Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => The Flame Pit => Topic started by: filippi9 on December 05, 2025, 02:29:05 pm
-
RSS Ltd has been struck off the register of companies: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02457707/filing-history
Think that's a different one - Road Safety Support Ltd are still going - https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06176687 (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06176687)
-
RSS Ltd has been struck off the register of companies: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02457707/filing-history
-
Well, some bloke called Mick posted a link, earlier in this thread, to a case that was broadly consistent with what we are now being told.
It would be interesting to know who knew what when, and how much of an attempt was made to Hillsborough the issue. Although, the more interesting an issue is based on the perceived likelihood of mendacity on the part of those higher up the food chain, the less likely we'll ever hear the full story.
You do however raise an interesting point (albeit by implication) - if there is a co-ordinated response from police forces nationally, what do the NPCC and RSS Ltd (assuming that unlike ACPO they are still operating under their original name) know and what documents can we obtain under the FOIA?
ISTR RSS claiming not to be a public body for the purposes of the FOIA - how accurate my recollection is and whether that argument went anywhere is another matter. RSS at the time, AIUI, were a wholly owned subsiduary of ACPO Ltd ( a private company), whose purpose (RSS that is, not ACPO) to advise subscribed police forces on matters concerning motoring prosecutions, and providing expert witnesses to impartially argue that the prescribed devices were infallible.
If anyone fancies firing off a few FOIA requests, it is far from certain that we will get anything meaningful back, but the advice presumably given by RSS to the NPCC is likely to be about as full a story as we could conceivably hope to read.
-
it also appears that plod knew about this issue at the beginning of October.
it would be interesting to know how the issue was found, possibly someone in the same position the OP in the other thread but who had dash cam evidence?
-
Otherwise, as you say it would be trivial to spot from the photograph that when a limit drops (the only possible case that would be affected) the limit had been in force for less than the grace period.
Please don't "agree" with things I never said.
A request for the logs from VSL control would show that the timing was way out and cast doubt on every photograph (If they can't even measure time correctly, how can we trust the speed measurement?), hence they have cancelled every ticket.
Drugs are bad, m'kay?
If the timing on the logs is way out, there is no meaningful evidence that the speed limit shown in the photo had been shown for more than 10 seconds, in other words that the limit shown in the photo was enforceable at the time of the alleged offence.
-
Assuming that the logs of the displayed variable speed limits are accurate and reliable, it should have been relatively trivial to check which cases would have been triggered by an incorrect implementation of the 10 second delay.
Also, we were "reliably" informed that whilst the legislation mandated no enforcement within 10 seconds of the limit first being displayed, because the relevant authorities were all kind and helpful people, they operated a minute's grace.
Whilst the story in the Daily Wail is the most coherent and plausible purported version of events (as opposed to mere educated guesses) I've seen so far, it leave more questions to be answered (which is not the same as begging the question) than it purportedly answers. On this occasion, I'm not accusing them of poor journalism, but I do think that there's more to this than we've been told.
Reading between the lines, and remembering the poster who had several witnesses (but unfortunately no camera footage) that the limit must have reduced when he was so close to the camera that no-one in the car saw it, yet the timings on the photo said it had been in force over an hour, I suspect that the enforcement timing is counting clock cycles or milliseconds rather than seconds from when the limit is triggered, and the "grace period" is actually a fraction of a second. (maybe there is a maximum time that rolls back to zero when it is reached every few seconds)
Otherwise, as you say it would be trivial to spot from the photograph that when a limit drops (the only possible case that would be affected) the limit had been in force for less than the grace period.
Unusual that no-one posted here with dashcam footage showing the limit change (or the higher limit until it went out of view, the flashes and a photo claiming the limit was in force for hours.)
A request for the logs from VSL control would show that the timing was way out and cast doubt on every photograph (If they can't even measure time correctly, how can we trust the speed measurement?), hence they have cancelled every ticket.
-
The advice given was correct as far as I can see, and the courts that imposed convictions on those who turned up with no evidence to the contrary were not wrong either.
And I somehow doubt that even the most expensive of experts would have found this issue. To prevent something like this from happening, Parliament would need to introduce a right for the defence to audit the source code of the camera software, as I don't see a court ordering disclosure of that code just for the sake of a defendant's fishing expedition.
