Just had a call from Bluedart. Details a bit sketchy at the moment, but I'm sure he'll fill in the gaps and correct any errors when he gets home.

He's just left Dorchester Corwn Court - a chap who was caught allegedly speeding on the A35 in Chideock in 2005 was convicted by Weymouth mags and appealed - primarily as the speed limit signs weren't prescribed - barber stripe borders.

Unfortunately, the appeal never got that far - the TRO relied on the location of a road that did not exist as a reference point for the speed limit.
Bluedart expects there to be something about it on the (local) news either this evening or tomorrow.

Andy, you got it spot on.
There was a short piece on BBC spotlight southwest tonight. As you can imagine, there was not much time from the end of the court hearing, to get anything constructive together. But no doubt there will be more in the national press.
The reference point in question on the TRO was named as "Seatown Lane", the actual name should have been "Duck Street".
Seatown Lane is the name known only to the locals as it leads to a place called Seatown, but as it does not exist, then no reference point could be taken from it. You can make assumptions as to what it should have been, but the judge refuted that as the TRO is a legal document, therefore it should be correct in detail.
We never got near arguing about the non prescribed signs, although it was touched on in both the crowns opening speech and the defence's lawyer. The Crown was trying to argue, (so I will put this in for future reference), that the sign was correct in every detail, but the backing board was not. but as the backing board is only there to increase compiscuity, it does not affect the rest of the sign. The judge intervened at this point and wanted clarification on the TRO, saying that she would come back to the signage if need be, she never did.
So if you know of anyone that was alleged to have been speeding on the A35 at Chideock, which is roughly between Dorchester and Honiton and got convicted or paid up with no questions asked since 1997 until today, then they are in for a payback and compensation, if they have had increased charges placed on their insurance premium.
To those that do get their refund., remember Pepipoo, because without this site, how many would roll over?.

From the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership.
http://www.dorsetsafetycameras.org.uk/news/318.htm

Or in other worsd we want to try and stretch this out as long as possible so people forget about the fact we owe them money!

Simon

Apparently there is something about this in the Sun tomorrow

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...st&p=218778

Not just one camera, but two. One each end of the village.
My understanding is, that they are the only two fixed cameras in the whole of Dorset.
A statement read out in court by the crown's star witness, (retired police occifer), stated that on one occasion June 13-20 2007 52,000 vehicles passed the camera that flashed my mate. Out of those, 101 activated the camera and were prosecuted. In percentage terms, that is insignificant, yet it gave the authority justification to install the cameras. £6000 a week is not a bad little earner.
The story goes, that there have been some very bad accidents in the village, which is in a dip, steep hills leading down to the village. Brake failure played a leading role in most of the accidents. One house demolished twice in two years, (I have no evidence for that), yet for some unknown reason, speed cameras were installed to stop "Brake Failures".

If only that were the case, Peter..

Dorset is riddled with fixed cameras..

Quite - there are three of them in the little village of Three Legged Cross, where I used to work.

Reporters! that is what I was told. So can we trust them?

ermm.. I don't think I am going to answer that LOL

Here it is again

http://tinyurl.com/39ptmh


Hmmm - I wonder if they know that the A338 Spur Road, isn't actually called the Spur road, it is just what the locals call it.

Between the Ashley Heath Roundabout and Wessex Way, it is just called the A338, but is often reffered to in NIP's as the Spur Road.

Perhaps someone should raise it in court when they are in a difficult situation. (Can you show me on the map where "Spur Road", is pleezzze).

This is from the Devon paper. How can they say a loophole(loophold to then) was found.
http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/...k=&pNodeId=
The sub headline hasn't shown up on the article, but here it is:Drivers set to claim millions of pounds after loophold is found.

Could be at over £4 million with the two cameras.

The Spur Road

Its the A338 which runs south from the 'Ashley Heath roundabout' (the junction of A31 & A338 at St Ives on the map) into Bournemouth..

hi
looks like the dorset safety camera partnership have given up the ghost & we can get our fines back & compensation [hopefully!!] checkout the partnership's website for further details & confirmation DSCP
this shd cost them over £1 1/2 mm. how much compensation do others think one could claim for the inconvience & increased insurance premiums?
thku & all the best
catsmokey

if the link doesnt work http://www.dorsetsafetycameras.org.uk/

Just had a call from Alan Dawe, it is on ITV news tonight 19/11/07

A friend rang me to tell me about this tonight after seeing it on the local news.

I was 'caught' doing 40 by the westbound camera in August 2005. Due to the terrible sign-age I actually thought I was within the limit at 40 (I posted here about it at the time).

I hope I can get my points revoked and compensation for this. I was not happy at the time, but maybe there is hope for me now.

Can anyone suggest or advice what would be the best way to go about sorting this out? Would it be sufficient just to write to the Central Ticket Office of Dorset police (who issued the ticket) or do I need to take it through a claims court or something?

I still have all the correspondence they sent me and copies of what I sent them. I just don't know what's the best way to go about it.

Thanks for any advice,

Arum

arum
go to the website i put in my original message & in the frequently asked questions bit about the chideock speed camera is an email address to contact them at. apart from reimbursing any fine, they shd pay for the offence to be removed from ur license, u shd get interst on the fine u paid, & compensation for potentially increased insurance premiums along with the inconvenence caused to u.
catsmokey

I have already got several people to write to the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership.
When the Starcross, Devon success, floored the Devon Safety Camera Partnership, at first they wanted everyone to write in to claim their refund. I pointed out to Barry Culshaw (Solicitor who defended the famous four at Totnes Mags court) that that was unfair, as if some people did not see or read of the success at Totnes, how would they know that they were entitled to a refunded? They did a complete turn-a-round and wrote to everyone that were caught at that site. 2,500 was the figure that they then released, but we beleive it was many more. They took on an extra 18 staff to help with the payback.
So maybe someone should write to the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership and point that out. I have done my bit again with little thanks, but that is life.

Am I right in understanding that you suggest writing to Dorset Camera Partnership regarding this, and not to Dorset Police or the convicting court?

thanks

On the BBC news website...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/p...am=1&nbwm=1

Yes! the Police, CPS, Mags , County Council and many others all having a slice of the cake and are part of it.

Huge massive congrats to those that fought this war so well.

Never mind hall of fame stuff.
This is hall of glory.

Compensation costs will be well in excess of revenue.
But what of those that lost their licences/jobs because of this ?

and this is just one site - how many more ?

Surely it's not that simple. If they amend an exsiting TRO, or create a new one, I would have thought that they would have to go through the publicity and sham consultation, as required by the Secretary of State's (since it's a trunk road) traffic order regulations. The previous publicity would surely have been flawed because it would have contained the information as per the flawed TRO.
I can't remember for sure, but ISTR that it's 28 days for the lamp post notices alone.

That is exactly where I am coming from JA. And thanks to bama for his comments, much appreciated.

The Order Making Process

A formal TRO requires a statutory procedure to be followed. This includes:


1. Consultation - Following the completion of the design, consultation must be undertaken. This will require obtaining the views of Local Councillors and Parish Councils (where appropriate), the Emergency Services and sometimes other institutions such as The Freight Transport Association, The Road Haulage Association and local public transport operators. Local interest groups such as residents, traders and community groups who are likely to be affected by the proposals may also be consulted where appropriate. The proposal could then be amended following consultation.

2. Advertisement of the TRO then takes place. This includes at least one notice in the local press. The Council will usually display notices in any roads that are affected and, if it is deemed appropriate, may deliver notices to premises likely to be affected. For at least 21 days from the start of the notice the proposal can be viewed at a nominated council office during normal office hours. Objections to the proposals and comments of support must be made in writing to the address specified in the notice or submitted online during this period. Substantial objections and contentious issues are then reported to and considered by Local Councillors. When considering the objections they must decide whether to (a) allow the scheme to proceed as advertised, (b) modify the scheme, or © abandon it.

