Safe Speed Forums

Dear Sir,
Thank you for returning my call yesterday.
The figures and explanation I require are as follows:
In the year 2005 - 2006 119,211 NIPs were issued.
Your figures supplied below indicate that 16000 speed awareness courses were taken and there were 9000 NFAs due to mitigating circumstances during this period.
I believe this indicates 94,211 actionable incidents outstanding. However, again from your figures, only 62,887 FPNs were paid. The court's supplied figure, to the Minister and recorded in Hansard, for speeding offences in Lancashire during this period are approx 6,200.This gives a figure of 25,124 incidents unaccounted for.
In effect 25,124 speeding motorists in Lancashire failed to pay fines totaling £1,507,440 and had no penalty points awarded against them, thus depriving the Government of this amount of money.
I'm sure the 62,887 motorists who simply paid their £60.00 and took the three points without question would like to know how this came about and how they themselves could become one of this elite band.
I personally don't see how this could possibly improve road safety.
I hope you can clarify this situation as previous year's figures seem to indicate similar discrepancies.
Thanking you in anticipation
Mr. XXXX


Dear Mr XXX

Thank you for your email of 28 June 2007 to which I would provide the following information.

Lancashire's policy is to ensure that all speeding offenders are processed as far they are able. The disparity in the figures you quote is due to over 16000 people attending the Speed Awareness training course, approximately 9000 were cancelled due to mitigating circumstances, with the remainder being summonsed to court. During 2007-008 Lancashire have been processing in the region of 1500 cases a month through the court system.

I hope this information is helpful

regards

John Davies
Project Manager
Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety

Handbook of Rules & Guidance MfT.
9.1 OVERVIEW OF THE COST RECOVERY SYSTEM
The safety camera programme has been approved by HMT as a ‘netting off’ programme. This means that the costs associated with issuing and enforcing conditional offers from fixed penalty notices (CoFPNs) can be reclaimed from the receipts generated by the fines. Section 20 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 requires all CoFPN receipts generated to be passed from HMCS to the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) to prevent the recycling of funds locally. The DCA then pass all receipts to the DfT, who reimburse the partnerships for approved expenditure incurred. Any surplus generated is paid over to HMT in the form of Consolidated Fund Extra Receipts (CFERs).
10.3.1 Accounting for CoFPN receipts
HMCS collect all CoFPN receipts from offenders. Under the programme, HMCS will need to keep records in their accounts of all receipts generated from all conditional offers of fixed penalty notices from safety camera enforcement. These records need to be auditable, referring to source documentation enabling an independent auditor to check that receipts are being correctly coded within the account
10.4 YEAR-END AUDIT ARRANGEMENTS
At the end of the financial year, partnerships are required to prepare accounts that are summarised on a grant claim showing total spend and CoFPN receipts received in the year. This claim will be subject to independent audit

Where a partnership grant has been overpaid in any one financial year, an adjustment will be made to the second quarter (and possibly further quarters) of the following year's payment to recover the amount in full.

Accounting Arrangements (Source: LRSP Operational Case Document applying for membership of the Road Safety Camera Scheme)

As lead partner, Lancashire County Council will arrange for appropriate accounting information to be provided through its Accounting System. This will provide the detailed information to account for income and expenditure items and to comply with the requirements of recording income and expenditure as set out by the Department for Transport. A separate coding and accounting system will be maintained to capture capital and revenue expenditure.

Audit

Department for Transport guidelines require that external audit for the financial arrangements will be carried out on an annual basis. In order to meet the requirement it is proposed that the District Audit Service, the appointed Auditor for Lancashire County Council, carry out this function.

From: JohnA Gray [mailto:JohnA.Gray@dft.gsi.gov.uk]

Sent: 22 February 2008 11:26

To: info
Subject: Re: FW: Lancashire Road Safety Partnership



Dear Mr XXX,

Thank you for your e-mail to this Department dated 1 February and your two e-mails copied to this Department today.
As you know, the accounts of the Lancashire Road Safety Partnership under the national safety camera programme have been fully and independently audited in accordance with guidelines issued by the audit commission. Any discrepancies would have been notified to the Department.

I note that you are in correspondence with the audit commission and are awaiting a response.

As you pointed out the certificates which are attached to the FPNH1 forms have been signed by
an officer of the Audit Commission, and I can quite understand how this may give rise to the
belief that the Audit Commission “audits” the LRSP.
However, this is incorrect ......

Neither the Audit Commission nor its appointed auditor has any role in relation to the
Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), the Magistrates Courts or the
Lancashire Road Safety Partnership.
Gill Eastwood
Head of Audit
Audit Commission,

10 March 2008

I refer you to previous correspondence in which I have explained that the Audit Commission has no role in auditing the accounts of Lancashire Road Safety Partnership.
Gill Eastwood
Head of Audit
Audit Commission, 2nd Floor, Aspinall House, Aspinall Close, Middlebrook, Horwich,
Bolton, BL6 6QQ
T 0844 798 7300 F 0844 798 7301 http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk
30 September 2008

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION APPLICATION REFERENCE NO: 849/07 Date 21 November 2007

In 2005/06 a total of 119,594 fixed penalty notices were issued. Of this number, at the time of collating this information, only 98.55% of these tickets had

an outcome. Therefore, 117,862 tickets from 05/06 have an outcome.
1,732 of the 119,594 tickets (1.45%) as highlighted above do not have an outcome as of yet. This lack of a result could be for two different reasons.

