I have copied in other interested parties.
Dr. Hughes,
Q: When do Certificates Become Bogus Letters ?
A: When they are issued by the VCA.
It has been some time since we last had contact. You will recall that in our last telephone conversation you attempted to justify your having sent out even more backdated and therefore bogus VCA Approved Device Certificates. No doubt you are still responsible for this abhorrent practice that an Adjudicator recently described as being extremely serious. When I explained that The VCA do not deny that they routinely do this, understandably The astounded Adjudicator was lost for words. Let me again caution you against this practice.
This disgraceful and unpardonable practice came to light when Enforcement Authorities started producing certificates out of a hat. This after I had questioned the fact that the EA concerned did not have certification.
I along with anyone else who looks at these documents call them certificates. Only after I started to question the content and validity of these documents did you prefer to call them letters and deny altogether that they were certificates.
Let us just examine the facts:
Unless I am mistaken you are employed at the Vehicle CERTIFICATION Agency. The main function of this organisation is to CERTIFICATE things.
The offending documents themselves all have the following words printed on them: CERTIFICATE No. XXX XX.
I recently asked an Adjudicator if she thought that the document that I showed her was a certificate or not. It was one of your 'letters.' After looking at me as if to say that the answer was obvious the reply was "Yes I would."
When I asked all 40+ EA's for copies of their 'VCA Certificates' under FOI not one replied that the copies of the documents that they were providing me with were anything other than certificates.
You may be surprised to know that EA's routinely supply copies of their 'VCA certificates' to the appeals tribunals to establish their equipment is certificated. In doing this they refer to them as being .... You've guessed it ....Certificates! Whatever makes them think that? Certificates from the VCA - heaven forbid!
I think that we can safely say that the only person who would say, without actually believing it, that the documents were not certificates is you. This refusal to accept the obvious would also not include Lord Atlee had he been provided with the correct information. You indirectly provided him with the false information that the documents were not certificates.
I refer to the following House of Lords question and answer:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-07-19a.279.0 "The department's Vehicle Certification Agency is reviewing all certification letters and issuing corrections where any clerical errors come to light. The review will ensure that all letters correctly state the date of production and the authority's application date." During the last three months, none of the reviewing has been conducted and the corrections have not been issued.
Of course the dates referred to by Earl Atlee would be the dates of application that are apparently (according to your certificates) routinely made for 'letters' long before the application is actually made. The date of production being the backdated dates that you have routinely been applying to your bogus certificates.
I would point out that, and no doubt you already know or should know this, the aforementioned widespread defects that are manifestly contained on your certificates are by no means the only "clerical errors" contained on them. The false date information is simply, as you also already know, the tip of an iceberg.
Can the VCA not afford a calendar or to employ "clerical" staff (is that you?) that have an understanding of the calendar? Perhaps the VCA's equipment used to print the certificates is in need of certification and rectification itself.
Even Dennis Batten your department's No. 2 (so far as I am aware there are only two people in your department) was also under the misapprehension that the documents were certificates.
I Quote: "VCA issued the certificate to which you are referring." "The Certificate (which is also a letter) is addressed to the council or their appointee." "I can only really comment on the accuracy of the Certificates, as they are the public documents indicating the status of the Enforcement system."
Well Well Well. Even YOU seemed to wrongly believe that the documents that you were responsible for issuing were certificates. This was before I started to question the validity of them. I can't for the life of me think why you would think that they were certificates. What made you change your mind?
I Quote: "The correction certificates bear the same date as the original issue 2 certificates sent on the 21st December." "VCA should have issued the issue 2 certificates in respect of TCF V1.1.0 which was dated 13/12/2010" "VCA’s position is that it is appropriate to issue correction certificates when it becomes aware of clerical errors." At no time did you refer to the certificates as being letters.
By the way, for 'correction certificates' read Bogus Certificates that are issued backdated. These certificates falsely purport that the EA was in possession of the document long before they actually were. This is usually long after the EA has commenced using the newly certificated devices for enforcement.
It was only after I continued to point out the blatant errors and omissions to these bogus certificates that you changed your stance on them. You decided on damage limitation. You embarked on a course of retreating from the position that the documents were certificates and instead started to call them letters. Bogus Letters or Bogus Certificates amount to the same thing they are both ....... Bogus. These were exactly the same bogus documents that hitherto you had been happy to refer to as and call "certificates."