3. Making the Order - The TRO can then be formally sealed providing all standing objections have been considered. Modifications to the proposals resulting from objections could require further consultation. This procedure can take many months to complete and the advertising and legal fees can be substantial. For this reason schemes requiring a TRO normally need to be included in the annual Capital Programme and cannot be carried out on an ad hoc basis.

Occasionally temporary orders or experimental orders are introduced which require a slightly different process which still gives people an opportunity to put forward their views.

Temporary Orders may be used when works affecting the highway require short-term traffic restrictions.

Experimental Orders are used in situations that need monitoring and reviewing. These usually last no more than eighteen months before they are either abandoned, amended or made permanent.The Order Making Process


My comment:
Whether a slip rule would enter the game somewhere, I don't know. But considering that this particular order was sealed in 1997. I would think it prudent for them to follow procedure as if no order existed.

The very first para above is a joke. It tells me that with all those professional bodies involved, they can still get it wrong and we as amateurs, when we point out the errors, are told we do not know what we are talking about.

We know that the media misquote, and are urged by those in authority to print something differently from the facts.

I have such an example; Two gatso's covered with plastic covers with the words "not in use" printed on the covers. At one site, there have been two RTA's both fatal recently. Villagers with help from their local councillor got that cover removed. The point is, the local papers has declared that the cameras are now live, but I know different.
There was a lot of research done before Alan arrived at the Crown court. and with my tenacity, I managed to keep him fighting. You can imagine there are times in many a fight where the towel comes into play. It wasn't just my help, it was help from this site and others. I had long discussions with Richard Bentley, who many of you are now familar with. Tom Kirwan (solicitor) who commisioned me to film the route, I now have a picture of the sign "DUCK STREET" framed.
Another thing to ponder on. I do not suppose anyone on the opposing side has been given their cards, but how many drivers who have been caught speeding somewhere, have got theirs from their employers after making such a big blunder?

"A formal TRO requires a statutory procedure to be followed. This includes:"

Correct - and here is the nub of why pepipoo exists and will need to exist for the foreseeable future IMV.
Once an organisation/institution gets into the mode of riding 'roughshod' over the rules and procedures that should be used it is next to impossible for that institution to mend its ways. Scammerti is one of the most deeply embedded institutions in our society, HMg, HO, BiBS, Councils, Courts, CPS, vendors of kit, inter alia. It could not be more invidious.
Huge amount of money involved - much greater than the simple multiply all the tickets by 60 quid sum shows. The only fulcrum that motorists have to leverage a change is cases like this one - multi-million pound ones. Even then it is a tough row to hoe.
If, as seems safe to assume, some cash hungry Scamerati alumni are trying to do a quick and dirty repair to start the cash the flowing again from this site - and you can bet they are as they will be in budget hell now - then another collection of tickets needs to garnered and fought. On the back of the current victory it hopefully would not take years to resolve.
But what it really needs is for some bods in the Scamerti to be found culpable and get whacked in Court - and not someone near to retirement who is just 'sacrificed'. Accountability, aye, there's the rub.

Forgot about them.
They could introduce one to give them time to do the real one.
But, I think that the time is still adventurous for a temporary one. They still have to advertise them, although only once in the press, I think.
Also, ISTR that the SoS's regulation require that the prescribed signs are in place before the order can take effect.
That said, they did say, "rewritten the TRO".

I have heard through the grape vine, that the scammerati are only going to pay out on those that were caught whilst driving in a westerly direction. The other camera which is positioned to catch those drivers driving in an Easterly direction, will not get paid.
I have no personal knowledge of this, but the reference point is the same in both directions. If anyone wishes to challenge it, should it be true, then I am pretty sure they would back down.
It is estimated that there will be many millions of pounds involved here, and they are looking to the government to help them out (fat chance!) If they had offered me a bit of it, I would have probably kept my mouth shut.

