Author Topic: AGAIN Bexley lose at PATAS due to no certification  (Read 7160 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline peperami gsxr

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 808
  • bexley-notomob@live.co.uk
AGAIN Bexley lose at PATAS due to no certification
« on: 30 December, 2011, 01:34:48 PM »
Last Friday i attended PATAS for a hearing and represented a Bexley PCN. I would of liked the adjudication on the Certification not being fit for purpose.

Bexley had provided a copy of the certification, and i also provided certificates that are correct for the adjudicator to compare to Bexley's, which he did.

I raised the issue of certification, and i quote below from the Civil Traffic Enforcement Certifcation of Approved Devices......


(chapter 1 1.1 (general introduction))

This document is concerned with the ensuring that the certification of such devices or systems meets the 'balance of probability' criterion. although some of the requirements might go beyond this and meet the 'beyond reasonable doubt' principle. The overall objective is to ensure that evidence produced by devices certified in accordance with the procedure described is defensible when taken to adjudication.

Consideration is also given to the need for all those involved to be able to demonstrate that the operation of the certification process is transparent, fair and ultimately defensible in law, and that the individual applications also satisfy those criteria.

This I quoted at the hearing, and demonstated that Bexley's certification does not meet the requirements.

At the end of the hearing the Adjudicator advised that he wish to consided the matter and today a decision has been reached.

Even tho I raised the issue of certification, the adjudicator is refering to at statement from the council, and this case can be found here....

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,1558.0.html

Ok, today decision.....


Case Reference:   2110321208
Appellant:   Mr xxxx xxxx
Authority:   Bexley
VRM:   Y849NUM
PCN:   XL80672550
Contravention Date:   11 Mar 2011
Contravention Time:   19:40
Contravention Location:   Days Lane, Sidcup
Penalty Amount:   £100.00
Contravention:   Footway parking (one - four wheels on footway)
Decision Date:   30 Dec 2011
Adjudicator:   John Lane
Appeal Decision:   Allowed
Direction:   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons:   Mr. xxxx attended the hearing, together with Mr. Clarke.
Amongst other issues they provided a judgment in appeal case, 2110523561 and relied on that judgment.
The Adjudicator in that case referred to the declaration made by the camera operator and that it expressly referred to, "London Local Authorities Act 2000 and the Code of Practice approved by London Councils."
The same declaration is made in this case.
The previous Adjudicator stated that it has no relevance under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and relevant legislation.
I would agree with that.
I will therefore allow this appeal.



So, this adjudicator agrees....The evidence that the recording device is approved is insufficient to such an extent that one might say that there is no such evidence at all.

Pity he cant say this directly regarding the certification, and i wonder how long Bexley will continue to submit this statement with no meaning allowing adjudicators to make a ruling based on that rather than the certificate alone.

If anyone has a Bexley camera issued PCN  that they are taking to PATAS, just quote the above case number, job done, (as long as they continue to use a statement that is incorrect).



« Last Edit: 30 December, 2011, 02:41:23 PM by peperami gsxr »
Sworn to fun, loyalty to none

Nigel W

  • Guest
Re: AGAIN Bexley lose at PATAS due to no certification
« Reply #1 on: 30 December, 2011, 05:40:06 PM »
Well done Pep. You are now a fully fledged member of the NoToMOB appeals department!

Bexley now have two Adjudications against them for their defective VCA certification. They have not applied for a review of the first Adjudication. This is now a further acceptance by them that the have no certification.

How do these people gain any employment anywhere?

They refer to the DfT as the DoT. They know absolutely nothing about anything regarding the laws or regulations surrounding any parking enforcement.

I think that the time has now come for them to leave their posts. The time has also arrived for an objection to their accounts with the Independent District Auditor.
« Last Edit: 30 December, 2011, 06:13:09 PM by Nigel W »

Offline peperami gsxr

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 808
  • bexley-notomob@live.co.uk
Re: AGAIN Bexley lose at PATAS due to no certification
« Reply #2 on: 30 December, 2011, 06:03:06 PM »
The time has also arrive for an objection to their accounts with the Independent District Auditor.

