Apparently, Kier and/or Highways England are unable to undertake the task any 10-year old with a mobile phone … alter an image!

We previously reported upon an image submitted with a repair that had been altered, clearly so.  It appears this was to dupe either the Authority or a Third Party (driver, fleet, haulier or insurer).  Simply put, there were numerous collisions at the location and Kier regularly attended.  It appears one attendance saw 3 lots of damage repaired at the same time.  But presumably, to convey otherwise, an image was altered and we suspect separate costs for attendance/traffic management and repair submitted, a charge for each event – 3 repairs completed together but charged separately = 3x the billing.

We conveyed this to the Authority expecting them to understand the simple image altering (removal/cut of a date stamp from a lower portion i.e. cropping) and investigate.  Additionally, we believed Highways England would review the associated claims and discern who had been deceived.  But no!  The Authority claims not to under the simplicity of such action writing:

I have now received a further response from Kier Highways Ltd regarding the concerns you have raised on image tampering. I have been informed that all photographs submitted by Kier as proof of damage and rectification works are original images. They state that they would not, nor have the ability to, alter any photographic images relating to damage or repair work.

Should legal proceedings be issued in this mater, you have recourse through the Court to contend liability or quantum. A Judge will be best positioned to determine any disputes on the evidence provided in connection with the claim. Please consider this to be our response under the first stage of Highways England’s complaints process. For further details, please see here.

Regards,

Alex

Alex Bingham
Lawyer | Operations and Legislation Team | General Counsel’s Office

Are Highways England being so IT illiterate as not to understand the simplicity of such action, so naive as to accept at face value Kier’s response or is this another example of the tail wagging the dog because the Authority is so compromised taking issue with Kier is impossible?

Oh … and let is not forget that the image alteration would not be before a Court – this was a discovery we made about an incident at the location before ours, a separate event. The 3 repairs have been addressed, settled.  The Authority’s obtuse response indicates their ‘couldn’t care less’ attitude toward inappropriate conduct.

Any information received from Highways England should be treated with caution, corroboration sought.  This major Public Authority appears unable to operate effectively which should be of concern to all given their involvement in major projects, plans and initiatives.  Who is pulling the strings of the DfT and Highways England?


Linked Information:

By

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.