At this juncture I will add that you will soon, if not already privately, be reduced to referring to them as worthless missives. For that is exactly what they are.
Therefore to sum up: According to you, your department, at The Vehicle CERTIFICATION Agency, entrusted with the CERTIFICATION of Approved Devices, do not actually issue any certificates at any time to anyone! According to you, the documents issued by your department that have the words CERTIFICATE No. printed on them are not certificates at all! This means that the words CERTIFICATE No.XXX XX must make the documents bogus because according to you they are not certificates. You cannot have your cake and eat it. Either the inclusion of the words Certificate No. make the documents bogus or they are certificates. Everyone including yourself knows that that is precisely what they are and were always intended to be.
I should add and you already know this. The documents are bogus for several reasons not just for the reason given above.
Perhaps you can answer these questions for yourself: What is the point of a department at the Vehicle Certification Agency that does not certificate anything? Oh I'm sorry you do certificate things but you don't actually issue any certificates. WHY NOT?
I am sure that Mr Stenning will be pleased to know that his signature is being appended to your 'letters.' Mr Stenning as you ought to be aware is a Member of The Board, Technical & Quality Support and is Authorised by The Secretary of State to append his signature to CERTIFICATES. He is not employed to sign your 'letters' for you.
Is Mr Stenning responsible for having his name appended to these (below) VCA Certificates?
VCA Target & Measure Type Status
"Complete 90% of System and Component Type Approval certificates within 9 working days."
"Our approval certificates are recognised without question throughout the European Community and the wider group of countries belonging to the European Economic Area and the Geneva-based United Nations organisation (ECE)."
Maybe these are not certificate either? If so please amend the VCA's web site accordingly. Please also rename the VCA the VLA
You fool nobody by your assertion that the certificates issued by your department are or were intended by you to be anything other than certificates.
Perhaps the VCA had better inform this company (see below) that the document that they wrongly think is a certificate is no such thing and is simply a letter. The document does not even have the word Certificate on it and yet the company seem to inexplicably think that it is a certificate. No doubt they paid the VCA handsomely for what they thought was a certificate. Will the VCA will now offer them a refund?
http://shanghaisunshow.en.alibaba.com/certificate/50039168/200011434/content.html I would take this opportunity to inform you of what you already know or ought to know. "Clerical errors" abound in your department. Furthermore, these "errors" have not been corrected by your department. This further failure is not in accordance with the statement by Earl Atlee.
Whilst I appreciate that it takes no more than a telephone call from an EA to you for you to send them a backdated bogus certificate by return of post. I fail to understand why it has taken nearly three months for you to do nothing regarding the "clerical errors" contained on the bogus certificates that your department have been responsible for issuing nationwide. I recall that it took you over a month to respond to an email that I sent to you. In contrast certificates have been issued by your department within two days of an application having been made for them. You and I know that this is insuficient time for you to conduct a thorough certification.
Incidentally a "clerical error" (your words) that you also caused Lord Atlee to use is defined by Wikipedia as follows: "A clerical error is an error on part of an office worker, often a secretary or personal assistant. It is a phrase which can also be used as an excuse to deflect blame away from specific individuals, such as high powered executives, and instead redirect it to the more anonymous clerical staff."
Who are these more anonymous clerical staff? Are they you?
May I point out to you that your department was not set up for the purpose of simply granting certification (by means of sending out bogus letters) for anything and everything that EA's care to put forward to you by simply rubber stamping applications. Your department has been responsible for the certification of devices that do not meet the requirements of C.O.A.D. I have evidence of this.
Your department stands accused of a complete catalogue of failures and cover-ups.
It is now time for you to seriously consider your position at the VCA. As more and more of these matters come to light as they most certainly will do your position will become even more untenable. If you publicly accept all of the failings of your department now you may be able to continue. Without doing that and remaining at the helm you are steering into very treacherous waters. Any delay will inevitably bring further dishonour on yourself and the VCA. Your House of Cards will inevitably come crashing to the ground sooner rather than later.
You previously informed me that when your departments practices were being questioned your policy was to keep a low profile by keeping your head down. Can I suggest that the time has now arrived to start standing up and publicly owning up for the abject failures of your department. The time for cover-ups and burying your head in the sand has long since passed.
Yours sincerely,
Nigel Wise.