Discussion
aw51 121565 said:
could be worse though, you might have been the X5 driver in Reading who was given a Section 59 for using an illeagal font on his number plates - on Road Wars
.
And the 'Ferrari Charity day' .http://pistonheads.com/GASSING/topic.asp?h=0&t...
saaby93 said:
Have we confirmed yet that the s59s should have been issued?
There's an and in the s59 legislation - likely to cause annoyance and use in....
"Is likely" covers a multitude ... Including reving and induced backfires. Indeed, anything the officer(s) can think of ... Possibly including the colour. There's an and in the s59 legislation - likely to cause annoyance and use in....
Streaky
I was driving through Birmingham City Centre about 7 years ago when I was waved down by a policeman jumping up and down in front of the car.
Given we were in a traffic jam I was wondering what on earth was going on.
After I got out of the car he told me that he had heard my car twice before in the City (M3cab with AC Schnitzer exhaust) and as this was the third time would be impounding my car.
I had never seen this police officer before and had no idea what was going on really. I do remember him radioing his colleagues and telling them to come up and look at what he had "got".
Anyway, it wasn't the end of the World as Hotel Du Vin had a nice room a short cab ride away. I did instruct a Chambers to pursue a complaint but it was rejected due to this ridiculous law we are talking about. Like the poster above, I received no paperwork at any time informing me of what I had done either in person or through the post.
Honestly, I to this day believe that the policeman concerned just didn't like a very young man in an expensive car and decided to play a power game.
I kept the car for a couple of years after this and never had another problem with any other officer of the law.
An amazingly awful piece of legislation.
Given we were in a traffic jam I was wondering what on earth was going on.
After I got out of the car he told me that he had heard my car twice before in the City (M3cab with AC Schnitzer exhaust) and as this was the third time would be impounding my car.
I had never seen this police officer before and had no idea what was going on really. I do remember him radioing his colleagues and telling them to come up and look at what he had "got".
Anyway, it wasn't the end of the World as Hotel Du Vin had a nice room a short cab ride away. I did instruct a Chambers to pursue a complaint but it was rejected due to this ridiculous law we are talking about. Like the poster above, I received no paperwork at any time informing me of what I had done either in person or through the post.
Honestly, I to this day believe that the policeman concerned just didn't like a very young man in an expensive car and decided to play a power game.
I kept the car for a couple of years after this and never had another problem with any other officer of the law.
An amazingly awful piece of legislation.
Well, here we have it.
"You have been driving in a careless or inconsiderate manner contraty to Section 3 of the road traffic act 1988? YES"
Section 3 of the road traffic act 1988 says:
Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.
Just... Wow.
"You have been driving in a careless or inconsiderate manner contraty to Section 3 of the road traffic act 1988? YES"
Section 3 of the road traffic act 1988 says:
Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.
Just... Wow.
What is the 'RESTRICTED' top anbd bottom all about? Does that mean we should not really see that?
Were you in the car when the Police came? If not how can you be accused of driving in any manner at all? Surely if they told you to leave the car park, it was the Police that instructed you to drive.
Can these notices not be challenged in any way?
Were you in the car when the Police came? If not how can you be accused of driving in any manner at all? Surely if they told you to leave the car park, it was the Police that instructed you to drive.
Can these notices not be challenged in any way?
See my post of 2nd February 
- write to the chief constable, asking in what way you personally were behaving antisocially and stating that you consider this S59 was issued wrongly because (insert reasons here...).
Don't do it immediately (this minute) because no doubt other posters here will add the fine details of what you need to say. But this is your only way out of this Section 59 Notice against you and your vehicle for 12 months (then all it takes is another allegation of antisocial behaviour etc as per Section 59 and you are in a world of pain).
You could also post the whole sorry episode on www.pepipoo.com, on their "speeding and other criminal offences" forum, where you will probably get more detailed and specific advice .
