notomob.co.uk

General Category => General No To Mob Discussion => Topic started by: Nigel W on 16 October, 2011, 08:45:28 PM

Title: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Nigel W on 16 October, 2011, 08:45:28 PM
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 (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 (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.
 

Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Pat Pending on 16 October, 2011, 09:14:50 PM
I have said it before and I make no apology for saying it again, I'm bloody glad you are on our side Nigel. :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
 
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Boyo on 17 October, 2011, 03:24:40 PM
Cracking letter Nigel - I echo Pat's sentiments! :aplude: :aplude:
They can not be allowed to get away with backdating things! W:T:F:

That's just corruption and "one rule for them and one rule for us" personified.

I dread to think what would happen if I'd let my MOT or Insurance lapse and then, after some months I asked for them to be backdated?! :o

This is wrong on so many levels and the sooner the full glare of the spotlight of publicity is brought to bear on this sneaky, underhand practice, the better :bashy:
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Nigel W on 18 October, 2011, 07:41:10 PM
Further mail sent to Dr Hughes reference Westminster:

Dr Hughes,
 
Are you aware of the nature of the evidence supplied by Westminster City Council ? This 'evidence' is routinely supplied by them. The evidence supplied produced by their 'Approved Devices' does not comply with the 2007 Approved Devices England Order nor COAD.
 
Perhaps you would like to see my Grounds of Appeal. You can see these here: http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,1364.0.html (http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,1364.0.html)  in the fifth post down.
 
Westminster did supply further evidence during the adjournment. This consisted of a copy of the 'evidential DVD.' This too failed to display all of the required metadata. It was necessary to download DVTel software to enable the recipient to view it so that it displayed all of the metadata. When this was attempted anti-virus software flashed up an message warning that a trojan virus was being downloaded.
 
Clearly Westminster's devices do not come up to scratch. Evidence provided ought to be in the form of a DVD that plays in an ordinary DVD player. It should not be a requirement to have a PhD in Cybernetics to be able to view evidence. Devices that produce this type of evidence have no place as 'Approved Devices.'
 
Can I suggest that far from your attempting to pad up Westminster's defective certification documentation by providing them with more 'letters' you ought to be suspending Westminster's certification for these DVTel cameras altogether.
 
I have already heard from a journalist that Westminster are saying that your department is fully behind them. I will remind you of my earlier communication. Your department at the VCA was not set up as a department that provides assistance to EA's whenever they require it whether it is warranted or not. Your department was set up to act as a buffer between the public and EA's.
 
You are entrusted with coming to the public's aid when they are in need of protection. Show some teeth.  Start by showing that this is what you are now doing. Suspend Westminster's Certification forthwith pending a complete review of it.
                                                                                                                      Yours sincerely,   
                                                                                                                                                   Nigel Wise.
                                                               
 
 
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 18 October, 2011, 07:49:07 PM
I foresee another pelt for the trophy room. Please Nigel, don't ever be tempted by the dark side.

     (http://serve.mysmiley.net/fighting/fighting0040.gif) (http://www.mysmiley.net)
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Nigel W on 29 October, 2011, 08:08:29 PM
Further mail sent to Dr Hughes. It should be on his desk first thing on Monday morning.  My mails start his week off in the right footing.

Dr Hughes,
It has now been two weeks since I sent you an email regarding your failed and fast becoming defunct department. You have not replied to this mail even with an acknowledement of it.
 
This is despite my receiving a reply from Tony Stenning and others who amongst other interested parties I copied in. Mr Stenning informed me in his mail that the VCA were considering my mail and would reply as soon as it was able to.
 
I followed this email up with another email requesting some information regarding Westminster's patently incorrect and therefore bogus certification of devices that fail to provide the correct evidential information as detailed in the legislation and COAD. This related to the Defective Certification Documentation that you supplied to Westminster that an Adjudicator would not accept as certificating Westminster's devices. You have failed to reply or even acknowledge this important communication as well. This despite Denis Batten having replied to Westminster by return in a failed attempt at shoring up their flawed certification.
 
Has the email system at the VCA broken down in the same way as your department demonstrably has?  Perhaps your department has been inundated with requests from EA's who are requesting you to supply certificates in place of the 'letters' that you now belatedly say are all that you send out at the Certification Agency. Certificates? What are they?  We don't send any! You will recall that these 'letters' are the same documents that you were previously happy to refer to as certificates. Are these the reasons for your delay in providing a reply?  You may also be interested to learn that Adjudicators expect to see CERTIFICATES. Letters or emails or phone calls will not suffice. This is since your departments practices have been laid bare. Nobody can trust anything that your department does or issues as a consequence of those actions. Backdated Bogus Certificates, incorrect information on Certificates, watering down of Certificates by calling them letters, failure to respond to important emails etc. etc. The list is endless.
 
Whilst on the subject of delays what has happened regarding the following statement made by Earl Atlee in the House of Lords. "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." This is supposed to stop you sending out any more Bogus Certificates. Have you sent any of these correction documents out yet ? These documents will need to state the date that they are produced. This will mean that the Authority that you send them to will not have been in possession of the documents when they started enforcement. They therefore had no business in conducting any enforcement without them. Oh - but we did leave a message on their answer phone will not suffice I am afraid.
 
When I recently spoke to Dennis Batten he seemed to be unaware of this statement in the Lords. How many of these correction 'letters' have been issued since the 19th July 2011 when this statement was made. Will these letters now have the words Certificate No. deleted from them? Will the 'letters' have the words 'letter No." on them instead? If not why not? Do these letters now have the correct date of their production on them? If so doesn't this confirm that the documents previously issued were bogus?
 
You will shortly be requested again to supply one of these 'letters' to the London Borough of Bexley. I was informed by Ms. Tina Brooks Bexley's Parking Manager, at a meeting that I had with her last Friday, that the reason that she has not previously requested this document from you is because she was worried that if she did she would be in the same position as Richmond are in.
 
Apparently she had been in touch with your department about this. Inexplicably she had been informed that her documentation was in order. This meant that she was in the position of having to supply her TCF along with the certification 'letter' to any parking appeal. The problem with this is that the TCF contains information not for the eyes of the public. Ms. Brooks was under the false impression that she could supply the TCF for the Adjudicator to see only. This is not in accordance with the Tribunals directions to EA's that prohibit this. All evidence must be available for the Appellant to see.
 
You will be aware that Bexley's current certificate 'letter' certificates absolutely NO approved devices whatsoever. For some inexplicable reason the only 'device' mentioned on the certificate is a 'Mobile Vehicle.' There are no cameras or system details given at all.  I am sorry to have to inform you that so far as I am aware all vehicles are mobile. Furthermore as you ought to already know a vehicle of any type, mobile or not, cannot be certificated as an approved device under the legislation or COAD. Why was this defective certification 'letter' sent out in the first place? Why was Ms. Brooks wrongly informed that her 'letter' was all in order?
 
You will be aware, or ought to be, that Bexley's 'letter' when contrasted with other 'letters' sent out by your department is seen to be defective. These other 'letters' detail chapter and verse the makes and model Nos. of cameras some detailing several cameras.  They also detail and name the systems used. Why were Bexley Council denied this service? Some of the aforementioned certificates were sent out prior to Bexley's and afterwards. Did the VCA hold a party the night before Bexley's certificate was produced to celebrate the bonuses that it's staff received? Was there more merriment the night before Ms. Brooks contacted your department to request the correct certificate?
 
Further to Earl Atlee's reply in The Lords. "It is current policy that a brief one-line description of the nature of the system is given along with a reference to the technical construction file, in which the complete system is described."  You will be aware that two words that could more aptly be either one of the words ("Mobile Vehicle") is not a brief one-line description of the nature of any recognised "system" under the legislation or COAD. What went wrong there?

You will be pleased to know that I have established that your certificates could correctly be referred to as letters. This is only because these often bogus documents are supplied by you in envelopes and arrive in the post. Only the Post Office would refer to these as letters. I rightly refer to some of these as being BOGUS CERTIFICATES. 
 
I have just received an Insurance Certificate that also arrived in an envelope in the post. Perhaps I should inform the Insurance Co. that they ought to delete the word Certificate from these documents and instead start to call them Insurance Letters. Yes - that has a nice ring to it. Oh no - they can keep the words on them and then water the documents down when people make claims by calling them letters, just as you have feebly attempted to do.
 
As you are able to send out certificates overnight to EA's after obviously not having conducted the correct processes before dispatch of this important documentation. Perhaps you could see you way clear to replying to my important mails to you. I do realise that they pose awkward questions for you that you will be unable to answer without digging yourself deeper into the hole that you started for yourself. This being the case please respond and inform me that this is the reason for your failure to respond.
 
                                                                                 Yours sincerely,
                                                                                                             Nigel Wise.
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: BailiffHunter on 29 October, 2011, 08:13:58 PM
Whilst I still have my liberty....well done Nigel! :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 29 October, 2011, 08:24:27 PM
I get the feeling Mr Hughes is not going to have a very merry Christmas.




Perhaps, he will be spending it in the cell next to BH's :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: BailiffHunter on 29 October, 2011, 08:29:25 PM
I don`t do double cells mate! Clearly local rioters, muggers and rapists are less important than little old me! The MPS are lovely and clearly need a hug!
Title: Further Mail to Dr Hughes Regarding Withdrawal of Westminster's Certification.
Post by: Nigel W on 30 October, 2011, 04:46:24 PM
Further mail sent to Dr Hughes:

Westminster's Defective & Wrongly Certificated Approved Device Certification (By Letter!)

Dr Hughes,
Please find attached PaTAS Westminster Adjudication and My Second Ground of Appeal for this Adjudication. You will see that Adjudicators will not stand for ANY Discrepancies on your Certification 'Letters.' You will also see that, as anyone in their right mind would, the Adjudicator refers to your 'letter' as a Certificate.  "The council submits that its cctv camera model is certified by the Secretary of State providing VCA Certificate PAD038 in support."
 
Also attached is my Ground 1 of Appeal and Supplementary. This exposes the defective nature of the evidence provided by Westminster's 'Approved Devices.' I  am sure that you will be interested to see the type of evidence provided by these 'Approved Devices.' I do not know if you are already aware of the nature of this 'evidence.' After reading the ground you will be in possession of the information required for you to withdraw Westminster's certification for their DVTel 9840 Cameras. These are the Cameras that Westminster refer to as DVTel 9840A cameras. Obviously the fault lies in the system equipment. As the Approved Device includes the cameras it will be necessary for you to withdraw the entire certification.
 
You may also be interested to learn that during the Adjournment Westminster supplied the Appellant with a copy of the "Evidential Copy DVD." This required the recipient to insert it into his computer and download software to be able to view it correctly. When this was attempted a message was seen that warned him that he was downloading a Trojan Virus! This type of evidence supplied by Westminster is not fit for purpose and you had no business certificating the equipment that provides it. Evidence provided ought to play when inserted into a standard DVD player.
 
Furthermore you will see that the still images provided by these defective devices fail to display the Metadata in a readable format.
 
Please confirm that you have withdrawn the certification of these defective devices pending a complete review of them sooner rather than later.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Yours sincerely,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Nigel Wise
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 31 October, 2011, 05:22:59 PM
Please confirm that you have withdrawn the certification of these defective devices pending a complete review of them sooner rather than later.

MMMMMMMWWWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :-ev-: :-ev-: :pmsl: :pmsl: :pmsl:
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Nigel W on 09 November, 2011, 12:44:07 PM
Latest mail to Dr Hughes.

Dr Hughes,
 
Still no response from you to my earlier emails sent over three weeks ago.
 
No doubt you will be aware of the contents of The Civil Traffic Enforcement Certification of Approved Devices (COAD). At least you ought to be, it being the foundation of your departments activities at the VCA. It is available for your perusal here:  http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tmaportal/tmafeatures/tmapart6/certapproveddevices.pdf (http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tmaportal/tmafeatures/tmapart6/certapproveddevices.pdf)
 
This document is very enlightening. You will remember that you previously retracted from the position that the documentation issued by you to Enforcement Authorities were Certificates. This was after I started to expose the woeful content of these often bogus documents. You started to call them letters instead and you even caused Earl Attlee to have to refer to these important documents in the House of Lords as letters. You refused to budge from this position.
 
At your behest even Enforcement Authorities have been reduced to having to refer to these documents as 'letters.' This includes The LB of Bexley who have answered journalists questions by referring to their worthless documentation issued by your department as a letter. See the article in today's Bexley News Shopper.
 
Also see:
 
 http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,1469.msg11974/topicseen.html#msg11974 (http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,1469.msg11974/topicseen.html#msg11974)
 
Therefore we have to accept that as things stand no Certificates are in the possession of any Enforcement Authority in the U.K. and that Enforcement Authorities only have letters. This means that every single Authority has been using their equipment impermissibly without the required approval Certificate. You even told me that there was no requirement for you to issue any certificates and that a letter or an email would suffice. YOU WERE WRONG.
 
