Latest Reply from Dr Hughes.
Dear Mr Wise
Thank you for your recent emails dated 16 December 20111, 16 December 20112, 18 December 2011 and 8 January.2012 and 10 January 2012
The Certification of Approved Devices (COAD) document deals with certification procedures and requirements including the capture and processing of evidence. VCA’s earlier reference to an "evidential" copy is essentially no more than what COAD refers to as a “Working Copy” of the “Master Copy” of evidence that meets the COAD requirements.
VCA’s role is to ensure that the equipment, constituting the approved device, itself is correctly certified. We are content that in Westminster’s case it is.
It is not for VCA to comment on the quality of evidence produced against a driver in respect of a PCN. If an appellant has particular concerns about the evidence adduced, then he or she can and should raise that with the authority or the tribunal.
VCA has considered the issues you raise in your emails and feel that the information above and our previous responses address your concerns and we have no further comment to make.
Yours Sincerely
Ross Hughes.
How the VCA can still assert the above in the face of all of the evidence demonstrating that the devices do not produce compliant evidence defies belief. This determines that they ought not to have been certificated in the first place.
I have now copied in, to these email exchanges, The Director General at the DfT Mr Steve Gooding. He is based in London and in overall control of the VCA in Bristol.
