Safe Speed Forums

Well "Chickens are coming home to roost" has opened up a can of worms!
Camera operator fired for misconduct!
Two staff employees awaiting disciplinary for "failing to process documents"!
"Incosistencies" in the accounts "discovered" after ALL THE RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES have authenticated them as being correct "by investigations"!
Possible "double payments" for checking & authenticating the same work!
Tens of thousands of "missing FPNs" that never reached the courts systems!

Mr Brindle will have his work cut out "burying" this lot!
So.......
Just to assist......................


Here is the LRSP Project manager's confirmation of how the "Unpaid FPNs" shown on LRSP's FPNH1 returns were concluced for just one year:



This was the "official response" in relation to a web enquiry from the Partnership in 2007!: ("Unpaid FPNs 44,000!" to March 2007)
16,000 of "The FPNs" were actually "Speed awareness courses! (Not allowed under the "Hypothecation" Rules! See COSH2 posted above)
And confirms that LRSP were processing 1500 cases a month during 2007/8 through the courts!
That's 18,000 cases a year by my calculations!
Mr Cosh confirmed later in 2007 that NO SPEED AWARENESS was shown on the FPNH1s. (See COSH2 posted above)
The Director for Finance Cumbria & Lancashire Courts confirmed that only a little over 7,000 were sent to the courts & were ALL dealt with.
Lancashire constabulary claim that 24,323 summonses were issued to the courts for 2007!

The best of luck, Mr. Brindle!

And this is just one of the 33 Partnerships Nationally!

£2,800,000s Worth Of "INCONSISTENCIES!"

The 80,000+ "missing FPNs" that never reached the Lancashire Courts are worth, at a minimum, £2,800,000!
How do we know this ?
Lancashire Constabulary Tell us this in their documents sent out with every Summonse!
As can be clearly seen the costs for processing a Speeding FPN is £35.00!





So....

80,000 x £35 Total = £2,800,000!

Now that's a nice little(?) earner paid from the income of "PAID FPNS"!
Even more so if it's not really for "SPEEDING" but for other motoring offences that should be funded from the Chief Constables Budget of THE CTO!!!!!

"PIGS IN THE TROUGH!"
THE NATIONAL "NETTING OFF" FIGURES FOR THE LAST 3 YEARS OF THE SYSTEM.
All The Road Safety Camera Schemes Partnerships' Figures 2004-5/2005-6/2006-7.

Their Direct Grants were based on these figures for the next 3 years!!!!!



All the figures in red indicate an EXCESS of paid FPns.
However all the other "MISSING" Fpns have been fully certified to Ministry for Transport Documentation TRA 19 as GENUINE ISSUED NIPs & FPNs for Red Light & Exccessive Speeding Offences ONLY - to EVIDENCE!
This then makes them legitimate costs, that are eligible for payment for processing to conclusion to either, direct payment, or court appearance.

TRA 19 is a 14 page document/checklist that MUSt be signed off by the Treasurer of The Partnership, or Authorised representative of the Treasurer, BEFORE payment will be made by The Ministry for Transport.

Page 10 is a particular killer for anyone who now claims "inconsistencies" or errors at this late stage!



It authenticates that ALL ISSUED NIPs & FPNs shown on the claims form FPNH1 have been PROVEN TO EVIDENCE as authentic and can be traced back through audit to the ACTUAL PERSON RESPONSIBLE for this!
How does your area fare?

Northumbria is Top Of The Pops ! However they DO HAVE THE CPS as a Partner! Maybe that's why they get their figures to work out!

Ministry of Justice
Investigates Lancashire's Speeding Prosecution Figures.

An Under Secretary of State from The Ministry of Justice has been unable to substantiate speeding figures for Court proceedings in North West England and has called in the Evidence & Analysis Unit to discover the source of the "INCONSISTENCIES" in the Government & Lancashire Road Safety Partnership's returned figures.

In a written reply, recorded in Hansard 14 Jan 2009, The Ministry of Justice Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Maria Eagles, stated the that figures for fines imposed through the courts in North West England were as below & also "THat formal Cautions were not available for summary motoring offences:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 4w0020.htm

After a formal complaint by Nigel Evans pointing out the large differences between Government published figures & LRSP supplied figures to Lancashire Constabulary indicating FPNs shown on their FPNH1 returns an investigation has been set in motion:
Full correspondence below:









http://www.safe2travel.co.uk/more_info. ... ent_id=108

And here page 3:
http://www.safe2travel.co.uk/images/sur ... y_2004.pdf

MINISTER'S FULL RESPONSE HERE:


In order to assist The Minister in discovering the source here is the responsibility allocation from The LRSP Operations Manual 2004 - 5


"verifying invoices, maintaining records suitable for audit purposes) in conjunction with the appropriate Partner representative and the Lead partner’s Treasurer;"

This would be a GOOD PLACE to start!(And finish perhaps!)

More Chickens coming home to roost

Fewer speeding cases end in prosecution

Published Date:
08 June 2009
By Matthew Squires
Thousands of potential court prosecutions for speeding in Lancashire have been withdrawn.
Official figures from the Government and Lancashire police show that of the 85,994 potential prosecutions identified in four years, 24,021 actually ended up in court.

Police say the prosecutions are "withdrawn for a variety of reasons, such as lack of evidence, lack of time due to the limitation period, mitigating circumstances".

Figures from the Ministry of Justice and Lancashire Police reveal that in 2006/7, the latest figures available, 27,006 of the 108,766 speeding offences that year were identified as "potential prosecutions" – a quarter of the total offences.

Potential prosecution relates to cases where a fine has not been paid, speed awareness course has not been attended, a court hearing is elected or the matter can only be dealt with at court due to the speed involved.

But just 6,087 of them were actually forwarded to be dealt with at the courts.

Nigel Humphries of the Association of British Drivers, which campaigns on behalf of motorists, said: "It shows they can't cope with the numbers involved so they are giving up in a lot of cases.

"That says to us there are far too many people being prosecuted, and if that many people are driving over the speed limit maybe they should be looking at the speed limits."

The figures were revealed in answer to a Freedom of Information Act request to Lancashire police.

The response said: "I have been advised that potential prosecutions do not equate to the number of cases that are ultimately forwarded to court, for example by raising a summons.

"A large number are withdrawn due to a variety of reasons, such as lack of evidence, lack of time due to the limitation period, mitigating circumstances etc.

"Therefore, this figure cannot be compared to the figures obtained from the courts for actual proceedings."


http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Fewer-speedin ... jp#4105602

Will post some new documents relevant to this article later.

You are doing a marvelous job here - well done ...

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Hi. ACPO book of rules (101 pages of garbage as nothing is conformed too) states that the camera should NOT be used in automatic mode but my guess would be that most of them are. For the camera to be type approved the operator should be able to assess to within 10% the vehicle speed and then the camera used to verify the operators speed assessment. Can you imagine that this is how they all operate these devices??My dealings with Lancashire police/SCP are diabolical and the worst of any that I have had dealings with. They don't know their left from right and were lucky that the time limit had expired for me to contact the IPCC. A complete and utter shower. OLLIE