This is the latest corespondo!!

Dear Sir



Speed Limit A35 Chideock Westbound



I write with reference to your email dated 27 October 2007 and my response advising you that under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 we would respond to you within 20 working days. This time has now elapsed.



The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership (DSCP) is working with the appropriate Government Departments and we are awaiting their decisions before we are able to confirm the next steps.



We will however write to you by 31 January 2008 to advise you of the situation.



Clearly the DSCP is keen to make further public announcements regarding this issue in due course. Regular updates can be found on our website www.dorsetsafetycamera.org.uk.



Yours faithfully





Laressa Stephenson

CTO Manager

Just heard on BBC spotlight southwest, that the Dorset highways agency has instructed a QC to look into the case of the A35 Chideock, Dorset.
The Dorset safety camera partnership have already decided, (so they say) that only the camera when you travel east (towards Honiton) will be affected. Reason (street lights indicate the speed limit in the other direction, towards Dorchester) But unless there is a legal sign, then what limit are they talking about? I suppose street lights without any sign, is deemed to be thirty

Excellent work 'Bluedart' ................. this has been going on for quite some time..... I know I was banging on about that signage quite some time ago!

It was, perhaps, one of those cases in which advice is good or bad only as the event decides.

There is much more to do, as the scumbags and that includes all those that make up the partnership, are digging their heels in.
Keep digging I say, they can't get past the law!

I have mislaid the TRO for that area, it happens sometimes. I have tried finding it on the Dorset County Council web site, no joy yet. If anyone else can locate it, or if they have a copy, perhaps they could forward me a copy.
I know what I what out of it, and if it is there in black and white, I will blow them out of the water.

hi
with reference to the dec 10th release on the partnership website; it looks to me as if the people who run the partnership are trying to riggle out of doing the decent thing to save their jobs. As stated above the "law is the law", as mr dawe was innocent surely everyone else is. i wonder how much the QC's fees are for reviewing the judgement.
all the best
mike

From Dorset Safety Camera Partnership.
You will notice that they are only (at the moment) looking at west bound traffic, oh dear!

My apologies for the delay in response. To answer your specific question “the exact number of NIP’s issued to drivers between 1997/2007 at the Chideock Westbound site” I need to explain the technicalities first.



Speed activations at the Chideock West Bound site from 1997 to date were processed by a series of computer systems. In 1997 they were processed by using a computer system called Garton. The DSCP formed in October 2002 and in January 2004 introduced a new computer system known as VPFPO; this system was then enhanced by the introduction of a system called Startraq in Jan 2006. While satisfied that the data retrieval for both Startraq & VPFPO is accurate there is some doubt regarding the older data retrieved from the Garton system.



Our checks to date have shown the number of NIP’s issued as calculated to date for the Chideock West Bound site is 24,899 but this figure may increase or decrease as the old Garton is interrogated further. I will of course update you further if there is any change to the total.



Regards



Brian Austin

Freedom of Information Manager

Just a little update.
The Dorset scammerati will not release the figures (yet) for all those that were alleged to have been speeding through the village of Chideock (A35) in Dorset. They claim that the East-bound Camera was never challenged, so that can be ignored.
I have now asked them to tell me how mant TRO's they have for that road. You only need one TRO to set a speed limit for both directions, therefore both cameras come into the equation.
But as usual, they are wriggling.

Bluedart

I missed your previous post
do I see attempts to pull some wool over eyes
The request is for tickets issued, they are talking about 'speed activations' .............. now I know there are certain exemptions for legitimate emergency vehicle activations but even in these cases a ticket is issued.
'Interestingly' all businesses have to maintain records for 6 years so some of the period that 'Garton' was in operation is still covered ............... but time is running out to the extent that very soon they might be able to claim that the 6 years are up and the records have been disposed of!

