Ombudsman investigation: QLDC refuses Cougar contract details

Questions asked by Crux under official information legislation last year about Cougar Security Ltd’s QLDC contracts remain largely unanswered, in spite of intervention by the Office of the Chief Ombudsman.

Cougar has secured extensive council contracts connected with parking enforcement, security services and even performing the duties of the Harbour Master.

QLDC is still refusing to detail how various the contracts were awarded to Cougar Security Ltd and what, if any, competitive bid or procurement process was used. The QLDC also will not answer questions about the value of the contracts or how they are monitored for compliance and performance.

The reason for refusing? Basically - it’s too hard according to the QLDC, or to use the official language “… the information requested cannot be made available without substantial collation or research.”

However, intervention by the Ombudsman’s investigation branch has persuaded the QLDC to release the cost of 447 CCTV cameras (bought using ratepayer funds but given to Cougar) when the council has previously told Crux that this information “did not exist.”

Responding to widespread community interest in how Cougar is paid, and how parking tickets are issued, along with privacy concerns around the use of CCTV camera data, Crux asked the following questions of QLDC on December 3, 2025.

Please supply details of all payments by QLDC to Cougar Security Ltd and Cougar Group Ltd (plus any affiliated companies - referred to collectively in this request as “Cougar”) since contracts were first entered into between the two parties.
Please detail the procurement processes used to originate all QLDC contracts with Cougar.
Were all of these procurement processes competitive bids via GETS - if not, why not? Please supply copies of relevant RFP’s etc used for procurement.
Please identify all contracts between Cougar and QLDC.
Please detail all measures used to monitor performance and compliance with these contracts and how the contracts are renewed or terminated.
Please detail all measures taken by QLDC to ensure that Cougar staff are suitably experienced and qualified to undertake the contracted work.
Do the contracts use fixed fees for services or are they based on a commission or quota system? How are the fixed fees calculated and updated?
Who is the QLDC manager responsible for Cougar’s contracts and performance?
Please supply all communications (including email but not limited to email) between that manager and Cougar over the past six months regarding any performance, contract renewal, compliance, and cost issues

Crux also asked the following specific questions, also on December 3, 2025, about the CCTV cameras that have been purchased by QLDC, but then given to Cougar Security Ltd to operate.

How many CCTV cameras does QLDC have or control in the Queenstown CBD, Wānaka and Frankton areas?
What was the total cost of these cameras - an approximate figure will be acceptable.
What are the cameras used for - and by whom within the council?
How many of these cameras are accessed, accessible or controlled by Cougar Group/Security Ltd or their affiliate companies?
Have cameras been installed and paid for by QLDC at the request of Cougar or affiliates? If so, how many, where and at what cost?
What measures are in place to protect the security and confidentiality of content accessed/recorded by these cameras?
Has QLDC received any complaints from regulators or members of the public about the use of these cameras and the content that access/record?
Do any other outside agencies have access to these cameras apart from Cougar - for example NZ police?

After receiving only limited, partial responses to some of our questions, and some total refusals, Crux complained to the Office of the Ombudsman on December 22, 2025.

One key refusal was over the cost of the cameras. This was the QLDC’s reason for refusing to answer.

“Section 17(e) – that the document alleged to contain the information requested does not exist or, despite reasonable efforts to locate it, cannot be found.”

Source: QLDC - LGOIMA response - December 19, 2025.

An investigation by the Ombudsman was started on January 9, 2026 - in particular after QLDC told Crux that information related to the cost of the CCTV cameras did not exist. Other parts of the Ombudsman’s investigation commenced at a later date as various LGOIMA deadlines expired.

QLDC had asked Crux to reduce the scope of our questions in order to potentially get some answers. The council’s position was that it was either too hard, or too time consuming to provide answers - or that the information did not exist. Crux declined the QLDC invitation to change our questions.

In summary, the Ombudsman’s investigator is still in contact with QLDC in an ongoing attempt to get full answers to our questions.

The General Cougar Questions.

QLDC refused to answer our questions 1,2,3,4,5, and 9 on the basis that:

“Council has good grounds under section 17(f) of the LGOIMA for refusing the information requested. Council consider it is necessary to refuse items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 of your request on the basis of the following ground:

• Section 17(f) - that the information requested cannot be made available without substantial collation or research.”

Here are the two LGOIMA responses to our general questions about the Cougar contracts.

December 12, 2025.

January 21, 2026.

The 447 Cougar CCTV Cameras.

There has been progress with the second request regarding the CCTV cameras, but only after the QLDC further delayed their response by setting the allowable days to respond back to zero, after accepting arguments made by the Office of the Ombudsman.

Even though the QLDC said in December this information “did not exist” the Ombudsman’s investigator has persuaded the council to “find” the costs and we can now publish them. What we don’t yet know is why the council purchased these cameras so that they could be handed over to Cougar and then paid ongoing fees to Cougar to operate them.