6156 We have a received a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the following: “I write to you, the author of the above document…
We have a received a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the following:
“I write to you, the author of the above document which is currently published on the Home Office website and which purports to be the definitive guide to the proper calibration of the said equipment. Indeed, throughout its text, it uses extremely mandatory terms, such as ‘must’ and ‘if and only if’, and it also talks of its guidelines as being the ‘minimum standards’ laid down, etc.
The requirements which it so very rigorously sets out are not generally being followed by Safety Camera Partnerships across the country. Therefore, I wonder whether the document is still really intended to be the definitive guide to the Calibration requirements which it still purports to be. In particular, I should be interested to know its legal significance and the weight it ought to carry in any Court-room at the present time or whether it has been superseded by anything else since it was written.
The Safety Camera Partnerships are choosing not to send the whole of each device away to Gatso BV, but only the camera and radar components. Also, the Partnerships evidently hold no documentation on the cameras themselves, in the way of drawings and specifications of the device. It is therefore obvious that the tests on the rest of the parts of the device which remain behind are simply not being considered in the equation when the Dutch company comes to issue its Calibration Certificates. This would appear to be at odds with the mandatory directives by the PSDB in the 18/98 document, Sections 2, 3 and 4. Clearly your guidelines are being systematically sidelined, if not completely ignored, during the current Calibration process.
We released the following information on 29 March 2007.
Published: 29 March 2007
From: Home Office