-
https://www.ftla.uk/speeding-and-other-criminal-offences/please-help-with-unfair-speeding-ticket/
We were all adamant that absent any independent evidence he would struggle to convince the court that the machine wasn't working properly.
We were all adamant that the machine not working properly was not the only possible explanation.
Some thought that he was mistaken
-
There was a case on here a few weeks ago, which I cannot immediately find, where the driver was absolutely adamant that he must have been snapped between the time he passed under the gantry (when he says “50” was displayed) and the time the photo was taken a few yards beyond he gantry (when he was accused of breaking a “40” limit). It ran on for a bit.
We were all adamant he was mistaken. He may well one of the victims of this.
-
Assuming that the logs of the displayed variable speed limits are accurate and reliable, it should have been relatively trivial to check which cases would have been triggered by an incorrect implementation of the 10 second delay.
Also, we were "reliably" informed that whilst the legislation mandated no enforcement within 10 seconds of the limit first being displayed, because the relevant authorities were all kind and helpful people, they operated a minute's grace.
Whilst the story in the Daily Wail is the most coherent and plausible purported version of events (as opposed to mere educated guesses) I've seen so far, it leave more questions to be answered (which is not the same as begging the question) than it purportedly answers. On this occasion, I'm not accusing them of poor journalism, but I do think that there's more to this than we've been told.
-
NOW we see what has being going on at last.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15386377/Drivers-wrongly-fined-speed-camera-scandal-motorways.html
-
Just an update, my FOI Request was refused with: Due to the wording of the request this does not constitute a valid request under Section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act. The word ‘divulge’ is a broad term and not specific to information that may be held by Kent Police.
I have responded accordingly.
-
Well that’s me told! 8)
I mentioned the discrepancy because the quote was from a letter sent by the police. Whilst I understand that it is common for a NIP and a Section 172 request to be conflated by their recipients, I would not expect the police to be similarly confused – even if they usually do print both of them on the same sheet of paper.
To a lay idiot such as me, the phrase “….sent to you under section 172 road traffic act 1988” suggests that s172 either requires or provides for the issue of the notice. But it does not. But s1 of RTOA does – assuming, that is, the police want to succeed with a prosecution (and if they don’t there’s little point in them taking enforcement action for offences which have that requirement). The term "Notice of [the] Intended Prosecution" is mentioned and its contents specified.
[mod edit: Admittedly, the capitalisation of the words "Notice", "Intended" and "Prosecution" would tend to indicate that it was indeed a term of art, with or without the word "the". Except that they do not exist in that form (capitalised, as to indicate a term of art) in the statute.]
This thread is exploring possible reasons why the police might have discontinued a speeding allegation. There could be any one of a number of explanations for this including procedural errors on the part of the police.
I’m not for one minute suggesting that the discrepancy I mentioned might lead to such a discontinuation. But rather than being pedantic, I was simply pointing out that – like me – the police do not always get everything right and that may be a reason for the discontinuation.The
-
There is also this thread on the MSE site where it appears (from the last post) that a significant number of booked and accepted speed awareness course are being cancelled and refunded - presumably with a view to cancelling the entire NIP.
So all in all indeed something odd is going on
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6645074/your-national-motorway-awareness-course-offer-has-been-withdrawn-by-west-midlands-police/p2
-
As a term of art, "Notice of Intended Prosecution" does not appear anywhere in s. 1 (or 2 for that matter) RTOA 1988 or s. 172 RTA 1988.
We have seen numerous cases where conflating a written warning and a requirement for information under s. 172 RTA 1988 has caused confusion or issues - mostly the potential for OPs to wishfully think that a late NIP (particularly when they are not the RK or haven't updated the V5C) means they can simply bury their head in the sand and ignore the incorporated s. 172 requirement, but in the context of this thread, this is pure pedantry. If you wish to engage in such pedantry, may I suggest that the next time a motoring case comes before you you ask the prosecution to show you where in Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 it prohibits whatever it is the criminal scum before you is accused of doing?