Firstly, the ticket may have expired and as such they cannot be prosecuted because of time limits (a notice has to be served within six months of the offence

and a driver has to be traced within this period). Secondly, there may be some results that have not been cancelled at the time of compilation, i.e. ongoing

investigations.
66,023 of the 119,594 (55.21%) paid their fine.
32,139 of the 119,594 (26.87%) completed a speed awareness course.
13,789 of the 119,594 (11.53%) were summoned to court following a Failure to Furnish or because of excessive speed.
5,911 of the 119,594 (4.94%) were cancelled.


The accuracy of the above figures were queried as Lancashire County Council did not have the capacity to process 32,130 Speed Awareness Courses


Date 17 December 2007
Dear XXX
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION APPLICATION REFERENCE NO: 849/07 *CLARIFICATION*
Thank you for raising your concerns in your email dated the 22nd November 2007.
As highlighted in your previous correspondence, the Constabulary accepts that there are some errors in the original data supplied. The figures we provided had been from a historic file on this matter and was supplied by a member of staff who is not currently available to confirm their exact origin. As a result, another member of staff has interrogated the current 'live' database. These figures are provided below:

In 2005/06 a total of 119,594 fixed penalty notices were issued in Lancashire for speeding offences
detected at Static and Mobile camera sites. These can be broken down as follows those :
62,500 of the 119,594 (52%) paid their fine.
20,567 attendees attended Speed Awareness Courses
24,660 of the 119,594 (21%) were identified as potential prosecutions due to a Failure to Furnish details or because of excessive speed.
These files are then transmitted to the courtsystem and the outcome is not recorded on the National Ticket Office software.

With regards to your latest issues raised on the December 2007, I hope the figures provided above allay your concerns. However, I have forwarded your concerns to our Professional Standards Department which is in liaison with the IPCC, as per your request.
Yours sincerely
Data Protection and Freedom of Information Compliance Manager

To:
The Honourable Nigel Evans, M.P.


Dear Nigel,
It is now two years since I first queried the financial aspects of “The Road Safety Camera Scheme” as operated by “The Lancashire Road Safety Partnership” & “the netting off process”.
During this time you have been amazingly supportive regarding my concerns & I thank you for this.

Through you, the smokescreen, used by the Partnership to mislead & confuse, has slowly been lifted and for this I must also thank Mr. Vernon Coaker for his extremely clear & definitive answers regarding the law & how the scheme must operate. I’m not to sure about the Minister who replied in a Parliamentary debate in 2005 (see footnote).

I quote Mr. Coaker:
“How the law on speeding is enforced is an operational matter for the police. While they may follow a broad policy, whether their force's own or one recommended by the Association of Chief Police Officers, they will decide in each case whether they consider it appropriate to seek a prosecution, to offer a fixed penalty or to take some other measure. Amongst such other measures is the offer of attendance on a speed awareness course, either by a local authority or independent provider Such courses are not part of the fixed penalty system. They are non-statutory measures designed to re-educate those attending on the dangers of speeding and effect a change in their driving behaviour. Attendance on the courses is at a person's own expense
Vernon Coaker MP
PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
15th july 2008”

And again:

“The National Safety Camera Scheme, whereby certain aspects of speed limit enforcement could be funded by netted off income, ended on 31 March 2007. The only income netted off was that from the £60 fixed penalties paid in respect of an offence detected by a camera operated in accordance with the Scheme. The expenses for which claims could be made against the netted off income were set out in the Department for Transport Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the National Safety Camera Programme for England and Wales. All fixed penalty income from safety cameras now goes to the Treasury's Consolidated Fund.”

He also supplied the answer as to how non payment of issued fixed penalties would be dealt with.

Because of Mr. Coakers answers it has now been confirmed by all the overseeing authorities of The LRSP returns, that the FPNH1, returned to the MFT for payment of costs are in relation to the Scheme, as defined by Mr. Coaker and contain no other elements than Issued FPNs which is a £60.00 fine and licence endorsement of 3 points. Therefore this will be the only financial interest and figures shown on the published FPNH1s.

I therefore enlarge & explain my concerns & conclusions:

The FPNH1s are produced on a Financial year and therefore cover parts of two years .

The Ministry for Justices publications are produced on a Calendar year.

Depending on who is asking, and for what reason, the records from Lancashire Constabulary are available in both formats & can & often are supplied to either inform or confuse.

Therefore it appears that comparing the three would provide inconclusive information & I have been inundated with this!

However over this two year period I have been able to obtain the entire FPNH1s issued under “the netting off process”, and, as they are presented in full quarterly returns it is possible to easily co-relate these figures with the Ministry for Justice returns over the same period and therefore include both, the Yearly issued FPNs and the police costs as a yearly calendar statement.

I supply the relevant extracts from these figures below.

Lancashire Road Safety Partnership returns FPNH1s, issued FPNs (Fully authenticated as described above.) By Calendar Year.

FPNs issued
2003 125,545
2004 82,954
2005 83,766
2006 102,846

Total 1 395,111

FPNs Paid
2003 94,989
2004 61307
2005 61,082
2006 55,071

Total 1a 272,449

Payments to Lancashire Constabulary
2003 £ 1,545,462
2004 £1,652,191
2005 £1,477,849
2006 £1,965,199

Total 1b £5,640,701

Source: LRSP FPNH1 returns to the MfT fully authenticated as described elsewhere.

So, having the items (FPNs issued) & the costs (total payment to the Police) an average cost per item equals,(costs divided by items) £14.00 per FPN issued. Method used SMP (Simple Maths For Pillocks)


The Ministry for Justice figures for issued FPNs relating to speeding offences by Lancashire Constabulary, in the corresponding Calendar years, are:
FPNs issued
2003 191,829
2004 91,662
2005 53,474
2006 57,688

Total 2 390,439
Sources: Ministry for Justice Publications: “Offences Relating To Motor Vehicles 2003-2006”

Total speeding prosecutions in The Lancashire Courts System from The Ministry for Justice figure for Lancashire are:

2003 7,400
2004 5,453
2005 5,081
2006 6,087

Total 3 24,021
Sources: Ministry for Justice Publications: “Offences Relating To Motor Vehicles 2003-2006”


Again I therefore utilise SMP and conclude:

Total 1 minus the Paid FPNs should equal Total 3.

They do not!
Total 1 & Total 2 should equate.
They do not equate each year but overall they are reasonable.

There are no alternative conclusions under the RSCS regarding issued FPNs:

For a FPN to be ISSUED; the driver has been identified, the vehicle has been traced, the address of the offender has been identified and the offence has been admitted.

“The failure to pay a FPN automatically leads to the issuing of a summons after the allotted timescale to pay & is dealt with by the courts.
The system of obtaining payment for failure to pay FPNs is well established within the courts system and is I believe, payment of the fine plus a 50% surcharge plus fixed court costs of, again I believe, £35.00.”
Vernon Coaker



The differences in the above figures are unacceptable without explanation. However it cannot be denied that Lancashire Constabulary have received payment of £5,640,701 for the processing of 395,111 FPNs for speeding offences to a conclusion. The conclusion of a vast number of these offences does not seem to have been either of the alternatives offered under the RSCS FPN of a £60.00 fine plus points or a court appearance.

As the National Audit Office (Responsible auditors for The Courts System), after investigating, is unable to reconcile the differences:

It is my belief that, whoever is responsible for the FPNH1s authenticity, has allowed overpayments to be made to Lancashire Constabulary over this period and allowed it to be systematically built into the LRSP system of processing speeding offences in Lancashire to the financial benefit of its Partners.

Confirmation of the Authenticity of the LRSP FPNH1 returns:

“As you are aware under the Conditional Offer Fixed Penalty Notices Hypothecation scheme income and expenditure relating to speed awareness training courses cannot be met from Fixed Penalty Notices income. Therefore, the administration costs associated with the referral of motorists and subsequent attendance at speed awareness courses is met from the charge levied for attendance on the course. The costs charged by the Constabulary reflect the administrative expenditure associated with this process and are based on an agreement reached between myself representing the County Council, the Chief Constable’s representatives and the County Council’s Road Safety Group Manager in 2004. Furthermore, I have investigated the basis of the charges made by the Constabulary and the verification processes carried out by the County Council’s road safety officers relating to the charges made and found these to be sound. I am also aware that the County Council’s external Auditor, The Audit Commission has written to you separately on this matter in a letter dated 10 February 2008 and concluded that “there has been no misappropriation of funds or illegal uses of funds…”
Ian Cosh
Assistant Director of Finance (Corporate Finance) Lancashire County Council
7/11/2008

The only other conclusion is that these” FPNs” are for the administration of offences, other than speeding, that would have been be processed through the courts in other categories and therefore boosting the Constabulary’s budget.

However if this was the case it would have to be a deliberate, systematic fraud and no police authority would sanction this sort of conduct and it could only have been done without their knowledge.

I am aware that, after investigations, irregularities were uncovered within the regime of this CTO, however not on the scale of these figures nor covering such a large period of time.

Perhaps it is time that the Chief Constable be requested that further enquiries should be made by his force as, after two years of requesting an explanation, no member of his force nor The LPA has been able to reconcile these concerns or differences, nor do they seem to care about these methods bringing the Speeding policies of This Chief Constable into public disrepute!