Um, already on the case, but say no more for the time being.
Sworn to fun, loyalty to none

Offline Kill Switch

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 1380
Re: AGAIN Bexley lose at PATAS due to no certification
« Reply #3 on: 30 December, 2011, 07:21:08 PM »
Nice one Pep, well done mate  :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice


Offline kiwi

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 268
  • FCUKI'N AV IT
Re: AGAIN Bexley lose at PATAS due to no certification
« Reply #4 on: 30 December, 2011, 07:26:14 PM »
 :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:  Fantastic work

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: AGAIN Bexley lose at PATAS due to no certification
« Reply #5 on: 14 March, 2012, 01:31:57 PM »
I nicked this from Bonkers' blog March 13th. Kind of sums it all up really. One of the serfs thought he'd try and get answers on the certification issue. Hope he doesn't mind swearing too much as he might be Sir Olly's cell mate:

Dear Councillor Davey,
Have you seen the certification, that the use of these cameras is indeed legal?

Dear Mr. B,
We have had this checked and we have been told that everything is legal.

Dear Councillor Davey,
So can you provide the evidence that states it is legal? Why has Bexley Council lost two cases which I am aware of?

Dear Mr. B,
I am quite happy to accept the assurance that I have been given, but I am not prepared to supply this information to anybody else.

Dear Councillor Davey,
I am still awaiting for you to provide the evidence. As my elected councillor I would expect that you would ensure that these camera cars are indeed legal. By seeing the documents.

Mr. B.
I am happy they are legal.

Councillor Davey,
You have failed to state how they are legal. Why have Bexley lost two appeals? Because it has no documents to show, when asked? As my elected councillor, you should be acting for me. Provide the evidence, not what you’re told.

Mr. B,
I am acting for you and all residents of Lesnes Abbey Ward and of Bexley in a way that I see fit. I have a duty to ensure people’s safety and I am happy Bexley Council are doing this in a legal way. If you have any genuine evidence otherwise, as opposed to opinion, then send it to me and I will investigate further.

Dear Councillor Davey,
You requested that I provide evidence. Well that is what I have been requesting from you. As an elected councillor, is it not your role to ensure that the people that elected you are treated in a manner of fairness, along with ensuring that Bexley Council are complying with the law? So will you provide evidence that the camera cars that Bexley Council are using are legal and lawful?

Dear Mr. B,
I have stated my position on this a number of times. There is no further point in repeating it.

Dear Mr. Davey,
As my elected councillor you are required to act on my behalf, along with ensuring that Bexley Council are abiding by the law. I await your answers.

Dear Mr. B,
Thank you for your email. I believe the certificate is on the Council website. I have not checked this myself, but I believe this is the case. I am certain you can find the time to check this yourself. (†)

Dear Mr. Davey,
Having had many dealing with you, what have you done? I showed you how Bexley council were not complying with law! Remember the photos, no action taken! I would suggest you start asking Bexley council questions, not just going with flow! Do your job as a councillor.

Dear Mr. B,
Due to your aggressive attitude, I shall no longer reply to any emails from you.


† The council promised to put its documentation on line last October. They are currently saying it should appear sometime this month.

 :bashy:  :bashy:  :bashy:  :bashy:  :bashy:  :bashy:  :bashy:  :bashy:
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.

Offline Staps

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 475
Re: AGAIN Bexley lose at PATAS due to no certification
« Reply #6 on: 14 March, 2012, 02:23:11 PM »
how disgraceful is that

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2227
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Re: AGAIN Bexley lose at PATAS due to no certification
« Reply #7 on: 14 March, 2012, 04:01:48 PM »
Disgraceful??  W:T:F: ??  W:T:F: ?? W:T:F:?? That's Bexley on a good day or displaying the absolute bare minimum of corruption, if you will. See Bonkers' 14th March blogs for more details;

http://www.bexley-is-bonkers.co.uk/blogs/2012/march.shtml
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.

Offline Kill Switch

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 1380
Re: AGAIN Bexley lose at PATAS due to no certification
« Reply #8 on: 14 March, 2012, 09:12:02 PM »
What a WANKER
A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice


 


Supporters of the NoToMob

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

Get Adobe Flash player