News RSS Feed


REGISTER NOW TO POST YOUR COMMENTS ON THESE STORIES

It's free and only takes a few seconds. Click here to go to the registration page.

Hundreds of speeding tickets refunded after blunder

7:15pm Tuesday 8th January 2008

comment Comments (29)   Have your say »


FAULTY speed cameras led to 59 motorists paying for speed awareness courses even though they hadn't been breaking the limit, it has been revealed.

Lancashire Police is set to refund the drivers, who paid to go on the day-long, £80 courses as an alternative to penalty point after being tickets by wrongly-set-up speed cameras.

Hundreds of speeding fines are also being ripped up.

In October, when it was revealed that an Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation into the mix-up had been launched, it was thought that 200 motorists would be affected and that there was just one faulty mobile speed camera.

But it has now emerged that speed guns were also wrongly calibrated over the seven-month period from February to September 2007, and multiple cameras have been affected.

The member of staff involved has been temporarily moved to another department but is still employed by the police.

The commission is also investigating allegations that another four members of staff, who have also been moved, failed to process court documents correctly.

The police watchdog is investigating why the cameras were calibrated wrongly by a member of staff at the Blackburn-based central processing unit.

So far Lancashire Police has written to 300 drivers with refunds for speeding fines, and more are expected to follow. The letters sent out did not refer to speed awareness courses, but these are also to be refunded.

Critics have said that the mess undermines the education message about the dangers of speeding.

Police chiefs and the IPCC have refused to reveal precisely where in the county the drivers were caught - but the Lancashire Telegraph has learned the faulty cameras were used in East Lancashire during part of the affected period.

Speed awareness courses, run by the county council-backed Road Safety Partnership, are offered to drivers as an alternative to getting licence points after being caught speeding.

They last around seven hours and are only available to people caught driving just over the limit. Most courses take place in Leyland.

Greg Pope, Labour MP for Hyndburn, said the mix-up sent out the wrong message.

He said: "This is a real mess. It's not just the cost of going to the speed awareness course, but getting time off work and travel costs.

"This should really focus people's minds to get these things right in the first place.

"Speed cameras aren't very popular in the first place - some people see them as a tax on the motorist. So this won't help."

The IPCC is refusing to say how many speed cameras are thought to have been affected.

An IPCC spokesman said: "The IPCC can confirm that the process of rescinding speeding tickets has begun as a result of information uncovered during the investigation into allegations that a member of Lancashire Constabulary staff had incorrectly calibrated mobile speed cameras.

"The investigation is ongoing, but Lancashire Constabulary has written to approximately 300 motorists whose convictions have been deemed unsafe."

Lancashire Police refused to comment.

Print article » Email to a friend »

Your Say YourLancashire Telegraph

bystander, lancs says...
3:52pm Tue 8 Jan 08

whose convictions have been deemed unsafe." They are all unsafe and subject to human error.

Report this post »

Travelling Man, UK says...
8:15pm Tue 8 Jan 08

Hardly an isolated incident either, there's reports of similar events in Wales, Cumbria and down in London and Croydon.

It raises the question, just how reliable are these things and seeing as there was an attempt in Cumbria to hide the fault, just how many of these things across the country are faulty and how many of these people who cry foul aren't speeding at all and are really telling the truth!?!

Report this post »

Cider Drinker, says...
8:27pm Tue 8 Jan 08

A conviction in Buckinghamshire had to be dropped because the camera came into question about it's reliability even though the partnership manager denied it by explaining it took too long to test the camera therefore they were dropping the case, it's hardly likely they'd do that and it's almost without doubt that the camera was faulty and it was an exercise in PR spin to hide the fact that it was really inaccurate so the case couldn't proceed.

So, it decends further and further into disrepute, not exactly unexpected really, perhaps it's time MP's started to distance themselves from this policy, just in case, as most of us suspect, it all goes belly up.

Report this post »

Amanda love, blackpool says...
9:43pm Tue 8 Jan 08

how do u find out who is getting refunded because i got a fine and points in august

Report this post »

gordon, Burnley says...
9:44pm Tue 8 Jan 08

It's not just the cost of the course that needs refunding. What about the time off work and loss of wages or holiday, the car parking costs and travel expenses incurred to get to the centres.
If a refund is to be made lets get it right and make those who decided to prosecute bear the costs and not let it be passed on to us through an increased levy on our rates next year.