I would be obliged if you could make this request on my behalf as the Chief Constable & the LPA, although both fully aware of the situation refuse to act or respond to this matter.

As there are 33 other Partnerships involved in operating the returns in the same manner as LRSP I must express grave concerns.

I can only consider this as a further example of addition income, obtained from the public, generated under the Governments Road Safety Camera Scheme, being little more than “A Stealth Tax” to the financial benefits of The Partners in this scheme rather than the Government as is often claimed & denied.. (See footnote)


I remain Yours Thankfully

Mr.XXXX

Quote to rember:
Minister’s reply Hansard 8th March 2005:
“Opposition politicians—often spurring on some of the things we see in newspapers—and critics of the safety camera programme seek to undermine its success in reducing road deaths and injuries by making unfounded allegations that the police and local authorities are using it as a "stealth tax". We did not hear the hon. Member for Christchurch mention those words today, which must be something of a record. The present legislation and the way in which the safety camera partnership works demonstrates that that is not so, since it provides that the programme can be applied only to the deployment of cameras. That means that the police and local authorities have no incentive to deploy cameras for any other reason, however well intentioned they may be. It is important that we maintain public confidence that safety cameras are deployed for one purpose and one purpose alone.
It is unfortunate that, again today, the hon. Member for Christchurch made out that that was not the case. He used the glib phrase that we have greed cameras, not speed cameras, which will again feed little headlines in newspapers to undermine what the cameras are doing.”

Force is chasing cash on all fronts
ALTHOUGH both the Constabulary and the Police Authority believe that extra funding is essential to maintain and improve the quality of its policing they are acutely aware of the financial burden on council tax payers many of whom are on low or fixed incomes.And that’s why the Force continually scans the market for other sources of funding whether it be from Government, Europe or commerce. Every ethical avenue is explored to generate extra cash to add more resource to the force’s battle against crime and to improve the value for money that the public of Lancashire deserve.In the last financial year in addition to more than £2m secured from the Home Office to help introduce Police Community Support Officers, a further £1 million was raised through grants, fundraising and
sponsorship.Commercial Development Officer Ronnie Webb said:“Funding has been raised from a myriad of different sources to support a wide range of diverse
projects.“This year, amongst many other projects, we have secured funds to provide Lancashire with a modern video facility to meet the needs of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses including those with disabilities.“We have also received monies to support and increase the numbers of special constables and funding to help improve the recruitment of police officers from minority groups in order tobetter represent the people we serve.

”But contrary to popular belief the Constabulary does not receive an income from speeding fines.All income and expenditure from fine money is monitored by the district auditor. The police do not make a profit and neither does the Partnership for Road Safety who can only reclaim their operating costs. The remainder goes to the Treasury.

Department for Transport guidelines require that external audit for the financial arrangements will be carried out on an annual basis. In order to meet the requirement it is proposed that the District Audit Service, the appointed Auditor for Lancashire County Council, carry out this function.

3.5 COVERT ENFORCEMENT
Covert enforcement is a police matter, separate from partnerships’ safety camera activity,not eligible for funding through the programme and not subject to notification or approval through the safety camera programme.

Safety Camera Review.
THE Lancashire Road Safety Partnership’s safety camera enforcement policy has been an undoubted success in achieving its main aim of reducing the numbers of those seriously injured or killed on the county’s roads.Research has shown that 54 per cent of motorist in Lancashire have reduced their speed and that the average speed is down by 11 per cent.Since the introduction of the cameras, road traffic collisions at 47 of the sites has fallen by more than 28 per cent.
It is now anticipated that the l0-year target for people killed or seriously injured will be achieved ahead of schedule.
However, the cameras have not escaped controversy. Although a majority in the community support the prosecution of speeding motorists some opponents have claimed that the cameras are simply a way for the police to collect revenue. In reality, after operating expenses are deducted, all surplus revenue is returned to the Exchequer.Nevertheless, Chief Constable Paul Stephenson has listened to all sides of the issues and has established a small team at headquarters to review some aspects of the policy.He said: “Speed cameras have created a great deal of interest, particularly over the way we enforce lower level infringements but our primary aim remains that of changing driver behaviour to reduce their speed and therefore the danger they create.
RESPONSE
“The Constabulary is committed to speed cameras and we recognise the value they have in reducing speed. Unfortunately, certain aspects of the Partnership’s work has been misrepresented and an unbalanced picture painted but we know that the majority of people support our aims of sanctioning motorists who speed.
“There is a perception that people who commit criminal offences and who, quite properly and according to guidelines, are cautioned, get an easier ride than those who speed at the lower levels. “Whilst the comparison is not a helpful one, I do nevertheless have some very real sympathy for this perception.“Any criminal justice system has to be seen to be fair to be effective. It just cannot be right when people feel that our response within that system is disproportionate.“We recognise that there may be an opportunity,without damaging the positive outcomes we have already achieved, to soften the enforcement approach at the bottom end.”There will still be enforcement but we need to be more imaginative in the way we deal with drivers who might just be over that speeding limit.
“The review is looking to introduce cautioning for the bottom-end range of speeding offences and at a different trigger-point for the speed awareness course that currently operates.“We will still be enforcing the law appropriately but with a better range of sanctions to bring a balance to the system and make sure the punishment is proportionate to the offence.“Quite simply, if we can achieve the same very positive outcomes of making our roads safer,whilst at the same time demonstrating that we do listen then I for one would be delighted.”
Dr Ruth Henig, Chair of the Police Authority,said: “We fully support this initiative as we believe it is paramount in continuing to produce the same sort of outcomes in terms of speed reduction and accident rates. The use of different penalties supports longer-term education and promotion of road safety issues, but with less damage to public confidence and reassurance.”

