Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Tele Traffic UK Ltd Admits LT1 20.20 Speedscope is Crap
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
speeding
Dear All

I have a letter dated May 2007 from Tele Traffic UK Ltd confirming, that they cannot guarantee the technical support of the Speedscope, because they do not make the components anymore.

Would this letter be any use for my part Heard Hearing?

Speeding
SMURF POWER
QUOTE (speeding @ Tue, 24 Jul 2007 - 11:56) *
Dear All

I have a letter dated May 2007 from Tele Traffic UK Ltd confirming, that they cannot guarantee the technical support of the Speedscope, because they do not make the components anymore.

Would this letter be any use for my part Heard Hearing?

Speeding

Tech support I would say is if it breaks they can’t fix it as we can’t get parts. But we do have the nice
Ultralyte 100
Ultralyte 1000
You can buy of us.
It is not that becacse they can’t buy parts they believe it does not work any more (Open for Debate if it works any way)



QUOTE (speeding @ Tue, 24 Jul 2007 - 11:56) *
Dear All
Would this letter be any use for my part Heard Hearing?

I would suggest it is of no use other than the LTI 20/20 TS/M speed scope must be close to retirement
speeding
The fact is there are many police forces still uses the LTI 20.20 Speedscope.
SMURF POWER
QUOTE (speeding @ Wed, 25 Jul 2007 - 22:51) *
The fact is there are many police forces still uses the LTI 20.20 Speedscope.

and?


If it breaks they can’t guarantee they have the part to fix it so they not cannot guarantee the technical support ie fix it.
sumo
QUOTE (speeding @ Tue, 24 Jul 2007 - 11:56) *
Dear All

I have a letter dated May 2007 from Tele Traffic UK Ltd confirming, that they cannot guarantee the technical support of the Speedscope, because they do not make the components anymore.

Would this letter be any use for my part Heard Hearing?

Speeding


I am more cynical, could be an obsolescent and suppotability issues, could be manufacture wants people to by new toy or how about there are so many complaints about this devise a sneaky way of removing it without people being able to claim some sort of redress?
andy_foster
QUOTE (speeding @ Tue, 24 Jul 2007 - 11:56) *
I have a letter dated May 2007 from Tele Traffic UK Ltd confirming, that they cannot guarantee the technical support of the Speedscope, because they do not make the components anymore.


AFAIK, Tele Traffic UK never actually made anything (other than buckets of money). They import it all from Lastec
sumo
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 25 Jul 2007 - 23:43) *
QUOTE (speeding @ Tue, 24 Jul 2007 - 11:56) *
I have a letter dated May 2007 from Tele Traffic UK Ltd confirming, that they cannot guarantee the technical support of the Speedscope, because they do not make the components anymore.


AFAIK, Tele Traffic UK never actually made anything (other than buckets of money). They import it all from Lastec



Not how Frank Garratt sees him self, he portrays that he is a manufacture. My best guess would be an assembler take it out of box an put big bits together, he even says he influenses the real manufacture on design issue? source his x examination in January
Cheryl
One of the requirements of the cabilbration certificate (which must be within the previous 12 months) must state the following:

"a statement to the effect that any parts or components replaced are identical to those used in the device as type-approved;"

So it looks like if any parts are replaced and they are not as per the original it could invalidate the type approval and definitely invalidate the calibration certificate.

If you need further details on this let me know.
SMURF POWER
QUOTE (Cheryl @ Thu, 26 Jul 2007 - 18:42) *
One of the requirements of the cabilbration certificate (which must be within the previous 12 months) must state the following:

"a statement to the effect that any parts or components replaced are identical to those used in the device as type-approved;"

So it looks like if any parts are replaced and they are not as per the original it could invalidate the type approval and definitely invalidate the calibration certificate.

If you need further details on this let me know.


Smurf Power
QUOTE
Tech support I would say is if it breaks they can’t fix it as we can’t get parts. But we do have the nice
Ultralyte 100
Ultralyte 1000
You can buy of us.

R.I.P ...here have a nice new one.


The calibration certificate runs for 12 months, if they can’t fix it as they don’t have the parts that LTI life ends. (Because it has died) it won’t be used so why have it calibrated?
speeding
you wouldn't know if the LTI speedscope had been repaired unless the police or CPS disclose. So far they have not even submitted disclosure despite many requests.
SMURF POWER
QUOTE (speeding @ Thu, 26 Jul 2007 - 21:06) *
you wouldn't know if the LTI speedscope had been repaired unless the police or CPS disclose. So far they have not even submitted disclosure despite many requests.

And their answer would be

No it’s not been repaired
Or
Yes but we repaired it with parts we had in stock

Or if it has been repaired after your ticket and before its next calibration

No it’s not been repaired
Or
Yes but we repaired it with parts we had in stock
Or
Yes it’s had a fault which we no longer have parts and now it’s enclosed in a block of resin on some traffic officer table as a paper weight.



Or do you believe they may have repaired the LTI used on you with parts they got from Maplins .


Have you asked them directly for a history?
Do the CPS / Police have to disclose the information?

QUOTE
One of the requirements of the cabilbration certificate (which must be within the previous 12 months) must state the following:

"a statement to the effect that any parts or components replaced are identical to those used in the device as type-approved;"

So it looks like if any parts are replaced and they are not as per the original it could invalidate the type approval and definitely invalidate the calibration certificate.
As the calibration certificate cover the device for 12monthes into the future it would only effect the re calibration when it comes up for calibration.
Cheryl
Disclosure is the biggest problem and one I am into bigtime. So far I have 3 refusals from CPS, 2 from Cameral Partnership and have now written to Magistrates requesting direction enclosing copies of all the letters but saying when the hearing takes place I will ask for adjounment until I can study the documentation. Waiting for reply at present so will let you know the outcome.
On the square...
Nice one cheryl
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.