I note if all 24,899 tickets had paid £60 thats a tad under 1.5 million!

Blackbird


I have to keep pushing. You will note that the figures are only back to 2002, they put the gatso's up in 1997.
And if you take it that I will not be fobbed off with them claiming it is only one camera that is the culprit, then we are talking megga-bucks.
Talking of bucks, I see the Dow jones had another massive drop today. -309 one of the biggest drops ever. So fasten your seat belts everybody, uncle sam is roaring his ugly head, which will inevitably hit here shortly.

My Wife was caught and given 3 points and a fine by the Westbound camera two years ago. If this is now an unsound prosecution, we would of course like to claim back our cash and have the points removed.

Am I correct in my understanding that claims cannot be made until todays ruling is made?

hi
i cannot understand why the dorset partnership have refered an "issue" back to the barrister as he has been working for over a month on the case; u would have thgt everything would been sorted by now. any ideas what issue is holding them up?
thks
mike

Would someone be so kind and do me a favour?

Could you write to the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership and ask under the the FOI Act, for figures on how many people were prosecuted for breaking the limit of speed through the village of Chideock, 2006-2007. I need to obtain figures from both cameras, (West bound and East bound). If you do manage to obtain the figures could you please PM me with the result.
For reason's that will become clear later, I am unable to do it. Well not quite unable, but I do not want to let the cat out of the bag just yet.
Also, if anyone has or know's of anyone that has been flashed by the East bound camera since 2006? that would also be of great help.

Chideock Update 29th February 2008

29 February 2008
Technicality in the Traffic Regulation Order relating to the A35 in Chideock:

This announcement follows the case of Regina v Dawe (see 'Notes to Editors' for details) and the Crown Court judgement that the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) relating to the village of Chideock in West Dorset was defective due to an error in the street names in the TRO. As a result of counsel's advice, no further action will be taken in regard to the Dawe appeal.

Since the Crown Court judgement on 26th October 2007, the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership (DSCP), including its partners Dorset Police and the Highways Agency, has been working with the appropriate Government departments to determine whether this judgement applies to other cases.

The view we have reached is that the judgement could be applicable to other cases relating to enforcement by the safety camera monitoring westbound traffic at the Chideock site on the A35, towards Exeter.

Accordingly, the DSCP is working with the Ministry of Justice and the Highways Agency to agree an appropriate process for taking matters forward.

The DSCP appreciates that some people will wish to enquire about how this judgement affects their speeding offence at Chideock and it will be able to assist with such enquiries once it has been advised on how to proceed. Updates will be posted on the DSCP website (www.dorsetsafetycameras.org.uk) when they are available.

Adrian Whiting, Assistant Chief Constable for Dorset Police and Chair of the Dorset Strategic Road Safety Partnership, comments: "Along with the residents of Chideock, the DSCP and Dorset Police are frustrated by this situation as it is common sense that the speed limit through the village should have been 30mph all along.

"Chideock is a small rural community and local people need the protection of a speed limit in their village. I am reassured by the fact that, in the course of this appeal, no one has tried to suggest that the speed limit should be anything other than 30mph, nor has anyone apparently driving more quickly suggested that what they were doing was safe and sensible. The public should be reassured by the fact that the TRO has been rewritten since the Crown Court judgement.

"The Partnership will continue to remain focused on working together to reduce the number of people who are killed or seriously injured on Dorset's roads as a consequence of both excess and inappropriate speed."

ENDS

Media Enquiries - please contact Nikki Haine on 01425 472330 or email nikki@mckennatownsendpr.com

NOTES TO EDITORS

Background information on the issues relating to the A35 westbound in Chideock and the Crown Court case of Regina v Dawe:

1. In 1997 the Highways Agency arranged a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) relating to the village of Chideock, West Dorset. The order defined a length of the A35 westbound as subject to a 30mph limit. This was necessary as that stretch of road does not have a system of street lighting.