Report this post »

Vitesse, Clean Licence says...
12:49am Wed 9 Jan 08

The camera operating quango and their apologists insisted that motorists obeyed the letter of the law.There was to be no excuse. Do the crime, do the time, they insisted in their holierthanthou attitude. Well, where are the quango apologists now?? I think it is only fair that the motorist should expect the same high standards from the quango. As the story unfolds it is becoming increasingly clear that the quangos operations at Guide are terribly flawed. I note that Lisa Sanderson, normally so eloquent in the quango's cause seems to be struck dumb.Whilst there is talk above about out of pocket expenses for attending driver education courses provided by second rate instructors, think out other drivers who may well have lost their jobs and much money because of this co-ckup.

And, I wonder, will the IPCC report be made public? and when? or will it be kicked into the long grass??


Report this post »

Ian, says...
1:06am Wed 9 Jan 08

Good points there Vitesse, I'm sure anyone who had lost their license or much much worse his job and living over this, wouldn't be quite so happy just to get his fine back.

It's about time government took a good long hard look at this. This isn't the first time convictions have had to be dropped or overturned and you'd have thought that after ten years and a documentary on the BBC exposing the problems of misuse and bad setup of these cameras they'd have perfected the system when so many peoples lives can be wrecked.

It's not just about the mobile camera either, more and more reports are appearing in the press about faulty fixed cameras as well, snapping away at stationary cars, not just moving ones.

The whole thing is starting to look decidedly shakey considering so much money is involved.

No doubt we'll hear it's just a minor problem and that we should trust the technology inspite of all we see and read about them in the press, on the television and even from government ministers.

As you say, where are the do-gooders now who sucked up all the propaganda and wouldn't listen to genuine critiscism in their hysteria?

Innocent people are being convicted of crimes they're not commiting, right across the country.

Heads will eventually roll for this, maybe not because of this one event, but as it's happened before, it'll no doubt happen again.

Report this post »

Derek, Herts. says...
7:23am Wed 9 Jan 08

The chances of government reviewing the policy of catching people with speed cameras is less likely than winning the lottery. It can be proven they have had a detrimental effect on road safety, with possibly a few exceptions - rare. It can be proven they have alienated the Police from the public, that they have contributed many millions of pounds to the treasury coffers, and it can be proven they are fallible - as are the methods of deployment. But none of this will stop a government from blustering over the cracks with more hot air.

The anti-car brigade will be wringing their hands, desirous of a return to half as many vehicles and slower ones at that, vehicle design has seen to much of that. Turn back fifty years and you will find the fatality rate on the roads was higher than today, with far fewer vehicles. The majority of accidents happen at low speeds, caused by inattention and complacency - by all road users pedestrians included. Where is this addressed? Nowhere. Because it would cost too much money, and government is in the business of taking, not giving. Heads may roll - but to another high salaried department.

Report this post »

Richard C, Yorkshire says...
9:28am Wed 9 Jan 08

About time. These things have been proven to be innacurate months ago, in front of representatives of ACPO - http://www.witlessan
dswindle.me.uk/repor
t_v0_2_rqp.pdf

The Home Office know it, the Goverment know it, and ACPO know it.

But they do not want to

*1/. Lose their cash cow
*2/. Make the roads less safe

Delete whichever you feel to applicable

Report this post »

Ian, says...
11:36am Wed 9 Jan 08

Well, the roads are already less safe than they were when we still had reliable policing where speeding drivers were stopped by police, as the number of drink drive related accidents show.

So of your two options, it can only be the cash cow, but even I find it difficult to accept that elected officials would risk their reputations or be so clearly fooled by such an inadequate policy as speed cameras, or have the current crop become a little more dumb than their predecessors?

Still, back to the main question, are the people who've been wrongly convicted going to have all their costs reimbursed and if anyone has lost a license or a job through it, what is the plan to make sure those people are compensated for current and future loss of earnings?

Report this post »

Yimitier, Lancashire says...
2:35pm Wed 9 Jan 08

Amanda love wrote:
how do u find out who is getting refunded because i got a fine and points in august
Don't you know?
According to the IPCC you have to trust the very people that are under investigation to tell you.
"Trust me, I'm a policeman!!"