In the alternative, a NIP almost invariably incorporates an s. 172 requirement. Whilst the title of the combined document, which as previously mentioned does not exist as a term of art in the legislation, is descriptive of the requirement under s. 1 RTOA 1988 which the first such notice in the chain frequently purports to satisfy (where such a requirement applies), the combined notice is served in some cases to satisfy the requirements of s. 1 RTOA 1988, and in almost all cases to engage the obligation under s. 172(7) RTA 1988 - so the notice was sent "under" s. 172 to the extent that the word "under" is meaningful. S. 172 does not in and of itself "require" a notice to be sent out, unless the police wish to engage the obligation under s. 172(7), in much the same way that s. 1 does not require a NIP (or other form of written warning without that term of art as a title) to be served, unless the police wish to prosecute the driver and have not verbally warned him at the time of the commission of the offence. So, if you wish to engage in pedantry, make sure you get it right - but mostly the Schedule 2 thing.
-
"We write regarding a notice of intended prosecution recently sent to you under section 172 road traffic act 1988 in relation to the above offence.
I wasn't aware that s172 of the Road Traffic Act required a Notice of Intended Prosecution to be sent. You learn something new every day.
-
The alleged offense occurred on the 6th of Aug on the M25 anti-clockwise Junction 5, Westerham. There was a temporary speed restriction of 50 mph due to roadworks.
was the temp limit signed by static temp roundals or by the VSL signs (gantry)?
-
On faceache, a poster who had an SAC booked - for 68 in a VSL 60 on the M6 in Cheshire received an email cancelling the SAC (with promise of refund) with near identical wording ("Kent Police" replaced with "We").
Also the following post, possibly from the same page but for a different event on the M1.
HI, I received a notice for speeding on the M1 by Nottinghamshire police for doing 57 in a temporary 50 zone. Fair enough.
I was all booked in to take the course and received a letter from the police stating:
"We write regarding a notice of intended prosecution recently sent to you under section 172 road traffic act 1988 in relation to the above offence. We have been made aware of an issue relating to a number of speed enforcement cases in the UK . As a precaution there will be no further action in relation to this case. Yours faithfully ..."
-
There is an exemption in the FOI Act that does not require information to be released if it might prejudice the prevention and detection of crime.
I would argue that if the prejudice has already occurred (because the crime cannot be effectively prevented or detected while the existing issue (whatever it is) remains in place), then disclosure cannot cause any further prejudice so the exemption is not engaged.
-
They might not tell you.
There is an exemption in the FOI Act that does not require information to be released if it might prejudice the prevention and detection of crime.
-
Is anyone aware at all what these issues with enforcement cases may be? IF not, what would be the best way to get this information from Kent police, would a FOI request be the best avenue?
Thanks
I have submitted an FOI to Kent Police. let's see what they come back with.
-
So, the wording was essentially quoted in the OP's OP, albeit somewhat discreetly and unconventionally.
Googling the passage (with extraneous quotation marks removed) suggests that there is a potential issue with VSL enforcement (or at least some VSL enforcement). On faceache, a poster who had an SAC booked - for 68 in a VSL 60 on the M6 in Cheshire received an email cancelling the SAC (with promise of refund) with near identical wording ("Kent Police" replaced with "We").
2 cases is not a statistically significant number, but they appear to be consistent with other less specific noise.
AIUI, location description errors are conventionally almost invariably from mobile enforcement, although there is an argument, often dismissed out of hand by Magistrates who failed to understand the question, of unduly vague locus where the locus stated covers many miles. However, I would be surprised if such an issue lead to pre-emptive dropping.
Google AI (which I wouldn't trust to tell me how many "r"s in the word "strawberry) has cobbled together the following
I am aware of a widely reported issue concerning a number of speed enforcement cases handled by the Kent Police and other forces [1]. Due to concerns raised about the reliability of evidence from a specific speed camera type and processing methods, police forces have taken precautionary measures [2, 3].
As reported in various news outlets, the Kent Police, along with other forces such as the Metropolitan Police, are reviewing thousands of cases. In a significant number of instances where the evidence may be compromised, no further action is being taken [1, 2, 4]. This has resulted in withdrawn prosecutions, canceled fixed penalty notices (FPNs), and scrapped court convictions [1, 3].
Key details include:
The issue primarily relates to cases that relied on the Home Office-approved Jenoptik SPECS average speed camera system [4, 5].