I refer to the above COAD document on page 7 at 2.1.4:
 
(I believe that your department works on behalf of the Secretary of State to issue these 'letters.')
 
Contains my emphasis: 
 
Applications to the Secretary of State 
The Secretary of State will decide whether to issue a certificate of approval to the applicant on the basis of the Technical Construction File and any other exchanges that take place subsequently. The Secretary of State will retain the TCF and any associated information, and, where necessary, will advise of any further steps necessary to achieve certification.
 
Therefore as according to you you as you have never issued any certificates every Authority has been using their equipment without the required approved device certificate of approval described in COAD.
 
I am sure that the Secretary of State will be very pleased to hear that the DfT have been wasting considerable sums of money at the VCA.
 
Go now whilst you are still able to. You are only delaying the inevitable by remaining in your position. Fall on your sword as Terry Powell was compelled to do. Your position has now become untenable.
 
Please pass all of my paperwork over to Dennis Batten on your way out.
                                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                         Yours sincerely,
                                                                                                                                                      Nigel Wise.
 
                                                                                                                               
                                                                                               
                                                                                                                           
 
 
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: tommy the trumpet on 09 November, 2011, 05:47:08 PM
I have a copy of one of these from Medway. Upon checking the devices one was a camera and the other was an incomplete description of a camera model.
Nowhere on that, which I will call correspondence as it is not worthy of being called a certificate, does it state any type of recording device. I have sent a letter back asking for a certificate of approval listing either a digital video recorder, network video recorder or still image recorder the mind boggles what their reply will be.
I have let them know as at this time all they posses is a very expensive observation system as no cctv system is operational without a recording device and any images or footage captured must surly be in addmissable as evidence.
Also would Medway be in contempt of court for not possesing the correct certification (quite possibly knowing that)  and then pushing these fines through their highly efficient bulk parking facility at Northampton.
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: tommy the trumpet on 09 November, 2011, 06:22:03 PM
I have pasted below my enquiry reply from won woo about thier 261 camera,  it lists a web site as well so you can all have look . I do have a question for Medway resulting from this, the won woo camera listed is a white unit and the website does not tend to show a black version (why would you paint it black if it is being installed on a white citreon), the trius camera range listed (no specific model)  is a box camera which means the camera used on the cars must be the won woo? Or is it.


Most of the security industry prefer to use named quality equipment ( I am one of them).




Dear Sir

 

I do hope this email find you very well.

 

One of our UK customer is selling the WCC-E261 model for their application.

I do not have any info on your company and I do not know if you want me to forward your inquiry to them or not.

Please let us have more on you and let me advised of your idea.

 

Thanks and best regards,

 

Sam / General Manager

WONWOO ENGINEERING CO.,LTD
7F/201, Techno Park ?. Biz-City, 36-1, Samjeong-Dong
Ohjung-Gu, Bucheon-city, Gyunggi-Do Korea
www.goodome.com (http://www.goodome.com)
===========================================
Tel: +82-32-624-0047
Mobile: +82-10-4173-1076
SKYPE ID: samcha99


===========================================





Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Nigel W on 16 November, 2011, 03:12:13 PM
Tommy,
Note the Company Name: WONWOO ENGINEERING CO.,LTD

It is NOT Won Woo or as sometimes used on certificates Won-Woo. This is just another point regarding the sloppy work of the VCA.
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Nigel W on 16 November, 2011, 03:13:32 PM
Latest mail to Dr Hughes:

Dr Hughes,
 
Why have you still failed to respond to any of my mails sent to you over the last month? You are only delaying the inevitable by your continual failure to respond to these important communications.
 
I again refer you to the situation that you have placed EA's nationwide in. You have done this by stating that you do not issue any certificates. These are the certificates that your 'bible' (COAD) says that you should issue and that EA's should apply for.
 
It is also of note that Adjudicators expect to see Certificates. Nothing less will do. PaTAS consider your documents to be Certificates. They refer to them as Certificates in their latest report.
 
Your defective and often bogus 'letters' befittingly are no longer accepted by Adjudicators. These are the 'letters' that you have conceded contain 'clerical errors'. These voluminous and blatant 'errors' are manifestly present on the vast majority of these 'letters.' This is why, since I brought this matter to light, you have retreated from referring to them as certificates.
 
Westminster City Council along with many many more EA's are now in this unenviable situation at your department's fault. Several more Appeals have been allowed using my Grounds since my successful presentation of this Ground.
 
This is despite Westminster's padding out of their certification after Denis Batten sent them an email. You have provided them with one of your 'letters' that Adjudicators will not accept as providing any certification for the devices that they are using. This is quite apart from the fact that you had no business approving Westminster's devices at all.
 
I refer to BBC TV News and to press articles today.
 
Because you are now unable to issue any more bogus backdated certificates Westminster have no certification. Your practice of issuing these bogus backdated certificates was previously used by you at will to overnight plug holes in certification at the behest of EA's.
 
You even had the barefaced audacity to inform me that this reprehensible routine was 'acceptable.' It may have been acceptable to you but it is and was unacceptable to any right minded person including Earl Atlee who prevented you from doing it anymore.
 
You have also failed to act decisively by withdrawing this certification after I pointed out the errors in the wrongful certification of these non compliant devices to you. This information was provided to you over a month ago. Westminster's devices are devices that are incapable of being approved under COAD (by letter or otherwise). The devices also do not provide evidence in accordance with the legislation. You know or ought to now realise this and yet you do nothing.
 
You continue to 'keep your head down' and it is also notable that none of your colleagues at the VCA have said anything in support of you or your position.
 
The time has now come and passed for you to tender your resignation. Nothing less will suffice. Do this straightaway. Your position is now totally untenable.
 
Your steadfast resistance to do the decent thing heaps more shame on you, your department and also reflects badly on the VCA as a whole bringing it into disrepute.
 
Why are you lingering on treading water whilst demonstrably being unfit for the job you hold? The department that you head is an unmitigated failure. Face up to the facts.
 
Yours sincerely,
Nigel Wise.
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: BailiffHunter on 16 November, 2011, 04:25:32 PM
This what you are looking for?

http://g.co/maps/y3bzp (http://g.co/maps/y3bzp)
Title: Re: VCA Headquarters. Bristol
Post by: Ewan Hoosami on 16 November, 2011, 04:37:55 PM

Perhaps someone can get this Google picture to display properly? There is a to let board outside. Could this be a typo? When I visited more recently there were to let stickers in the windows!


I've attached a screen shot below.

(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-computer001.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Nigel W on 27 November, 2011, 03:56:38 PM
I have received the following reply from Tony Stenning at the VCA. He is The Head of Technical & Quality Support at Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) UK.

Mr Stenning is the person responsible for signing the 'letters' that they send out in place of certificates.

My reply to this mail is below it.

Dear Mr. Wise,
 
I have been asked to reply to the two e-mails that you sent to the Minister for Transport, and to members of staff in VCA, on the 16th October 2011 and on the 18th October 2011. In these e-mails and in the embedded link to the Westminster City Council (WCC) related “PaTAS Case No. 2110348237 Grounds of Appeal” you raise a number of points which I have listed below, with VCA’s responses.
 
In your e-mail of 16th October:
 
You challenge the distinction between a Certification Letter and a Certificate, and the information that should be contained in them.
The certification of an approved device is based on a technical, document-based assessment of the Technical Construction File (TCF) supplied to VCA by the authority concerned.
 
The legislation requires that, for a device to be an approved device, it must be of a type that has been certified by the Secretary of State.  The legislation does not specify the form or manner in which certification is to be communicated to the applicant.  VCA’s practice is to confirm the certification by means of a letter, which we accordingly refer to as a “certification letter”.  However, in these circumstances, there is no legal difference between a “certificate” and a “certification letter”
 
However we choose to refer to the document, the key point is that it serves to confirm to an authority that a system has been certified.  The document provides a reference to the TCF, which contains the full description of the system that has been certified.  A short indicative description of the system is also given in the letter, to assist in identifying to the applicant authority the system that is certified, but it is the TCF itself that contains the full detail.  Accordingly, the system that is certified is the one described, in detail, in the TCF. This approach was set out in the Earl Atlee response to the question raised by Lord Lucas referenced in your letters.
 
You believe that VCA issues backdated and bogus “Certificates”.
You suggest that VCA issued letters purporting to certify systems at a date prior to the date when certification actually occurred. That is not the case.
 
A number of letters were issued in hard copy form to confirm updates to certifications that had previously been communicated to the applicant authorities by e-mail.  This was simply to provide a complete documentation package for the authority.
 
In addition, where minor clerical errors were noted on existing certification letters, these too were corrected and supplied as replacements. Corrected letters are identified as such in the line describing the certification number.  This was an administrative exercise and in those cases, the authority concerned had already submitted the necessary information in their TCF and had received the required acknowledgements at the appropriate time.  Update letters or corrected letters changed nothing in relation to the nature of the certifications, which are based on the contents of the TCF. Certifications have not been backdated.
 
You question whether a review of the Certification Letters has taken place and whether additional or replacement Certification Letters have been issued.
A review has been conducted and additional and replacement letters have been issued in accordance with the information provided in answer to the previous point. These letters were issued mainly during May, June and July this year.
 
You question the role of VCA in the automotive Type Approval process.
VCA is the UK Type Approval Authority for automotive type approval and issues Type Approval Certificates under legislation from the European Union and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.  These certificates are issued in accordance with a legal framework included in the appropriate regulations or directives and the certificates are prescribed in the legislation.
 
In your e-mail of 18th October:
 
You challenge the use of a third party application to display evidence.
VCA reviewed the WCC TCF which described this method for reviewing the evidence. VCA accepted that viewing the images and the associated metadata in a free third party software application was acceptable.
 
You question the need for the recording system to be certified and included on the Certification Letter.
The recording system, along with several other system components, needs to be included in the TCF for certification. The relevant legislation sets out the requirements that must be met in order for a type of device to certified, and these include specific requirements about the recording system.  Accordingly, it is necessary for the recording system to be included in the TCF for certification.  The point about whether it needs to be included in the Certification Letter is addressed in response to your first point above.
 
You question why the Certification Letter PAD038 contains a camera designation of DVTel9840 but the camera asset register shows a DVTel9840A.
In the TCF, WCC use DVTel9840 and DVTel9840A to refer to the same camera type. You may be aware that WCC had to modify their DVTel cameras to meet the COAD requirements. Their TCF provides a clear explanation of both the basic camera and the modifications. VCA was provided with this information, as part of their TCF, at the time of the application. VCA accepted this and is satisfied that the certification is valid. The Certification Letter, PAD038, follows the principle outlined in the answer to the first point above, i.e. it is indicative of the system and references the appropriate TCF.
 
You challenge the date which appears in the paragraph below the short specification list on the Certification Letter.
The date in the first paragraph which starts “I am directed by the Secretary of State …” is the date that the Council or Authority originally applied for Bus Lane and/or Parking certification.  It does not refer to the date of the specific application or TCF update which is currently being processed.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
A Stenning
 
Member of the Board
Head of Technical and Quality Support

FAO Mr Tony Stenning etc,

Your response to my emails
Dear Mr Stenning,
Thank you for your emailed response of 16 th. Nov. in response to my own emails.
In this, my follow-up to your response, I refer to each part of it with comment and questions arising.

With regard to Part 1
You correctly state:
"The legislation does not specify the form or manner in which certification is to be communicated to the applicant".
In saying this you adopt an astonishing position of suggested permission to certify any devices by any vague means at the Agency’s whim.  Of all governmental and commercial bodies it is bizarre and pitiful position for a Certification Agency to adopt.
Above all others you should know what a certificate actually is. The legal definition is:
“An official document which attests to the truth of the facts stated”
Similarly ‘certification’ is defined identically as:
A document attesting the truth of a fact or statement”
Moreover you disregard what is provided in COAD (the VCA ‘Bible’):
2.1.4 Applications to the Secretary of State
"The Secretary of State will decide whether to issue a certificate of approval to the applicant on the basis of the Technical Construction File and any other exchanges that take place subsequently".
It inevitably follows that if the VCA decides not to issue a certificate that they are not satisfied with the adequacy the contents of the Enforcement Agency’s TCF.
Following from this:
Q1. When and why did the VCA decide not to issue approved device certificates on the basis of the Technical Construction Files submitted by Enforcement Authorities and issue what you choose to call ‘letters’ instead?
Q2. When and why did the VCA withdraw from their prior position of referring to these certifying documents (that being what they state) as being certificates?
You continue by stating, incorrectly:
"A short indicative description of the system is also given in the letter, to assist in identifying to the applicant authority the system that is certified, but it is the TCF itself that contains the full detail".
It cannot possibly be that an applicant authority does not know the details of what they have applied to the VCA to be certified!
In fact, your so-called 'letters' cannot adequately actually assist anyone in reliably identifying anything. The dates are often wrong and sometimes impossible on the basis of other information stated on them.  Sometimes there is no CCTV apparatus whatsoever stated on your ‘letters.’
You continue.
"This approach was set out in the Earl Atlee response to the question raised by Lord Lucas referenced in your letters".
It is risible to suggest that a 'short indicative description' is what these ‘letters’ adequately provide.  On some there is nothing even resembling an indicative description short or otherwise.   
For example, ‘letter’ PAD 022 issued to the LB of Bexley merely states:
System: "Mobile Vehicle" !
All vehicles are mobile!   I have a mobile vehicle as do millions of others who have paid their car tax; this entry made by a national agency is frivolous and worthless words. This does not constitute a description of any system or device short or otherwise. No cameras are mentioned on this 'letter' and neither is any certifiable system.
Other such utterly meaningless ‘letters’ have been issued by the VCA and they contrast starkly with others that properly list several cameras by maker’s name and model numbers and also describe the CCTV System by maker’s name and model and even correctly identify the specific permitted operational type of use for which the equipment is thereby certified.
The reply of Earl Attlee's Parliamentary reply drafted by you or your colleagues was:
 "It is current policy that a brief one-line description of the nature of the system is given..."
The meaningless words "Mobile Vehicle" are not a one line brief description of any recognisable or approvable system. This document, like other such similar documents, was not issued in accordance with response of Earl Attlee.
I have the following additional questions:
Q3. Why did the VCA not standardise the format of all of these critical certification letters?
Q4. Why is there a complete 'chalk to cheese' content in these documents? 
Some are completed with accuracy and completeness yet others could have been compiled a literate dinner lady.  Moreover, it is you who signs these unchecked and sometimes irrational ‘letters’ in your personal verification of their correctness and adequacy.

Part 2 and Part 3 of your email
The second part of your email deals with the issue of Bogus "Certificates" and part three concerns the recent review of these letters. You have missed the point as to why some of these documents now referred to as ‘letters’ by the VCA are bogus documents when they cannot possibly be otherwise.
All dated letters of any description bear the date on which the letter was prepared for immediate sending or very soon afterward when it was signed ready for despatch.  However, It has been the objectionable practice of the VCA to send out these certification ‘letters' with backdated dates on them, some being years before the letters were actually sent.
Bizarrely VCA letters have been dated years before they were produced and despatched addressed on the letter to a person not even in the employ of the authority until a much later date than that stated on the VCA ‘letter’.  This is nonsensical and manifestly bogus and, in certain situations, would amount to being fraudulent.
EAs in possession of a bogus backdated document can and do present them in evidence to the parking tribunals thereby falsely purporting that the document proves device certification prior to the true issuing date of the document.
No EA may use CCTV devices prior to being in possession of a valid document of certification.  Such an intelligible and tangible certification of authorisation is the only means by which a parking tribunal can possibly be assured that devices employed by an EA are approved devices.  For you to assert that a telephone call or email of approval would be sufficient to satisfy a parking adjudicator is to assess them as simpletons.  For anyone actually to believe that a telephone call can constitute a valid certification of equipment is not to be living in the real world.
That certainly does not comply with the provisions of COAD which requires, as it cannot possibly require otherwise, that the issue by the VCA of a certificate (definition above) is the necessary final step of confirmation that an EA’s equipment does constitute an approved device.
The Parliamentary answer you provided to Earl Atlee recognised this fact and correctly prevented the VCA from issuing any more of these bogus documents.  It said:
 “The review will ensure that all letters correctly state the date of production and the authority’s application date.”
This confirms the VCA knowledge of the established fact that some of the VCA ‘letters’ have not “correctly stated the date of production and/or the aapplication authority’s application date”.  Further:   
Q5 How many of these bogus documents were issued by the VCA?
Q6. How many of these letters "where 'minor clerical errors' were noted on existing certification letters"  "were corrected in new documents that were issued as additional and replacement letters". Please advise full details of every correction letter issued and identify the corrections made.

Part four of your email refers to the certification of Westminster's devices.
I must refer you again to my Ground 1 of appeal sent with my last mail on this subject.  It was wholly improper of the VCA to certify these devices by providing conformity evidence that clearly does not conform to COAD or to the 2007 Approved Device Legislation. Please re-examine this ground, then withdraw your Westminster certification.
Q7. How can the VCA argue that these devices were fit for approval?

Part five of your email refers to missing information on certificates.
You have again avoided the point. Some Certificates contain information chapter and verse regarding Cameras and Systems. Others contain no information whatsoever.
Q8. Why has this irrational, inconsisrent, and ineffectual situation been permitted?

Part six refers to the incorrect certification provided by the VCA to Westminster City Council.
You say that Westminster refer to DVTel 9840 and DVTel 9840A in their TCF.
Q9.   Why were both types of camera not included on the VCA certificate/letter?
Q10. If Westminster are deploying only one type of camera why would they have referred in their TCF to two different types – and why would the VCA not have queried it?
Q11. If it is the case that Westminster are deploying only one type of camera – the DVTel 9840A, why did the VCA wrongly state in your certification that it was, differently, DVTel 9840?
Q12. Do you agree that when an EA receives a ‘letter/certificate’’ from the VCA they have an obligation to check and confirm that the devices certified on the ‘letter/certificate’ are correctly the same as those for which they applied for certification and, also, that they are the same as those deployed on the street?

Part seven of your email refers to the application date that appears on the letter.
The stated date of application is sometimes seen to be long before the date of the TCF to which the certificate relates. There was no reason to include this date; the date should refer to the current application as per your answer provided to Earl Attlee.
Q11. Why is this date included and not the date to which the application refers?

I look forward to your reply on these issues.
Yours sincerely,
(by email)  Nigel Wise


Copy:  Lord Lucas of Crudwell and Dingwall


 
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Nigel W on 16 December, 2011, 12:05:32 PM
Reply from Dr Hughes:

Dear Mr Wise,

On the 26th November you responded to the email of Mr Stenning dated 16th November with a number of further questions. In addition you subsequently sent 6 emails to Mr Stenning and others during the period of the 29th November to the 7th December on the subject of the Westminster City Council (WCC) certification. In that period you also made a phone call to Mr Stenning about the WCC certification.

The following is a list of the emails:

a) “Reply to Stenning – VCA1” Dated 28th November 2011 but sent on 26th.November

b) “final submissions to PaTAS Re: 2110348237” 29th November 2011

c) Adjudication of PaTAS 211048606A – 30th November 2011

d) Link to WCC website for a PCN – 30th November 2011

e) WCC images, missing or unreadable metadata – 4th December 2011

f) PaTAS appeal Adjudication 2110581570 – 6th December 2011

g) Additional PaTAS rulings- request to suspend certification – 7th December 2011

The following is our response to the questions you raise in a) above.

