Author Topic: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'  (Read 12661 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nigel W

  • Guest
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.
 

« Last Edit: 16 October, 2011, 08:47:32 PM by Nigel W »

Offline Pat Pending

  • Global Moderator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2505
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:
 
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Beer in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up,  totally worn out and screaming "WOO-HOO, what a  ride!!"

Offline Boyo

  • Global Moderator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 289
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:
"To no man will we sell, or deny, or delay right or justice" - from the Magna Carta

Nigel W

  • Guest
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  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.
                                                               
 
 

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
I foresee another pelt for the trophy room. Please Nigel, don't ever be tempted by the dark side.

     
Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Nigel W

  • Guest
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.

Offline BailiffHunter

  • Moderator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
    • http://bailiffhunter.blogspot.com/
Whilst I still have my liberty....well done Nigel! :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
\"When the facts change, I change my mind\"

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4390
  • THE lowest common denominator
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:
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline BailiffHunter

  • Moderator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
    • http://bailiffhunter.blogspot.com/
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!
\"When the facts change, I change my mind\"

Nigel W

  • Guest
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
« Last Edit: 30 October, 2011, 06:17:24 PM by Nigel W »

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4390
  • THE lowest common denominator
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:
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Nigel W

  • Guest
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
 
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
 
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.
 
                                                                                                                               
                                                                                               
                                                                                                                           
 
 
« Last Edit: 09 November, 2011, 01:30:08 PM by Nigel W »

Offline tommy the trumpet

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 504
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.
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.    
Ciao Marco #58

Offline tommy the trumpet

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 504
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
===========================================
Tel: +82-32-624-0047
Mobile: +82-10-4173-1076
SKYPE ID: samcha99


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





The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.    
Ciao Marco #58

Nigel W

  • Guest
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.

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player