LANCASHIRE CONSTABULARY REVEAL SPEEDING CAUTION POLICY
Lancashire Partnership Against Crime
Lancashire Constabulary HQ
PO Box 77
Hutton
Preston
Lancashire PR4 5SB
Telephone 01772 618733/618372

Thursday 3rd June 2004

Dear Associate Member

LANCASHIRE CONSTABULARY REVEAL SPEEDING CAUTION POLICY


FOLLOWING a review, Lancashire Constabulary has revealed details of its new speed enforcement policy. The new policy allows for the introduction of a Caution, and an enhancement of the Speed Awareness Option. These can only be offered following detection by a Fixed Safety Camera Site or Mobile Site, operated by the new Speed Enforcement Technicians. Outside this, all other speed detection should meet the following agreed levels of enforcement from Thursday 3rd June 2004.

In a 30mph limit - 38mph and above

In a 40mph limit - 50mph and above

In a 50mph limit - 61mph and above

In a 60mph limit - 70mph and above

In a 70mph limit - 82mph and above

The review, which was commissioned by the Chief Constable Paul Stephenson, examined all aspects of speed related issues, including the work of the Lancashire Road Safety Partnership. This has resulted in the introduction of a cautioning policy as well as enhancing the speed awareness option. Mr Stephenson told the Police Authority that he had decided on the review after listening to a variety of views from the motoring public and members of local communities. He explained: "It is quite obvious that people are anxious we continue to target speeding motorists who are a danger to road safety, but at the same time we recognised a need to look again at the way we dealt with lower level offenders."

From today drivers caught speeding in a 30 mph area will be cautioned at 35 mph, offered a speed awareness course at 36 and 37, and given a fixed penalty at 38. Similarly in a 40 mph area drivers will be cautioned at 46 and 47 and offered speed awareness at 48 and 49. Above that will result in a fixed penalty. In a 50 mph area drivers will be cautioned at 57 and 58, offered speed awareness at 59 and 60 and a fixed penalty at 61. The Constabulary will continue its intelligence led approach to ensure that camera sites with a higher number of casualties are prioritised.

Drivers will be eligible for up to one caution in a three-year period for their first offence of speeding. Following the receipt of a caution they will move to the offer of a speed awareness course if it falls within the
guidelines. It is to be emphasised that this is not a green light to drive more quickly in Lancashire. It is about dealing with people in a flexible and proportionate manner. Lancashire Constabulary will not reconsider any
penalties previously imposed in relation to driving licence endorsements but will allow all motorists in the county to undertake all options under the new proposal. The Constabulary's newly appointed mobile enforcement
technicians will be used on roads where analysis shows there are significant casualties.

Superintendent Clive Tattum, who headed the review, said: "It is important to remember that the safety cameras are working here in Lancashire. We are now well on target to achieve casualty reduction levels set for 2010 by next year which will be a remarkable achievement. These reductions would not have been possible without the cameras and the impact they have made on driver behaviour. The cameras reinforce our message that speeding remains unacceptable here in the county. "But at the same time we do recognise that speed enforcement, particularly at the lower end of the speeding scale, does have an impact on motorists many of whom might have driven for years without penalty. That is why we decided to introduce a cautioning policy and enhance the speed awareness training. "The vast majority of motorists in Lancashire drive in a safe and responsible manner. This has assisted us in reducing average driving speeds and road casualties. The new policy will be closely analysed over the initial three months period and if this responsible approach continues we will consider further expansion of the cautioning scheme and of our speed awareness course."

Dr Stephen Morton, Consultant in Public Health and Director of Public Health Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Primary Care Trust, said: "The use of safety cameras is a proven measure to improve road safety. They can reduce accident risks at sites with a bad accident record and can contribute to overall speed awareness across the county of Lancashire. "However, it is important to maintain public understanding of, and confidence in, the way in which safety cameras are used. That is why it is timely to review the operational policy and refine their use, based on the most recent data on accidents and traffic speeds. I strongly support this review and the commitment to jointly monitor and refine the policy over subsequent years."

Terry Carter, Section Manager for Traffic and Safety for Lancashire County Council, said: Lancashire Constabulary and Lancashire County Council work closely together within the Road Safety Partnership and share the aim of meeting the Government's targets for road safety reduction. Significant progress has already been made with the co-operation of road users and the time was right for a review of the speed enforcement policy. "The County Council has worked closely with the police in the review and entirely support the new arrangements, which are being introduced. We all anticipate that this will maintain the co-operation and commitment of all road users to casualty reduction."

John Davies, Project Manager for the Lancashire Road Safety Partnership, added: "The partnership has worked closely with the police throughout the review process and fully support the new speed enforcement policy which is being introduced. The partnership's aim is to reduce road casualties and the new arrangements, whilst maintaining this focus, will be more educational in their approach. This can only be beneficial in improving safety on our roads."

25/01/08
Dear Mr XXXX,

Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

We are writing further to your email of 24th January 2008, as we are now in a position to respond.

The total amount paid to Lancashire Constabulary for the administration of speed awareness course offers in 2005/06 was £126,966.80. As previously stated, Lancashire Constabulary claim £2.26 for each course offer, and there will obviously be a significant number of motorists who do not take up this offer.

MORE SMOKESCREEN:
Dear Mr XXXX,

Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000

Please find expenditure information requested in your email of 2nd September. We are still awaiting information about the number of courses held per year, and will forward this on to you as soon as we receive it.

There are high risks associated with this project, as the majority of staff are on temporary contacts and redundancy/employment issues must be taken into consideration. In addition, we never know from one day to the next how many people may receive an invitation to attend a course but we still have to manage the assets.

The figures also do not take into account future research and development, plus cost associated with the new training centre which is a long term plan to ensure we keep our cost to an absolute minimum for the future. Furthermore, Lancashire has been the lead authority throughout the UK with this project of which officers time currently has not been allocated against these funds.

Future further increase cost may be imposed by ACPO and PITO (Police Information Technology Organisation) who are developing the NDORS (National Driver offender retraining scheme) database for the whole of the UK. Lancashire County Council will have to use their database when it is created to check that drivers have not undertaken a course else where. From January 2008 we have had to pay (RSS) Road Safety Support Services £1.50 per client check using their current database system delivered by RSS; however it is anticipated that this service will be removed to take on board the database created by NDORS if it ever gets created.

Lancashire Constabulary have given assurance that any money collected by the police will be 100% re invested back into the customer again to ensure cost stay at a minimum as they do not wish to make any profit from motorist.

Finally and probably the most important point is that Lancashire are one of the few service providers who deliver the practical element of the course, many authorities just deliver theory only and are charging exactly the same price as ourselves, our nearest adjoining authority being Manchester. It can therefore be argued that we offer exceptional value for money.

Dear Mr XXXX,

Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Further to your email, dated 3rd September, in which you request the disclosure of information under the above Act, we are now in a position to respond.
The number of police referrals to LCC for speed awareness courses

1. The number of offers made by CTO for speed awareness courses:

2001 1246*
2002 31680
2003 39019
2004 30677
2005 55110
2006 54647
2007 49723

*CTO took over administration of the scheme in November 2001. Prior to this, offers were made by individual Criminal Justice System divisions.
(SMOKESCREEN: CTO is THE POLICE not Lancashire County Council NOR The Road Safety Partnership, contrary to popular belief or as they would like you to believe!)
Acceptances for the above referrals (i.e. completed courses per year)
2. The number of completed courses per year is as follows:

2001 244
2002 7455
2003 14331
2004 9548
2005 18091
2006 21886
2007 17591

3. Payments made by LCC acting as speed awareness providers to Lancashire Constabulary for referrals
2001 -
2002 -
2003 -
2004 £27,169.80
2005 £126,966.80
2006 £116,620.00**
** This includes a payment of £9,394.82 that was made in May 2007 that was actually for the financial year 2006/07 accounts.
Source LCC FOI.

With regard to the lack of information about payments made to the Police in 2003/04 for referrals, we have been advised that this information is not available. Prior to 2004 a different system for recording financial payments was used, and budget codes were different. What records we still have have been checked, and colleagues in Support Services have also been asked to double check; unfortunately we cannot find any payments for 2001, 2002 and 2003. However, we know that such payments did not start until several years into the scheme, following a change in funding arrangements. As such, it is possible that there may not be any such payments to be found. However, in the alternative you may wish to contact Lancashire Constabulary (if you have not already done so) to ascertain whether the information is held by them.

I have consulted with colleagues at the CPU and it is believed the £30,000 figure this was discussed and informally agreed (probably between the Manager of the Central Processing Unit, the Admin and Finance Manager at Eastern Division and Lancashire County Council) when the Partnership was originally formed.[/code]Due to the increased work the referral system had on the CPU, it was determine by the then manager that another 1.5 members of staff would be required to process these which equated to the £30,000 limit. As the number of tickets and subsequently the number of referrals have increased, considerably more work has been generated, therefore requiring more staff, hence the need for the extra payment. Therefore, as a result of this extra work Lancashire Constabulary have deemed it appropriate to bill the Partnership for this extra work, hence the overpayments.