2. The text of the order referred to the A35 junction with "Seatown Road". This was a mistake as the road was then, and still is, correctly named "Duck Street". This was an honest mistake as Duck Street is indeed the road to Seatown.

3. At about 23:15hrs on the 27th October 2005 Mr Dawe was detected speeding by a fixed safety camera, travelling west in the village of Chideock. He was travelling at 41mph in a lorry, passing the houses where the safety camera is located and approaching the village Pubs. He has never disputed this speed, nor suggested it was sensible to drive that fast in the built-up area of the village.

4. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that the 30mph speed limit signs were not of the proper form. On the 26th October 2007 the Crown Court sitting at Dorchester found that the TRO was defective due to the road name issue, and thus the 30mph speed limit could not be enforced at that point on the A35 westbound. Accordingly the Court did not need to assess Mr Dawe's actual grounds for appeal, and no finding on them was made.

5. Since the Crown Court judgement, the Highways Agency has rewritten the TRO.

The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership:
The Dorset Safety Camera Partnership, which was set up in August 2002, constitutes a partnership between Dorset County Council, Borough of Poole Council, Bournemouth Borough Council, Dorset Police, NHS South West, Highways Agency, Her Majesty's Courts Service and the Crown Prosecution Service.

The Partnership, through a combination of measures including education, engineering and enforcement, is working together to reduce the number of people who are killed or seriously injured on Dorset's roads, as a consequence of both excess and inappropriate speed. It is responsible for the operation and maintenance of fixed site, mobile and red-light junction cameras throughout Dorset.

Half the battle now I have got to convince them, (but they are in a state of denial at the moment) that the East bound camera is also at fault. There is only one TRO for the speed limit, if it is flawed it's flawed and that applies to both directions.

It's not just a matter of rewriting it, the appropriate procedure (publicity etc.) has to be followed.

good points from bluedart and JA.

what are the odds . . .

Don't it make your heart bleed for 'em?

An "honest mistake", probably just like the "honest mistake" made by the many motorist victims of their scam!

This one hit the national press yesterday and today:

"More than 25,000 drivers set to win back fines and points from illegal A-road speed camera"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/20...89520-20339534/

http://www.thisisdorset.net/display.var.20...may_be_axed.php

hi
the 1st may update on thier webstite says one shd either wait for the DSCP to refund you, or u shd take the matter to court to get the convictionn squashed ~ what line of action do people recommend?
thku
catsmokey

http://www.dorsetsafetycameras.org.uk/inde...mp;Itemid=84318

The way this is written is I believe a little ambiguous. Someone challenged the East-bound camera and the case was dropped.
So they have cottoned on at last that both cameras East and West will be due to release the money that they unlawfully took.

from here:



I take exception to that statement

At the time of my offence, I actually believed (wrongly, but due to the confusing signage at the site) that I was in a 40mph zone and that I was not speeding. Additionally, my supposed 'offence' occured at 3am on an empty road. I actually wrote to Dorset police and the camera partnership explaining the situation, and explicitly expressing that I thought the signing was misleading and that the speed I was travelling at was not dangerous given the time and conditions. I have a copy of the letter.

It pisses me off that they should say that!

I am doing all I can to keep this to the fore and to get recompense for those wrongly convicted, it is difficult I can assure you.

You take acception to part of their statement,wel I can tell you that the following is a down right lie.

The TRO was rewritten before the Crown Court appeal, it was rewritten on the 18 September 2007 (CC was held on the 26 October)

Reduction of Safety Camera Warning Signs

As part of its commitment to road safety, the Dorset Safety Camera Partnership (DSCP) is reducing the use of safety camera warning signs for its enforcement operations at sites where residents have concerns about speeding traffic.



By no longer placing safety camera warning signs at these sites, the DSCP aims to encourage motorists to drive within the speed limit on all roads not just where there is a mobile safety camera in operation.

Mmm... that makes sense