The concerns involve the process of manually extracting footage from the camera systems to check the secondary evidential photograph, a procedure which some legal experts argued might not meet strict legal requirements for data integrity [4, 5].
In one specific case at the Magistrates' Court, a judge ruled that the digital evidence provided could not be trusted due to potential manipulation risks during the manual review process [2, 4, 5].
Police forces emphasized that these actions were taken as a precaution to ensure fairness and uphold the integrity of the justice system [3, 4].
Individuals who believe their case may be affected should have already been contacted by the relevant police force if their case was pending [4]. If you have specific questions about a past or current case, you should contact the Kent Police directly for clarification.
Many years ago, there was a landmark case in Australia where digital evidence was excluded on the basis that it was technically possibly to modify it (IIRC a weakness in the MD5 algorithm) - which was very much inconsistent with English case law - so I would be very surprised if there was a co-ordinated response by police forces nationally to drop VSL cases on the basis that a Magistrates' Court found that a State Level Actor could potentially falsify the evidence - when pretty much all other prosecution evidence could potentially be falsified far more easily.[/quote]
If we ignore experience and take numerous OPs claims at face value, there is potential for a disconnect between the VSL logs of when limits were displayed and what was actually displayed at the time. If somebody had dash-cam footage (which hadn't been obviously falsified) which supported such a claim, and that went to court, that would be a far more plausible explanation.
Whilst we have always been far quieter than PePiPoo was back in the day (as was PePiPoo after "the day", whenever that was), as this is the first we are hearing of what appears to potentially be a national issue, it would seem likely that any fall-out is just starting and a slightly clearer picture will emerge.
Whether or not it's worth ordering some more popcorn is another matter.
[edit: How slow is my typing? Cross posted with Mick's post]
-
a consequence of this case possibly although it might be a bit old..
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3wpq1n8e61o.amp
Mr Anderson said prosecution evidence in other speeding cases could also be "questionable" after his case was dropped.
“When new evidence came to light, and after a thorough review of the evidence, we concluded that there was no longer a realistic prospect of conviction, and the case was discontinued.”
-
The alleged offense occurred on the 6th of Aug on the M25 anti-clockwise Junction 5, Westerham. There was a temporary speed restriction of 50 mph due to roadworks.
I'm afraid there isn't much more to it, nor to the communication received from the police. Since I didn't see any threads on this, nor anything reported by Kent police or news elsewhere, I assume that these cancellations weren't announced publicly. So I thought to check with the experts on this forum for the best way to get more details, through a FOI request perhaps.
I've linked to a copy of the cancellation since the exact wording was requested: https://imgpile.com/p/2GBOJEQ (https://imgpile.com/p/2GBOJEQ).
-
If we can reasonably assume that neither the OP, nor Kent Police sought to deliberately mislead with their wording, then this does not sound site-specific.
-
We’ve seen whole sessions dropped where the location was wrong etc.
-
With all due deference to those above my pay grade, if there is an ongoing issue that we are not aware, whose nature is such that the police are unilaterally dropping cases, then I, and I would suggest the site as a whole, would very much like to know what this issue is.
However.
If Kent Police were minded to divulge the nature of this issue (which they clearly aren't), presumably they would have done so.
If anyone was aware of the nature of the issue, and was both able and willing to divulge it, they would presumably have done so, without waiting for a thread such as this.
Utilising the knowledge and experience of this forum, it is possible that we might be able to make an educated guess as to the nature of the issue referred to by the OP, if the OP had not chosen not to trouble us with the details of the now cancelled allegation, or the exact wording of the letter from Kent Police.
TL;DR - perhaps the OP can clarify why they have decided to bother us with half the story.
-
One of the vital questions of our time, clearly…
-
Where did the alleged offence occur?
-
Hi all,
I've just surprisingly received notice that a NIP for speeding has been cancelled as: Kent police have been made aware of an issue relating to a number of speed enforcement cases in the UK. As a "precaution" there will no further action in relation to the case, and consequently this offence has been cancelled.
Is anyone aware at all what these issues with enforcement cases may be? IF not, what would be the best way to get this information from Kent police, would a FOI request be the best avenue?
Thanks