely clearly stated, and that is not the case.”

Cllr Paul Smith said security firm Ocon – which supplied the system – needed a “clear timescale” to sort the problems, after which point the council should “demand its money back or take court action”.

“If this was a business I was running we wouldn’t still be talking about it,” he said.

“We’re being strung along and this could go on for month after month.

“I cannot see why we’re being so reasonable with them, this is absolutely pointless.”

Town clerk Jane Clark said Ocon acknowledged it was not doing what had been promised.

She said a meeting was scheduled with Avigilon, the camera manufacturers, to have a “thorough look at the cameras and tune them into the best they could be”.

But Cllr Cllr William McGarvie opposed this move.

“Surely the contract is with Ocon, it’s for them to put it right, they’ve sold us a system that doesn’t work,” he said.

The clerk said she wanted Avigilon to be aware of what Ocon had supplied, in case there were any future problems.

“I don’t think Avigilon would want to be supplying cameras to a company that are going to have such dissatisfied customers,” she added.

Asked by Cllr Mike Harry why the column housing the cameras had been moved by one metre and not more – to avoid being blocked by trees – the clerk said it should not have been moved at all.

“The planning permission was to put it back in exactly the same place as the lattice tower,” she said.

Cllr Hancock scheduled a site visit with Avigilon and a meeting to “sort this wretched business out.”