Report this post »

Yimitier, Lancashire says...
3:19pm Wed 9 Jan 08

Regarding speed awareness courses in Lancashire the following contradictory

figures for the year 2005 - 2006 are as follows:


The following records are supposed to have been checked and authenticated by
the Audit Commission and the Department of Transport Lancashire Constabulary

& The DVLA.

Lacashire Road Safety Partnership
Project Manager: John Davies
Sent: 05 July 2007 11:31
Figures requested year 2005 - 2006
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.


CRIMINAL JUSTICE& STANDARDS PORTFOLIO
Information Assurance Services - Data Protection
Police Headquarters, Saunders Lane, Hutton, Preston PR4 5SB
Date 21 November 2007

Lancashire Constabulary Audited records.
(These are the figures recorded on the DVLA Police Database which restrict

members of the public to take another speed awareness course for 3 years.)
Thank you for your requests for information received on the 2200 October

2007.

In 2005/06 a total of 119,594 fixed penalty notices were issued.

32,139 of the 119,594 (26.87%) completed a speed awareness course.

5,911 of the 119,594 (4.94%) were cancelled.

(Lancashire Constabulary receive an administration fee from the speed

awareness courses for each person they record with the DVLA.)

Freedom Of Information {freedomofinformatio
n@lancscc.gov.uk]
Sent: 04 December 2007 16:45

Lancashire County Council Audited records.

Further to your email of 23'0 November 2007, in which you request the

disclosure of information under the provisions
of the above Act, we are now in a position to respond.
Between 1st April 2005 and 31sT March 2006, a total of 19,453 speed

awareness courses were taken. The total
income from these courses was £1,764,745. The total expenditure on the

courses was £1,607,682 therefore
the net surplus was £157,063.

The conflicting figures and discrepancies have been brought to the attention

of the DVLA and the Audit Commisioner for their comments.


For complete copies of the above correspondece download from here:
http://rapidshare.co
m/files/82470820/spe
edawareness2.pdf
These documents carry no restrictions nor are they connected with any active

court case or investigation.

Report this post »

Ady Powell, Blackpool says...
4:15pm Wed 9 Jan 08

The issues mentioned here are only the tip of the iceberg.Did you know, if you are accused of a speeding fine and contest it, you will not be entitled to legal aid, regardless of your financial circumstances. Just another tactic to prevent you fighting the fine,even if you know you are innocent.It makes a complete mockery of Article 6 of The Human Rights Act. There are many more exclusive and unjust rules that apply to motoring law that don't apply to all other criminal law (too many to mention) but which I found out to my detriment.

Report this post »

bystander, lancs says...
4:52pm Wed 9 Jan 08

and no great reduction in Lancashire road deaths. It's just another "jobs for the boys" scheme.

Report this post »

Lazy Guy, says...
5:08pm Wed 9 Jan 08

It's dreadful when you hear about people burning them down south, inspite of the provocation and it's a very sad time to be british.

Report this post »

A Parkinson, says...
9:29pm Wed 9 Jan 08

Can someone please tell me haw you can find out if you were one of the motorist involved in the wrongfull speeding convictions i was suppossed to have been speeding in June on Preston New Rd in Blackburn.

This is not the first time this has happened to me I once got my points and fine refunded by welsh police back in 2005.

I am lucky that i do not have points on my licence but the question is what about all those people who could have been banned because the speed cameras and lost there jobs through no fault of there own!!!!!!!!!!!!

Report this post »

Safe Driver, Darwen says...
10:00pm Wed 9 Jan 08

Yimitier - Which CPS case is this as ive never been able to find any reference to it online. Who -V- Who? Ive heard several people refer to this when the Police hit the headlines, but cant find anything out about it.

Much as they "got it wrong" You can bet your life savings that thousands of other motorists that knew darn well they were speeding will complain, whine and try it on to see if they will get a refund as well, stories like this always bring the unscrupulous people out of the woodwork

Report this post »

Anne Robbinbastid, says...
10:41pm Wed 9 Jan 08

Speed camera operators of Britain.

...you are the weakest link

..goodbye!

