Author Topic: Mail Sent to Dr. Ross Hughes. Head of Department at The VCA 'Your Failed Dept.'  (Read 12660 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nigel W

  • Guest
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.

Offline BailiffHunter

  • Moderator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
    • http://bailiffhunter.blogspot.com/
This what you are looking for?

http://g.co/maps/y3bzp
« Last Edit: 16 November, 2011, 04:34:55 PM by BailiffHunter »
\"When the facts change, I change my mind\"

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: VCA Headquarters. Bristol
« Reply #17 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.

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
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


 

Nigel W

  • Guest
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

 

 


Nigel W

  • Guest
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.

Nigel W

  • Guest
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.

Nigel W

  • Guest
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.

Nigel W

  • Guest
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.
 

Nigel W

  • Guest
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.

Nigel W

  • Guest
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.
« Last Edit: 10 January, 2012, 03:23:33 PM by Nigel W »

Nigel W

  • Guest
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.

« Last Edit: 10 January, 2012, 03:45:23 PM by Nigel W »

Offline chalky

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 179
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.

Offline Staps

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 475
I agree, i applaud  :aplude: :aplude: , wonder and .... avoid pissing him off.

Offline jonesy

  • Global Moderator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 346
Its been said before but I can only add thank F%#k your on our side well done Nige :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

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

Get Adobe Flash player