YEAR 01-01-XX To 31-12-XX......2003............2004..............2005..............2006..............2007
TOTAL OFFENCES................21,509..........114,397..........117,160..........109,975..........95,685
PAID CONFIRMED.................11,504(53%)....60,001(52%).....61,466(52%).....57,437(52%).....48,054(50%)
POTENTIAL PROSECUTION
(Sent to the Courts)..............5,088(24%).....24,911(22%).....26,805(23%).....27,364(25%).....24,323(25%)
UNPAID(TOTAL)....................4,197(23%).....29,485(26%).....28,889(25%).....25,174(23%).....23,308(25%)

NOW THAT'S IMPRESSIVE! LOOK AT THOSE PERCENTAGES IN EVERY CATEGORY! SUPERB CONSISTANCY!
They even go on to detail a breakdown of the UNPAID FPNS and account for every one!!!! Absolute Efficiency!!!
SO.....

Emergency vehicle/driver
not traced..........................2,037(9%)......13,844(12%).......6,296(5%)........4,635(4%).......4,828(5%)
Negative DVLA response..........556(3%)........3,642(3%)..........1,391(1.5%)......299(0.5%)......125(0.5%)
Speed Awareness Course..........2,216(10%)....11,670((10%)......19,729(17%)......19,625(18%)...17,086(18%)
Other.................................108(1%)........329(1%)............1,473(1.5%).......615(0.5%).....1,449(1.5%)

Impressed! You should be! That's what the author of this document WANTS you to be! Surely it would take a Forensic Accountant to find, if any, flaws in this!
1. It shows that cameras are working,clocking speeders, reaching a peak in 2005 and slowly decreasing offences over the next 2 years by about 10,000 a year, therefore they must be reducing accidents.
2. It shows that a consistent number of offenders pay up without a court appearance saving court time & expense.
3.It shows that Lancashire Constabulary consistantly process about the same offences through the courts each year.
4. It shows that there are NO INCREASES in speeding offences,(by percentages) through the courts each year which is what the Government want.
5.It shows that the Speed awareness Courses are a success and that more offenders are being re-educated and taken out of the criminal system.
6. And it shows that Lancashire Constabulary are on the ball, with any information at their fingertips regarding speeding and the processing of Speeding offences and they DON'T MAKE ANY MONEY FROM IT!!!!!!

This makes Lancashire Constabulary look like a TOP 3 PERFORMER under the Road Safety Camera Scheme!!! FULL MARKS!!! When the "netting off" ends these figures will ensure that the Road Safety Partnership will not be underfunded and The Police will be able to maintain, or even increase their financial payments for such magnificent work!!!

WOW! In the words of The Monkeys, "I'm a believer!!!"

Or I would have been except for having one little advantage that the author didn't have!
I had other returns from other departments & Authorities to COMPARE!
So.......I didn't consult a Forensic Account; I asked a 1st year student in accountancy to take a look!
His opinion:
" This is just some P*l**ck playing about with an excel spreadsheet, and not doing it very we!!"

Well I was SHOCKED!! HOW COULD THIS BE? NOT FROM THE POLICE. SURELY?

Apparently, you can make a spreadsheet, were, you just put in the formulas throughout the spreadsheet for percentages that you want to show in the different categories and then all you have to do is just input one total for each year and all the numbers in each category fit the percentage that you want to acheive!!
So as long as nobody compares the categories with other information,from other sources, you can use this spreadsheet as a "Bull*h*t baffles Brains" document for any reason you want!

SCANDALOUS! WHO WOULD STOOP THIS LOW TO MISINFORM?

However the author's big mistake was he didn't actually SUPPLY this direct (plus he was unaware that it would be compared). He sent the spreadsheet off complete to the FOI people and they printed BOTH the PERCENTAGES & the ACTUAL NUMBERS giving the game away!
Simple!!
Finally a quick comparison for 2003's figures:
Total Offences......This Document.........LRSP Returns..........Ministry for Justice Figures
............................21,509................108,821..........................191,829
Paid Confirmed..........11,504................84,560............................93,203 (All endorsable offences)
Potential Prosecution
(Sent to Courts)..........5,088..................14,261(Unpaid FPNs)...........7,400 (speeding)
Unpaid (Total)
by explanation.
Speed awareness Courses.....................2,216 courses
Speed Awareness Courses
Providers Figures...............................14,331 courses
Police referrals
For courses......................................39,019 @ £2.26 each from Lancashire Road Safety Group.

1 Causing death or bodily harm
2 Dangerous driving
3 Driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs
4 Careless driving (excluding use of hand-held mobile phone while driving)
4 Use of hand-held mobile phone while driving
5 Accident offences
6 Unauthorised taking or theft of motor vehicle
7 Driving licence related offences
9 Vehicle insurance offences
10 Vehicle registration and excise licence offences
11 Work record and employment offences
12 Operator's licence offences
13 Vehicle test offences
14 Fraud, forgery etc.,associated with vehicle or driver records
15 Vehicle or part in dangerous or defective condition
16 Speed limit offences
17 Motorway offences (other than speeding)
18 Neglect of traffic directions
19 Neglect of pedestrian rights
20 Obstruction, waiting and parking offences
21 Lighting offences
22 Noise offences
23 Load offences
24 Offences peculiar to motor cycles
25 Miscellaneous motoring offences (excluding seat belt offences)
25 Seat belt offences

Well, it shows that in the next 3 years (2004/2005/2006) since this fair deal for speeding was rolled out:
If you are found guilty of any of the following offences:
1 Causing death or bodily harm
2 Dangerous driving
3 Driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs
4 Use of hand-held mobile phone while driving
5 Accident offences
6 Unauthorised taking or theft of motor vehicle
7 Driving licence related offences
9 Vehicle insurance offences
10 Vehicle registration and excise licence offences
11 Work record and employment offences
12 Operator's licence offences
13 Vehicle test offences
14 Fraud, forgery etc.,associated with vehicle or driver records
15 Vehicle or part in dangerous or defective condition
17 Motorway offences (other than speeding)
18 Neglect of traffic directions
19 Neglect of pedestrian rights
20 Obstruction, waiting and parking offences
22 Noise offences
23 Load offences
24 Offences peculiar to motor cycles
25 Miscellaneous motoring offences (excluding seat belt offences)

YOU HAVE MORE CHANCE OF GETTING A WRITTEN WARNING/CAUTION THAN IF YOU ARE CAUGHT AT ANY SPEED OVER ANY LIMIT WHILST TRAVELLING IN LANCASHIRE !!!

IN EFFECT THE LITTLE OLD LADY TRAVELLING AT 35 IN A 30 LIMIT IS CONSIDERED WORSE THAN THE CAR THIEF, OR SOMEBODY WHO DRINK DRIVES, OR SOMEONE WHO DRIVES WITHOUT INSURANCE !!!

DON'T BELIEVE IT ? GET THE RELEVANT TABLES HERE FOR 2003 TO 2006:

http://rapidshare.com/files/216717382/C ... _Lancs.rar

See how many warnings/cautions, AS PROMISED UNDER THIS SCHEME, are issued in Lancashire! Then make up your Mind!!!
My Opinion?
Motorists CONNED AGAIN!!!

Is big brother watching you? Are you – innocent and law-abiding – kept awake at night for fear that your door will be kicked in by agents of the state?

Are your children being “groomed for life in the database state”?

I got the DNA database expanded through legislation which allows for DNA samples to be retained even if someone is acquitted of an offence. I did that because of an extraordinary injustice – to a rape victim. Under the old law an unquestionably guilty rapist walked free when a court decided that the DNA evidence against him should not have been used (even though accurate) because he had been acquitted of the unrelated burglary offence for which the sample had originally been taken.

The prime credit for this must go to Lancashire Police – the best in the country – from the senior officers to the sergeants, constables and police community support officers. Working with retailers and publicans, and local authority staff, they have brought back traditional policing, reinvented the wheel and found it works.

SUPERJACK will play on your fears & emotions and abolish " Innocent until proven guilty" from the basic fabric of the Justice System !

And world Governments' will use the same tactic's to take away anything else in the publics favour.

The prime credit for this must go to Lancashire Police – the best in the country – from the senior officers to the sergeants, constables and police community support officers. Working with retailers and publicans, and local authority staff, they have brought back traditional policing, reinvented the wheel and found it works.

Prosecution Thresholds & Disposal Methods

The Lancashire Constabulary has adopted the ACPO Speed Prosecution threshold policy, the only exception being that prior to 1st June 2004 offences detected at 35mph in a 30mph area are offered a Speed Awareness Course as an alternative to proceedings.

It has been identified whereby the majority of people support the use of safety cameras there has been an increased amount of negativity and reduced public confidence. Following a review by the Lancashire Partnership for Road Safety it has been decided to continue with the ACPO Speed Prosecution threshold policy but to review the disposal methods available with the conclusion that the following will be adopted. This has the support of all partners.

Cautioning Policy

A policy is to be introduced whereby any offender detected travelling at 35 or 36 mph in a 30 mph area, 46 or 47 mph in a 40 mph area, 57 or 58 mph in a 50 mph area will be offered a formal caution. This will only be offered once in every 36-month period. If during this period a further offence is committed then prosecution will be made by way of a conditional offer.

Speed Awareness Course.
The thresholds whereby a Speed Awareness Course will be offered will be increased to the following speeds.

Speed limit Caution .......Speed Awareness Course .......Conditional Offer
30 mph ......35 & 36mph .....37 & 38 mph ..............39+ mph
40 mph ......46 & 47mph .....48 & 49 mph ..............50+ mph
50 mph ......57 & 58 mph .....59 & 60 mph ..............61+ mph
60 mph ........None ...........None ....................70 + mph