Report this post »

Yimitier, Lancashire says...
3:54am Thu 10 Jan 08

Dejavue!
From the archives:
Police brake on speeding tickets!

From the Lancashire Evening Telegraph, first published Friday 14th May 1999.

LANCASHIRE Constabulary are revoking more than 300 speeding fines because they want to be fair to motorists.

The drivers concerned we're all caught speeding on a new speed detection camera around the Lancaster, Morecambe and Wyre areas over the last 14 months. The 307 motorists were all originally fined and given penalty points on their licences, but now the money is being refunded and they will be issued with replacement licences with no trace of the offence on their driving record.

Senior officers took immediate action when they discovered that national guidelines for operating the mobile camera had not been followed and every case in which the device was used was reviewed. The equipment in question is the only one of its type being used in Lancashire.

The problem arose when a case was recently contested and it was found that the officer's records of the use of the equipment were insufficient to give a definite assurance that the camera was operating normally at the time the photograph was taken.

Chief Inspector Ian Bell, the Constabulary's Road Safety Co-ordinator, said: 'We have reviewed every case where this particular camera has been used and, in order to be absolutely fair to the motorists concerned, we have decided to revoke 307 cases.

"We set standards for ourselves in the way we carry out speed checks and we are not satisfied that we met those standards in these cases.

"Ethically, it is right to give the drivers the benefit of the doubt and it is important to us that motorists in Lancashire have confidence in the way we carry out speed enforcement."

Letters have already been sent to all the motorists concerned, telling them about the decision and making arrangements to refund their fines and remove the offence and penalty points from their licences. Unless drivers have received such a letter they should assume they're not among those whose fines have been revoked.
SOUNDS FAMILIAR?
Only discovered after a case, investigated by themselves, don't ask, "Trust us after all we are the police".

Believe me when in doubt put your question to your M.P.and ask him to write to The Chief Constable on your behalf.

Report this post »

Furious, says...
9:11am Thu 10 Jan 08

On the strength of this undeniable evidence and established previous events involving the same type of equipment right across the country.

It is now time to demand an outright ban on the use of mobile speed cameras.

There is no justification in allowing this farce to continue any longer, no real improvement in road safety is being demonstrated.

The only county's in the UK who show a 'significant' improvement in road safety, are the counties who either have no cameras, or have very few.

It is now proven that this technology is completely inadequate to the task and has the potential to 'ruin someones life'

Never again will the phrase 'safety camera' be met with anything other than derision and contempt.

It would be childish for the authorities to argue at this point their toys are broken and it is time for us to take them away so that they don't hurt anybody else!

I see one of the councillors in another article is 'disgusted' by this event.

Disgusted, doesn't do it justice, this is an outrage!

Report this post »

Fenix, Burnley says...
10:16am Thu 10 Jan 08

I'm due in court this afternoon on a speeding charge from a mobile camera in burnley in June this year. I've always maintained that i was doing nowhere near the speed the police reported (a speed which could see me getting a ban) but was about to give in today and plead guilty as i could not afford to make a defence. This is great news and I will be submitting to the court this afternoon that the case is unsafe. We'll see what happens.

I'm not a saint I was speeding, i've learnt my lesson and I would've happily accepted the fixed penalty notice that I should've receievd for the actual speed I was over the limit.

Report this post »

Yimitier, Lancashire says...
10:44am Thu 10 Jan 08

If I were you I would apply for an adjournment
until you can be sure you are NOT GOING TO RECEIVE A LETTER as the investigation is still going on.
Then get a good solicitor and get legal advice.

Report this post »

Yimitier, says...
11:07am Thu 10 Jan 08

Breaking News!
I am now in receipt of a letter from The IPCC Commissioner, Mike Franklin to My M.P The Honourable Nigel Evans informing him that my contact in relation to enquiries regarding the IPCC overseen investigation is The Investigating Officer at Lancashire Constabulary, DI Marie Jackson of The Professional Standards Department Hutton apparantly been advised to contact her with any further queries.As I am just a member of the public I believe this must apply to any other member of the public who has queries. It's worth a try!
Hope this can assist in anyone's quest for a fair hearing.

