Daylight Robbery on M4
Safety Camera blunder sees innocent motorists fined
A blundering Welsh safety camera partnership has admitted to a "mistake" having sited a speed camera outside the limit that it was supposed to be enforcing. The camera was placed to catch drivers speeding in a temporary 50 mph limit in roadworks on the M4 outside Newport. Instead it photographed aproximately 2,500 drivers who had left the speed limited zone and were legally and properly increasing their speed to normal motorway speed.
The innocent drivers, who have paid fines totalling aproximately £150,000 to the camera partnership, are now entitled to ask for their fines to be refunded and for the penalty points to be removed from their driving licences. But in a shock announcement, the camera partnership has stated that it has no intention of contacting the drivers to inform them of the mistake.
Instead it is "considering appeals" from individual drivers. So far there have been ten of these, and all have had their convictions overturned.
The ABD's Roads and Traffic spokesman, Mark McArthur-Christie said "The camera was wrongly sited for over a year and presumably people have been wrongly convicted by it for all that time. It is bad enough that the partnership has not immediately contacted each and and every driver wrongly convicted by this trap, and immediately offered a refund, erasure of points, and compensation ."
He continued "As the public are becoming increasingly aware, the costs do not stop with the fines. Many of these drivers will have been stigmatised and penalised by having to pay hundreds of pounds in higher insurance premiums. Worse still, some may have been banned and lost their livelihood, all because of a "mistake" over the siting of a speed camera. It is a complete disgrace. No wonder the Camera Partnership is keeping quiet about it. They could be facing huge compensation claims for lost licences and ruined careers. "
Link : www.abd.org.uk
Suggest they rename themselves the South Wales F
k-up Partnership.grahambell said:
This is from the same lot that brought us the 480mph Maestro. ( www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=64913&f=23&h=0 )
Suggest they rename themselves the South Wales F
I would disagree strongly. F
k-up merely suggests incompetence. One does not need to be malicious to be incompetent. I would suggest the South Wales Legalised Robbery, Fraud, Extortion and Perjury Partnership.
>> Edited by jeffreyarcher on Tuesday 4th November 01:21
It could tie up the partnership for months.
And then there's the claims.
Details of which camera, when, where which dates are eligible for an appeal need to be published on the internet to make making the appeal straightforward.
This is the ideal opportunity to send the partnership broke.
Don said:
Details of which camera, when, where which dates are eligible for an appeal need to be published on the internet to make making the appeal straightforward.
This is the ideal opportunity to send the partnership broke.
Here here (or is it "hear hear"?). This is certainly in the public interest and the information should be disseminated as widely as possible.
Is that not theft or fraud or something?? Or do they get away with it by agreeing to give it back if you make the effort to retrieve it..?
Fckers!
"Malfeasance in a Public Office."
This is, according to a Met Police Inspector friend, a criminal offence for which proceedings may be instigated by the CPS as a result of a complaint by one of the agrieved parties. Perhaps the ABD should take this matter up with the Home Office or the Police Complaints Authority. Could one of our BiB friends comment on this, please.
For once I don't know what to say.
How on earth can they possibly be allowed to behave like this? it must be illegal?!?!?
if you go to a cash machine and request £10 and it dishes out £1000 you can still be prosecuted for theft if you take it.. no?
rot in hell.. the lot of them!
Cooperman said:
I posted this on an earlier thread, but I believe the officials responsible for the decision not to contact those prosecuted and fined incorrectly are guilty of:
"Malfeasance in a Public Office."
This is, according to a Met Police Inspector friend, a criminal offence for which proceedings may be instigated by the CPS as a result of a complaint by one of the agrieved parties. Perhaps the ABD should take this matter up with the Home Office or the Police Complaints Authority. Could one of our BiB friends comment on this, please.
Could you email the ABD or something..? Not sure if they will read it here, nor even realise the situation. If you highlighted the possible case, they may well take it up!
Proaction, not reaction and all that jazz!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff