Bexley (and Tina) ARE Bonkers For Thinking That This Will Suffice!

[Nigel W]

Bexley have recently published on their web site a list of their Approved Devices.

They have published this because their VCA Certificate details and names no Cameras or System Devices whatsoever! It simply certificates a 'Mobile Vehicle!' Quite apart from the fact that all vehicles are mobile, a Mobile Vehicle is not a Device under the terms of The Certification of Approved Devices (COAD). Therefore it cannot receive any certification.

http://www.bexley.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=13508

This document states:

"The London Borough of Bexley confirms that the schedule of equipment as shown below contains equipment which complies with the approved device regulations and which have been given approval by the Secretary of State, (through his chosen vessel of assessment - the Vehicle Certification Agency [VCA]) for use as approved devices for enforcement of parking restrictions and regulations."

The use of the word 'vessel' in this context brings to my mind words such as The Titanic!

Bexley's useless and worthless VCA Certificate:

http://www.bexley.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=10177&p=0

Compare Bexley's 'certificate' with this one:

http://nutsville.com/download/VCA_wireless_cameras_approval_180210.pdf

Although Westminster's certificate, unlike Bexley's, as it must do, correctly details and names the camera and the system the camera named is not the camera they use. This alone resulted in several Appeals being allowed at PaTAS. Therefore as Bexley's certificate details nothing the same ought to apply.

Bexley continue with more absurd and preposterous 'information':

"The London Borough of Bexley is satisfied that it is fully compliant with the approved device regulations as shown by the approval confirmation provided by the VCA. This is further supported through a number of cases where the appeals raised at the Parking and Traffic Appeal Service (PaTAS) by motorists challenging Authorised Officer decisions have been unsuccessful."

What exactly is 'supported' by this nonsensical statement? I am sorry Tina but 'Authorised Officer decisions' have nothing whatsoever to do with Approved Device Certification as you well know.

[Ewan Hoosami]

Tina needs to visit Esinem. She clearly enjoys having her bottom spanked.

[The Bald Eagle]

Let us not forget Ms Brooks is off sick at the moment. I sincerely hope she gets well soon. I would not wish sickness on anyone.

I try to remain objective on most matters and try to maintain that I would not wish on others what I would not wish upon myself. It's my own take on "Honi soi qui mal y pense", sometimes translated as "shame upon him who thinks evil upon it".

[The Bald Eagle]

That said, Bexley's (presumably unattributed?) statement is a load of old bollocks!

[tommy the trumpet]

Same Vca letter just like the one Medway sends, we want to see CERTIFICATES Bexley not excuse letters.

Your right BE a load of Bollocks.

Have you been on the E's Bexley because you omitted one from your( certification?).



WCC - 261 - MP  unfortunately wonwoo do not list one of these on their site, but a lot of the dealers around the world list this model as a general term.

 
So where did you get your information, a search on Google?

 
  Should be :

WCC -E 261 - MP

 http://www.goodome.com/modules/catalogue/cg_view.html?lang=&cc=10&p=1&no=22&menu2id=con_icon02

[The Bald Eagle]

It doesn't matter what Bexley, or indeed any council write in an attempt to establish something as a fact. Ultimately, a judge will have to establish what is right and wrong in accordance with THE LAW.

[The Phoenix]

Nigel, guru and master, what does a proper certificate, i.e. not a VCA letter, actually look like, please?  Do you have a specimen?

[Nigel W]

The VCA were issuing 'certificates' up until last year. The VCA used to refer to them as certificates.

After I started to question the validity of these documents VCA started to backtrack by referring to them as letters. They started to do this after I had the Lords question by Lord Lucas raised. This is despite the words Certificate No. appearing on the 'letters'.

VCA got round the problem that they had with issuing backdated and therefore bogus certificates after the Lords question. They did this by putting an 'effective date' on the documents. This date was in some cases years before their date of issue!

See:  http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,1387.0.html  &  http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-07-19a.279.0

Soon they will be referring to their 'letters' as worthless scraps of paper. Adjudicators still refer to the documents as being certificates.