Part 1

Q1.When and why did the VCA decide not to issue approved device certificates on the basis of the Technical Construction Files submitted by Enforcement Authorities and issue what you choose to call ‘letters’ instead?

A1) VCA is certifying authorities to use approved devices. VCA has done this since being appointed to do so and authorities can not use a device under the appropriate legislation without our certification. We have nothing further to add to our original answer about the certificate/ letter issue.

Q2. When and why did the VCA withdraw from their prior position of referring to these certifying documents (that being what they state) as being certificates?

A2) As mentioned previously we accept that there is no legal difference between a “certificate” and a “certification letter”. The TCF is the basis of the certification and we have nothing further to add to our original answer about the certificate/ letter issue. 

Part 2

Q3. Why did the VCA not standardise the format of all of these critical certification letters?

A3 There is a standard layout to the documents which have evolved slightly over time. The information on the form is a reflection of the system and was aimed at the applicant authority; it was never intended to be a catalogue or schedule of equipment.

Q4. Why is there a complete 'chalk to cheese' content in these documents?

There is no standard requirement for what should be included.  Any variation can be explained by the differing nature of the systems certified and small changes in policy over time.

Part 3

Q5 How many of these bogus documents were issued by the VCA?

A5) We do not accept this assertion. Your claim was addressed in the original response and we have nothing to add.

Q6. How many of these letters "where 'minor clerical errors' were noted on existing certification letters" "were corrected in new documents that were issued as additional and replacement letters". Please advise full details of every correction letter issued and identify the corrections made.

A6) Our records show that 22 authorities have received correction certification letters. The Department for Transport will shortly be publishing all the certification letters on their website.  When that has been accomplished it will be possible to see the certification record and corrections.  The dates of issue will also be clear.

Part 4

Q7. How can the VCA argue that these devices were fit for approval?

A7) VCA was provided with evidence that the Westminster system complies with the legislative and COAD requirements. I have provided further comments on this issue below.

Part 5

Q8. Why has this irrational, inconsistent, and ineffectual situation been permitted?

A8) We do not accept this assertion.

Part 6

Q9.Why were both types of camera not included on the VCA certificate/letter?

Q10. If Westminster are deploying only one type of camera why would they have referred in their TCF to two different types – and why would the VCA not have queried it?

Q11. If it is the case that Westminster are deploying only one type of camera – the DVTel 9840A, why did the VCA wrongly state in your certification that it was, differently, DVTel 9840?

The adjudicators have accepted that the descriptions used refer to the same single camera type. We have no further comment to make.

Q12. Do you agree that when an EA receives a ‘letter/certificate’’ from the VCA they have an obligation to check and confirm that the devices certified on the ‘letter/certificate’ are correctly the same as those for which they applied for certification and, also, that they are the same as those deployed on the street?

A12) VCA informs the authority, using email and or letters, when the current phase of certification or of updating their system has finished; all the relevant details of the certified system are in the applicant’s TCF. We do ask authorities to check the details on the letter.  Where a descriptive or clerical error has come to light, the VCA has addressed this. The certification however remains valid. The applicant’s TCF must accurately reflect what is being used on the street in respect of the elements of the system which are relevant to the certification as an approved device.

Part 7

Q11. Why is this date included and not the date to which the application refers?

A13) Once received certification is continuous, it does not need to be renewed and it is not cancelled and restarted when an update is received and we consider any application to change their system to be an update.  When the update is accepted the authority is informed in writing, which includes a reference to the supporting documentation and contains a date which indicates when the update to the system becomes effective.

=================

The following is a combined response to items b), c), d), e), f) & g). It also supplies some more information relevant to Q7 from the previous section.

Background

VCA certified WCC’s system based on the information in their Technical Construction File (TCF). The following technical points are pertinent to the issues you raise:

    WCC’s evidence consists of two linked components.  The image stream and the associated metadata. The metadata is tied to each image in the sequence. This metadata holds time information and other local and global details about the image stream.
    The metadata is used to generate the “overlay”;
    The time field in the metadata includes a millisecond component.  This satisfies the requirement for a frame counter and a unique identifier;
    WCC use a proprietary file format to store the evidence;
    The image stream and metadata are protected against tampering using hashing and encryption;
    WCC provide a free third party software based viewer to present the image stream with associated metadata overlaid in a viewable form.  The tool also decrypts and checks the hashing to make sure there has been no tampering with the images. This tool ensures the integrity of the evidence.

VCA accepted that the above information, as part of their system description, satisfies the requirement of the COAD and the legislation.  VCA were provided with sufficient proof that this system produced evidence of the required quality.

In addition WCC also provides a means to create copies of the evidential information in other formats. They may do this to comply with requests for formats suitable for a website or for use on a DVD player. This is not part of the certification.  If there is a dispute about the nature of the contravention then the evidential copy is available to resolve it.

In light of this explanation we would make the following comments on your recent emails.

The nature of the evidence that WCC is supplying

In none of the cases you mention, as far as we can tell, do you refer to problems with the quality of the evidence when using the evidential copy and the free third party software to view it.

The evidence should be viewable on a normal DVD player

This issue was addressed in Mr Stenning’s reply. We were aware of this at the time of certification and stand by the decision to accept this as part of the WCC system.

Different evidence provide by WCC at different stages of the process

This is an operational matter that you may wish to raise with WCC.

The evidence, still images, may have been enhanced or manipulated

The evidential copy is protected as discussed above. Still Images extracted from the evidential copy will have the relevant details

Missing or incomplete timestamp information

I agree that information was missing or incomplete on the clips that you supplied. However it appears to us that these were not from the evidential copy played in the appropriate player.  This is an operational matter that you may wish to raise with WCC.

Withdrawing Certification

WCC have confirmed to us that the system as certified is in use. Therefore, these matters concern WCC’s operational activities and are not a certification issue.

General Point

Please be aware that we will not discuss certifications on the telephone or in person. All enquiries must be in writing.

Yours Sincerely
R Hughes

VCA

 

 

Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Nigel W on 16 December, 2011, 12:08:13 PM
My Replies:
Dear Mr Hughes,

It appears that your statement in your reply is incorrect.

"The adjudicators have accepted that the descriptions used refer to the same single camera type. We have no further comment to make".

Please see:  PaTAS 14 Dec 2011   2110618207

"I have had sight of the PCN and if there is type directly below the CCTV image it clearly is not legible, as it should be.

In this regard I find that the letter [forming part of the approved device certificate] and the schedule [referred to in that letter] are not consistent in the identification of the specific device - that is to say that different specific references are stated with regard to the device
For all the above reasons I am not satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued and I accordingly allow the appeal".

You also wrongly state:

A7) VCA was provided with evidence that the Westminster system complies with the legislative and COAD requirements. I have provided further comments on this issue below.

If Westminster have provided you with this information which (by your own admissions) they have not. You now know that the evidence provided by their devices does not comply with COAD or the legislation.

Yours sincerely,
Nigel Wise.
 

Dear Mr Hughes,

Perhaps you can answer the following by return:

You refer in your reply to the "evidential copy" DVD.  Where in COAD does it state that there is or should be such a thing as a (different) "evidential copy?"

COAD makes reference ONLY to the "Working Copy" which ought to display all of the metadata which in the case of Westminster it does not. COAD informs: The Working copy should be copied directly from the Master Copy. In the case of Westminster this 'Working Copy' is not a direct Copy of anything. The data is missing and has been manipulated.

COAD also states: The copying process should not compress or otherwise modify the format or quality of the original video recordings.

Clearly this has not been complied with.

In addition COAD states that it is the Working Copy that should be sent to the appellant and the Tribunal. The Working Copy is the ONLY Copy that should be provided which ought to supply all of the data required by the legislation.

Why have these devices been certificated?

Yours sincerely,
Nigel Wise.
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Nigel W on 10 January, 2012, 02:54:49 PM
Follow up mail:

Dear Mr Stenning,

Further to my other earlier emails on this subject.

Please see the attached video clip.

This Westminster footage taken from their web site displays no metadata whatsoever.  Still images display virtually unreadable metadata in a different format and order disclosing the fact that these are not direct copies of anything in accordance with COAD.

Adjudicators look at this footage as Westminster do not supply PaTAS with any DVD's. This is because Westminster's DVD's will not play on DVD recorders. The DVD's only play on a computer after software has been downloaded. Westminster do not even supply the 'Evidential Copy' DVD to the Appellant unless this is questioned. This type of evidence is not fit for purpose in accordance with COAD or the 2007 Approved Device legislation. Why did these devices receive any certification?

According to COAD the re-rendering of footage is not allowed. Furthermore it is not in accordance with PaTAS directions to EA's nor would it be an acceptable type of evidence in any judicial proceedings.

I have copies of all of this damming evidence supplied by Westminster's 'Approved Devices.' You have not even requested this information despite my offering it to you.

Why is it taking you so long for you to respond and to withdraw their certification?  This situation is not something that should be allowed to continue unchecked for so long.

Failure to respond soon will result in more questions being asked in higher places.

Yours sincerely,
Nigel Wise.
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Nigel W on 10 January, 2012, 03:08:58 PM
Follow up mail:

Dear Mr Hughes,

Perhaps you can answer the following by return:

You refer in your reply to the "evidential copy" DVD.  Where in COAD does it state that there is or should be such a thing as a (different) "evidential copy?"

COAD makes reference ONLY to the "Working Copy" which ought to display all of the metadata which in the case of Westminster it does not. COAD informs: The Working copy should be copied directly from the Master Copy. In the case of Westminster this 'Working Copy' is not a direct Copy of anything. The data is missing and has been manipulated.

COAD also states: The copying process should not compress or otherwise modify the format or quality of the original video recordings.

Clearly this has not been complied with.

In addition COAD states that it is the Working Copy that should be sent to the appellant and the Tribunal. The Working Copy is the ONLY Copy that should be provided which ought to supply all of the data required by the legislation.

Why have these devices been certificated?

Yours sincerely,
Nigel Wise.
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Nigel W on 10 January, 2012, 03:10:44 PM
Further follow up:

Dear Mr Hughes,

It appears that your statement in your reply is incorrect.

"The adjudicators have accepted that the descriptions used refer to the same single camera type. We have no further comment to make".

Please see:  PaTAS 14 Dec 2011   2110618207

"I have had sight of the PCN and if there is type directly below the CCTV image it clearly is not legible, as it should be.

In this regard I find that the letter [forming part of the approved device certificate] and the schedule [referred to in that letter] are not consistent in the identification of the specific device - that is to say that different specific references are stated with regard to the device
For all the above reasons I am not satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued and I accordingly allow the appeal".

You also wrongly state:

A7) VCA was provided with evidence that the Westminster system complies with the legislative and COAD requirements. I have provided further comments on this issue below.

If Westminster have provided you with this information which (by your own admissions) they have not. You now know that the evidence provided by their devices does not comply with COAD or the legislation.

Yours sincerely,
Nigel Wise.
 
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Nigel W on 10 January, 2012, 03:12:45 PM
Additional follow up:

Dr Hughes and All at the VCA,

Four more Appeals were allowed yesterday on the back of my Grounds.

The following is widespread in Westminster's evidence. Tens of thousands of this type of PCN evidence are being wrongly issued.  You are allowing it to continue.

Please see:

2110582981

2110555038

2110449303

2110430156

"In this case the full details of hours, minutes and seconds is not clearly visible on the CCTV footage that has been produced.

I am of the view that the lack of a completely visible real time hour and minute count is fatal to the authority's case here. I do not accept as sufficient the non-real time clock system which appears to be superimposed only upon the production of the DVD.

The Adjudicator must be able to see the passing of real time on the camera evidence. I find that the case against the Appellant cannot be proved upon evidence of this rather poor quality of production".

Why did you certificate these devices. The evidence that they provide is not compliant.  Were you hoodwinked by Westminster?

Did you know about this kind of evidence?  Well you do now and have done for sometime and have done /are doing nothing about it.

Why is it that you are content to sit on your hands and allow this illegal situation to continue? The legislation states that hours minutes seconds and sequential numbering (millisecond marker) must appear on footage.

It appears that the VCA would be content to allow a vehicle certification to stand even though they knew that it was wrong and it was killing people.

I strongly suggest that you withdraw Westminster's certification now before the decision is taken out of your hands.

Yours sincerely

Nigel Wise.
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Nigel W on 10 January, 2012, 03:14:23 PM
Another follow up:

Dear Mr Hughes,

Further to my previous emails to you on this subject, the following cases were heard by different Adjudicators at PaTAS yesterday 7 Jan 2012.  I add the Adjudicators' comments in finding the CCTV appeal evidence of Westminster City Council inadequate to support the penalty charge notices.
2110486401:    "However, the images produced to me and available on the Internet to the Appellant have no location, sequence, date or time stamp at all."
2110458439:    "I am of the view that the lack of a completely visible real time hour, minute and second count is fatal to the authority's case here."
2110445925:    "However, the images there from produced to me and available on the Internet to the Appellant do not show the complete time stamp."
2110445914:    "However, the images there from produced to me and available on the Internet to the Appellant do not show the complete time stamp."
These cases and the others brought to your attention are just a few of the continually allowed Westminster appeals being adjudicated by PaTAS.
It seems indefensible that the VCA has been indifferently allowing your demonstrably incorrect certification of the Westminster CCTV equipment to stand. This is despite my bringing this reprehensible situation to your attention on several previous occasions.
You do nothing to rectify the manifestly wrongful certification of this equipment to prevail.  You clearly have a duty to act on the evidence I have provided and withdraw the certification of this equipment until it is corrected into compliance with the requirements for an Authorised Device.
This matter has now been brought to the attention of the Audit Commission with a prospect of this matter being referred to by the Court.  It could not be clearer that you should now, belatedly, withdraw your apparent Authorised Device certification of Westminster’s fixed camera CCTV equipment which manifestly does not perform to the requirements of a certifiable Approved Device.
DVD evidence provided to Appellants provide images of 320 x 240 pixels contrary to the specification of COAD.  There are also other areas of Westminster's CCTV evidence processing which do not conform to the standards of the legislation and COAD. This low pixel resolution means that these copies have been compressed against the explicit terms of COAD.
You wrongly stated in your email of 15 December 2011. "WCC have confirmed to us that the system as certified is in use. Therefore, these matters concern WCC’s operational activities and are not a certification issue".  It is YOUR responsibility for their CCTV equipment having been wrongly certificated when it does not produce evidence in accordance with the legislation or COAD as you have now known for a long time.
You also wrongly stated in your email of 15 December 2011  "I agree that information was missing or incomplete on the clips that you supplied. However it appears to us that these were not from the evidential copy played in the appropriate player.  This is an operational matter that you may wish to raise with WCC." This gross failing is a matter for YOU and YOUR department. There is no such thing as an evidential copy referred to in COAD - see below.
You also state in your email 15 Dec. 2011. "The evidential copy is protected as discussed above.  Still Images extracted from the evidential copy will have the relevant details."  This seems to imply that the metadata on these still images has been manipulated with your knowledge and acceptance despite being contrary to the explicit requirements of COAD - see below.
You also state in your email of 15 Dec 2011.  "In none of the cases you mention, as far as we can tell, do you refer to problems with the quality of the evidence when using the evidential copy and the free third party software to view it".  The 'evidential copy' DVD that is sent to Appellants after the missing metadata has been criticised at appeal is still not compliant with COAD!
The proprietary 'third party software' that is required to be downloaded flashes up warning messages that a Trojan Virus is being downloaded. This happens on several different computers. It also will not play on a standard DVD player. The foregoing and other reasons renders this so-called 'copy' (which is not actually a verbatim copy of anything) not 'fit for purpose' as it is required to be for compliance with the provisions of COAD.
In my email to you of 16th December I asked a few simple questions to which you have made no response:

    Dear Mr Hughes,

Perhaps you can answer the following by return:

You refer in your reply to the "evidential copy" DVD.  Where in COAD does it state that there is or should be such a thing as a (different) "evidential copy?"

COAD makes reference ONLY to the "Working Copy" which ought to display all of the metadata which in the case of Westminster it does not. COAD informs: The Working copy should be copied directly from the Master Copy. In the case of Westminster this 'Working Copy' is not a direct Copy of anything. The data is missing and has been manipulated.

COAD also states: The copying process should not compress or otherwise modify the format or quality of the original video recordings.

Clearly this has not been complied with.

In addition COAD states that it is the Working Copy that should be sent to the appellant and the Tribunal. The Working Copy is the ONLY Copy that should be provided which ought to supply all of the data required by the legislation.

Why have these devices been certificated?

Yours sincerely,
Nigel Wise.
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Nigel W on 10 January, 2012, 03:15:54 PM
Latest follow up:

Dear Mr Hughes,

You have still failed to reply to my last emails. Is it still your policy to 'keep your head down' when you are asked awkward questions?

More defective evidence supplied to PaTAS by Westminster's defective and wrongfully certificated devices, that ought not to have received any certification, yesterday 9/01/12. This is quite apart from the fact that you certificated and named on the certificate that you sent to Westminster the wrong cameras. These were exactly the same non compliant cameras that you refused to certificate earlier due to their insufficient pixel resolution.

Case Reference:   2110242032

"There is CCTV footage which shows the vehicle parked for around 2 minutes. The seconds digits are not visible on the CCTV footage".......

"I allow the appeal".

Please reply to my last two mails as soon as possible. That is unless, as appears to be the case, you have no answers to the simple questions posed.

Yours sincerely
Nigel Wise.

Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: chalky on 10 January, 2012, 06:58:45 PM
The mind simply boggles! On two counts, firstly the total, (apparent), refusal to reply to what is outstandingly clear evidence against the certification & secondly your tenacity which I believe should have seen you on the New Years Honours list!
I can merely applaud and wonder at you Nigel.
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Staps on 10 January, 2012, 09:16:45 PM
I agree, i applaud  :aplude: :aplude: , wonder and .... avoid pissing him off.
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: jonesy on 10 January, 2012, 10:40:53 PM
Its been said before but I can only add thank F%#k your on our side well done Nige :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
Title: Re: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'
Post by: Nigel W on 12 January, 2012, 08:18:48 AM
Latest Reply from Dr Hughes.

Dear Mr Wise

Thank you for your recent emails dated 16 December 20111, 16 December 20112, 18 December 2011 and 8 January.2012 and 10 January 2012

The Certification of Approved Devices (COAD) document deals with certification procedures and requirements including the capture and processing of evidence. VCA’s earlier reference to an "evidential" copy is essentially no more than what COAD refers to as a “Working Copy” of the “Master Copy” of evidence that meets the COAD requirements.

VCA’s role is to ensure that the equipment, constituting the approved device, itself is correctly certified. We are content that in Westminster’s case it is.

It is not for VCA to comment on the quality of evidence produced against a driver in respect of a PCN. If an appellant has particular concerns about the evidence adduced, then he or she can and should raise that with the authority or the tribunal.

VCA has considered the issues you raise in your emails and feel that the information above and our previous responses address your concerns and we have no further comment to make.

Yours Sincerely

Ross Hughes.

How the VCA can still assert the above in the face of all of the evidence demonstrating that the devices do not produce compliant evidence defies belief. This determines that they ought not to have been certificated in the first place.

I have now copied in, to these email exchanges, The Director General at the DfT Mr Steve Gooding. He is based in London and in overall control of the VCA in Bristol.