Report this post »

Marlowe, Pershore says...
4:24pm Fri 11 Jan 08

Today I received a notice of intention to prosecute on an alleged speeding offence on New Year's Day by West Mercia Constabulary.
Being New Year's Day I remember seeing the van with the mobile camera in it quite clearly. I had just turned into the main road and pointed out the van to my wife well before we reached it. The speed limit on this strech of rural single carriageway is 40 (why I have no idea as the area is rural) the ticket claims I was driving at 47 mph but I know this to be inaccurate. I have a road angel GPS system installed that gives me a readout of my speed and, since I saw the camera in good time I checked both my speedometer and the GPS readout as I approached the van. I was travellig at 40 mph on the GPS - slightly over on the speedometer but nowhere near 47 mph. The road was very clear with no traffic. Must have been a real slow day for the man in the van. I certainly intend to fight the ticket. Can anyone tell me what type of camera was the subject of the Lancashire investigation? If so could they post this information.

Report this post »

Ady Powell, Blackpool says...
1:09am Sat 12 Jan 08

To Marlowe. I advise you consider your action carefully. It is an almost impossible fight unless you can throw money at it. You can't challenge the device itself, as it has been approved by the Home Office. They will tell you what device was used.
If the Police prove it has been calibrated and tested, you will not win, unless you can provide an expert witness to prove you were driving at the speed you claim. This will no doubt cost you thousands and what type of expert could prove such a thing anyway? I abandoned my case when my costs became over a thousand pounds and could have doubled. I didn't even have an expert witness.
An identical case to mine, even the same road,direction of travel and actually accused of travelling two miles faster was won by Roy Clayton at Blackpool Magistrates Court. I lost at Fleetwood Magistrates Court, despite the Officer couldn't even get the location where he parked his vehicle right. This is how inconsistent and unjust the law is in respect this highly controversial subject. Good luck, whatever you decide.

Report this post »

Ooop Norf!, says...
8:57pm Sat 12 Jan 08

You need to hire that lawyer "Mr Loophole" Marlowe, the guy who gets all the celebrities off because he knows that the authority don't want the accuracy of their equipment or the competence of their staff exposed in open court or it'd bring the whole thing crashing to it's knees.

So, before you challenge it, become a cricketer or a premeirship footballer, host your own TV show, make several million, then hire him, he'll get you off.

On a 40mph, thats 10% plus 2, at '46' you'd be a good considerate driver, at '47' you're an armed terrorist with evil intent and deserve to taken to the middle of town, stripped naked and humiliated for your attack on humanity.

Report this post »

Brian Metcalfe, says...
9:02pm Sat 12 Jan 08

Mind you, lancastrain police should think themselves lucky, the aussies who use similar equipment have just had to refund 5300 tickets because of the stupidity of their staff.

At least the americans have seen sense and local jurisdiction is starting to have them taken down before they lose face.

Report this post »

Marlowe, Pershore says...
10:42am Fri 1 Feb 08

Re my earlier posting about New Year's Day. I requested the camera picture which I received this morning. It shows my vehicle at a distance of 350m entering a bend in the road and clearly going downhill. Because of the bend it is clear that an oncoming vehicle has just passed across the direct line from the camera to my vehicle and is still showing occupying about 25% of the entire photograph. There is also a metal road sign in the background right behind my vehicle. I didn't think these cameras were supposed to be operated (a) on a bend (b) where the vehicle is likely to accelerate without the accelerator and (c) with a metal object at camera level in the background (much of the road sign is obsured by my car so its definitely in camera line!) - Anybody got any information on this?
I'm probably going to accept the conditional offer - but it really frustrates me.
Regards

Report this post »

roy clayton, preesall says...
7:30pm Sun 10 Feb 08

Hi Marlow I understand your frustration as I experienced it first hand. In court it felt like like guilty until I could prove my innocence.It took me over a year and a lot of conviction to pursue my case. I could not afford a fancy lawyer so defended myself.I would recommed a website called pepipoo who helped me a lot. Its not all about loopholes I proved that my offence never took place and used the police;s own video to prove my innocence. It took me an awful long time to prise it off them. Out of date calibration certificates were sent to me and then in date ones turned up in court. A genuine error I am led to believe. Good luck whatever you decide. Incidently it was Fleetwood magistrates and not Blackpool.

Report this post »

Comments are closed on this article.

In this section

Essential links

Sponsored Links



Local advertisers


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »