Mobile (44) 07717222459
e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org Petersfield
Protective Services (Operations) Division,
Dear Inspector Booth,
Thank you for your letter of 28th October, although its non-specific nature and failure to mention, let alone address, any of the points I have raised suggests that you had at that time either not seen or certainly not read my last response, as attached, to your colleague Inspector Close. If I am right, as I believe I am, three standard or “form” letters plucked (metaphorically speaking) off the shelf in this way implies much the same conduct as Michael Chance complained about in his submission to the Transport Select Committee – a near robotic system of dealing with complaints that is totally unacceptable.
Please let me have your amended response, by email or snail mail as you prefer, when you have read and understood my letter to Inspector Close.
I emphasise these three points in particular:
1/ The complaints system is, at least in this case, not “separate to the justice system” and might well “affect the progress or outcome of the NIP [I] received” – for the rather obvious reason that my complaint is about the continuing failure of your Force to operate the justice system according to law.
2/ I am not prepared to choose between a Fixed Penalty and pleading mitigation in court – necessarily involving producing all this correspondence in evidence – until your Force has done what it is legally required to do.
3/ The many ways in which your Force misleads readers about drivers’ and keepers’ rights and responsibilities, invariably in ways tending to persuade them to accept penalties whether guilty or not, amounts to nothing less than attempting – and no doubt in many cases succeeding in – perverting the course of justice, a far more serious offence than 2mph above the prosecution threshold.
I will hold fire on copying this letter to the same recipients as before until Tuesday in the hope of a prompt and satisfactory reply.