- write to the chief constable, asking in what way you personally were behaving antisocially and stating that you consider this S59 was issued wrongly because (insert reasons here...). Don't do it immediately (this minute) because no doubt other posters here will add the fine details of what you need to say. But this is your only way out of this Section 59 Notice against you and your vehicle for 12 months (then all it takes is another allegation of antisocial behaviour etc as per Section 59 and you are in a world of pain).
You could also post the whole sorry episode on www.pepipoo.com, on their "speeding and other criminal offences" forum, where you will probably get more detailed and specific advice
.StottyZr said:
Well, here we have it.
"You have been driving in a careless or inconsiderate manner contraty to Section 3 of the road traffic act 1988? YES"
Section 3 of the road traffic act 1988 says:
Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.
Just... Wow.
I thought that only a court could find you guilty of DWDCA and WRC, not a single officer."You have been driving in a careless or inconsiderate manner contraty to Section 3 of the road traffic act 1988? YES"
Section 3 of the road traffic act 1988 says:
Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.
Just... Wow.
S59 if used correctly for its original purpose is acceptable, however in its present form it is open to far too much abuse and needs restrictions on its use.
StottyZr said:
"You have been driving in a careless or inconsiderate manner contrary to Section 3 of the road traffic act 1988? YES"
AND ...likely to cause annoyanceThat's what I meant about the 'and' earlier
The S59 was intended for people doing wheelies/doughnuts AND annoyance
If you go to the station front desk you might find someone reasonable
Otherwsie is anyone visiting a supermarket careless or considerate AND annoying?
If it goes higher the biker case where they all met up somewhere and were issued s59s subsequently cancelled.
It's an old topic
http://pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Few of those in the archives
What proof has to be had for a S.59 to be valid?
If the OP was 'just' parked in the car park, and there were a large number of other individuals there that were causing annoyance etc etc (and thus could be validly issued S.59 notices) what has to be in place for the OP to be similarly given a notice 'by association' (i.e. he just happened to be there).
If the OP was 'just' parked in the car park, and there were a large number of other individuals there that were causing annoyance etc etc (and thus could be validly issued S.59 notices) what has to be in place for the OP to be similarly given a notice 'by association' (i.e. he just happened to be there).
daz3210 said:
What proof has to be had for a S.59 to be valid?
If the OP was 'just' parked in the car park, and there were a large number of other individuals there that were causing annoyance etc etc (and thus could be validly issued S.59 notices) what has to be in place for the OP to be similarly given a notice 'by association' (i.e. he just happened to be there).
See Mel's postIf the OP was 'just' parked in the car park, and there were a large number of other individuals there that were causing annoyance etc etc (and thus could be validly issued S.59 notices) what has to be in place for the OP to be similarly given a notice 'by association' (i.e. he just happened to be there).
mel said:
The below is quoted directly from "The Green Lane Association" who are at the forefront of fighting the whole Section 59 debacle because they are the ones who are having it abused and used against them to the highest degree. I think the quote answers just about any questions on Section 59's in a factually correct and well researched way. My advise would be to read understand and digest the following information if you ever think you may be effected by one.
The Gree Lane Association said:
The Legislation:
Section 59 Police Reform Act 2002 states that -
Where an officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used in a manner which contravenes Road Traffic Act Section 3 (Careless Driving) OR Section 34 (Driving elsewhere than on a road) AND also the manner of use of the vehicle is causing or has been causing or is likely to cause, alarm distress or annoyance to members of the public, Section 59 can be used to:-
initially give a written warning (valid for twelve months)
(commonly called a Section 59 Notice)
and on a subsequent occasion to seize the vehicle.
(it will probably end up in the crusher, or may be ransomed back to the owner)
A constable in uniform has the power to order the person driving to stop the vehicle, to seize and remove the vehicle, to enter any premises on which the officer has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be and to use reasonable force. Seizure can made only if a warning has been given, or believed to have been given, or if a warning is clearly being ignored.
So, usually it's a two-stage process - a warning or notice first, seizure if you persist or repeat.
Full text of Police Reform Act section 59 here.
Section 3 Road Traffic Act –
3. If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
(Examples are – wheel spinning, skidding, revving engine excessivly, handbrake turns etc)
Section 34 Road Traffic Act (extract) –
34.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle
(a) on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or
(b) on any road being a Footpath, Bridleway or restricted byway,
he is guilty of an offence.
(So you may only drive on a 'road' - including BOATs. Note that using a Private road without permission is NOT a s.34 offence, it is a trespass, unless it happens to also be a Public Footpath etc.)
(2) It is not an offence under this section to drive a motor vehicle on any land within fifteen yards of a road, being a road on which a motor vehicle may lawfully be driven, for the purpose only of parking the vehicle on that land.
(For younger readers that's about 15m, but ONLY for parking)
Enforcement Issues:
This legislation includes mechanically propelled vehicles, not intended or adapted for use on the road (minimotos etc.), as well as road-legal motors.
Section 3 RTA will include car parks that are open to the public – and other areas where the public would be expected to have access.
The powers cannot be exercised unless the driver is BOTH using the vehicle anti-socially AND is committing either the section 3 or the section 34 offence. Someone driving in a way that might be considered anti-social but not committing either of these offences is not liable to having his vehicle seized, nor is someone committing a different motoring offence. Nor is someone driving sensibly on a Footpath - though of course they are still liable to 'ordinary' prosecution under s.34 RTA.
Note that the officer at the time of the warning only has to have ‘reasonable grounds’ for believing that one of the offences has been committed, e.g. a believable report. It may transpire later that this is or was not the case, hence the guidelines below.
The warning is given to both the driver and the vehicle. This means that if either are subsequently stopped then a seizure may take place even if another driver is in the original vehicle, or the original driver is another vehicle….. be warned! The warning may be verbal, with paperwork to follow, or forms filled in on the spot. In either case the constable must make it clear what is happening.
Recommended Actions:
At the ‘scene’:
Firstly remain calm and polite. Getting hot under the collar may only lead to further offences (Public Order Act or Obstruction ).
Establish what offence you have committed for the officer to initiate a Section 59 Warning or Seizure. It may be prudent to carry a print of the above legislation to discuss with the officer – many officers give out warnings because they have had a report of Nuisance vehicles but do not understand the legislation in its entirety.
Ask if the officer intends to prosecute for the offence committed (some forces have a local policy to prosecute). Remember s.59 only applies if you may have already committed an offence, which could be prosecuted for anyway.
Ask the officer for his force number/collar number, name, station and name of his area Commander.
Ask for a copy of any paperwork you are asked to sign.
Do not be argumentative! But do know your onions – are you on a BOAT, UCR, private road etc and is the officer aware of its status?
Subsequent action:
If you have clearly done something wrong and are being prosecuted – get a solicitor….
If you have received a Section 59 warning and are unsure why, or feel that it was unjust or issued inappropriately then you need to establish your position.
Write to the Area Commander at the police station/area that the warning was issued and establish exactly what offence you committed (ie. Section 3 or 34) and what action is being taken. If you know they are prosecuting you then ask for Disclosure (this may be best done through a solicitor). Disclosure will be a pack of documents outlining the Prosecution case and should include witness statements, the officers statement, video copies and such like. This will give you a picture of the case against you in order to fight your corner.
Often at this stage a correctly worded letter or defence statement may negate any summons or court appearance if the warning was issued incorrectly or inappropriately. Keep to the facts and do not rant and rave about your thoughts on the local constabulary….
Section 59 Police Reform Act 2002 states that -
Where an officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used in a manner which contravenes Road Traffic Act Section 3 (Careless Driving) OR Section 34 (Driving elsewhere than on a road) AND also the manner of use of the vehicle is causing or has been causing or is likely to cause, alarm distress or annoyance to members of the public, Section 59 can be used to:-
initially give a written warning (valid for twelve months)
(commonly called a Section 59 Notice)
and on a subsequent occasion to seize the vehicle.
(it will probably end up in the crusher, or may be ransomed back to the owner)
A constable in uniform has the power to order the person driving to stop the vehicle, to seize and remove the vehicle, to enter any premises on which the officer has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be and to use reasonable force. Seizure can made only if a warning has been given, or believed to have been given, or if a warning is clearly being ignored.
So, usually it's a two-stage process - a warning or notice first, seizure if you persist or repeat.
Full text of Police Reform Act section 59 here.
Section 3 Road Traffic Act –
3. If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.
(Examples are – wheel spinning, skidding, revving engine excessivly, handbrake turns etc)
Section 34 Road Traffic Act (extract) –
34.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle
(a) on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or
(b) on any road being a Footpath, Bridleway or restricted byway,
he is guilty of an offence.
(So you may only drive on a 'road' - including BOATs. Note that using a Private road without permission is NOT a s.34 offence, it is a trespass, unless it happens to also be a Public Footpath etc.)
(2) It is not an offence under this section to drive a motor vehicle on any land within fifteen yards of a road, being a road on which a motor vehicle may lawfully be driven, for the purpose only of parking the vehicle on that land.
(For younger readers that's about 15m, but ONLY for parking)
Enforcement Issues:
This legislation includes mechanically propelled vehicles, not intended or adapted for use on the road (minimotos etc.), as well as road-legal motors.
Section 3 RTA will include car parks that are open to the public – and other areas where the public would be expected to have access.
The powers cannot be exercised unless the driver is BOTH using the vehicle anti-socially AND is committing either the section 3 or the section 34 offence. Someone driving in a way that might be considered anti-social but not committing either of these offences is not liable to having his vehicle seized, nor is someone committing a different motoring offence. Nor is someone driving sensibly on a Footpath - though of course they are still liable to 'ordinary' prosecution under s.34 RTA.
Note that the officer at the time of the warning only has to have ‘reasonable grounds’ for believing that one of the offences has been committed, e.g. a believable report. It may transpire later that this is or was not the case, hence the guidelines below.
The warning is given to both the driver and the vehicle. This means that if either are subsequently stopped then a seizure may take place even if another driver is in the original vehicle, or the original driver is another vehicle….. be warned! The warning may be verbal, with paperwork to follow, or forms filled in on the spot. In either case the constable must make it clear what is happening.
Recommended Actions:
At the ‘scene’:
Firstly remain calm and polite. Getting hot under the collar may only lead to further offences (Public Order Act or Obstruction ).
Establish what offence you have committed for the officer to initiate a Section 59 Warning or Seizure. It may be prudent to carry a print of the above legislation to discuss with the officer – many officers give out warnings because they have had a report of Nuisance vehicles but do not understand the legislation in its entirety.
Ask if the officer intends to prosecute for the offence committed (some forces have a local policy to prosecute). Remember s.59 only applies if you may have already committed an offence, which could be prosecuted for anyway.
Ask the officer for his force number/collar number, name, station and name of his area Commander.
Ask for a copy of any paperwork you are asked to sign.
Do not be argumentative! But do know your onions – are you on a BOAT, UCR, private road etc and is the officer aware of its status?
Subsequent action:
If you have clearly done something wrong and are being prosecuted – get a solicitor….
If you have received a Section 59 warning and are unsure why, or feel that it was unjust or issued inappropriately then you need to establish your position.
Write to the Area Commander at the police station/area that the warning was issued and establish exactly what offence you committed (ie. Section 3 or 34) and what action is being taken. If you know they are prosecuting you then ask for Disclosure (this may be best done through a solicitor). Disclosure will be a pack of documents outlining the Prosecution case and should include witness statements, the officers statement, video copies and such like. This will give you a picture of the case against you in order to fight your corner.
Often at this stage a correctly worded letter or defence statement may negate any summons or court appearance if the warning was issued incorrectly or inappropriately. Keep to the facts and do not rant and rave about your thoughts on the local constabulary….
saaby93 said:
See Mel's post
I saw this, and I understood it (I think).But what I was trying to get at, does the 'reasonable suspicion' permit you to be given a S.59 just by being in the vicinity?
If so very dangerous ground and precedent are being set here.
(As if we hadn't already concluded this before
)daz3210 said:
I saw this, and I understood it (I think).
But what I was trying to get at, does the 'reasonable suspicion' permit you to be given a S.59 just by being in the vicinity?
There's nothing to stop anyone being given an s59 you need to ask has it been given lawfully.But what I was trying to get at, does the 'reasonable suspicion' permit you to be given a S.59 just by being in the vicinity?
A group of mates meeting up in a carpark? Doesn't look like it
If one of them is practicing their TopGear skills, that one yes
saaby93 said:
here's nothing to stop anyone being given an s59 you need to ask has it been given lawfully.
A group of mates meeting up in a carpark? Doesn't look like it
If one of them is practicing their TopGear skills, that one yes
I guess I am looking for a definition of 'has it been given lawfully' then.A group of mates meeting up in a carpark? Doesn't look like it
If one of them is practicing their TopGear skills, that one yes
Reading the posts it seems that only one officer has to have 'suspicion' and there is no way to challenge unless a senior officer agrees with your view that it is unreasonable.
What happens after a S.59 seizure? Do they just charge you toing, storage and release fees? In effect giving a 'fine' of sorts without conviction?
saaby93 said:
here's nothing to stop anyone being given an s59 you need to ask has it been given lawfully.
A group of mates meeting up in a carpark? Doesn't look like it
If one of them is practicing their TopGear skills, that one yes
The phrase..."Common purpose" may well be key here.A group of mates meeting up in a carpark? Doesn't look like it
If one of them is practicing their TopGear skills, that one yes
One doesn't go to these 'meets' to swap recipes...it may well be that just being there made the OP jointly liable for any anti-social behaviour that took place.
What is plain to see however, is that the local plod are being proactive in dissuading the local boy racers from holding any more of these 'meets'...those failing to 'take the hint' stand to lose their vehicles.
oldsoak said:
The phrase..."Common purpose" may well be key here.
One doesn't go to these 'meets' to swap recipes...it may well be that just being there made the OP jointly liable for any anti-social behaviour that took place.
What is plain to see however, is that the local plod are being proactive in dissuading the local boy racers from holding any more of these 'meets'...those failing to 'take the hint' stand to lose their vehicles.
Trouble is as well as the antisocial 'boy racers' , the other thread (and the biker one) it was also being used to try to dissuade sociable common marque meets or custom car fanatics.One doesn't go to these 'meets' to swap recipes...it may well be that just being there made the OP jointly liable for any anti-social behaviour that took place.
What is plain to see however, is that the local plod are being proactive in dissuading the local boy racers from holding any more of these 'meets'...those failing to 'take the hint' stand to lose their vehicles.
When do we meet up in our electric bathchairs Oldsoak
I've been to one of these meets, purely through curiosity.
There appeared to be different sections.
There was the loony section where a couple of McDonalds/KFC trays under the back wheels made drifting easier (the anti-social area?)
Then there were the section where folks just parked up and admired each others cars and basically talked crap most of the night (and admired the scantily dressed laydees ).
I can see the problem with the former, but not the latter.
This was a good few years ago, but I guess they are still the same.
The latter would be no different to a group from here arranging to meet up would it not?
There appeared to be different sections.
There was the loony section where a couple of McDonalds/KFC trays under the back wheels made drifting easier (the anti-social area?)
Then there were the section where folks just parked up and admired each others cars and basically talked crap most of the night (and admired the scantily dressed laydees
).I can see the problem with the former, but not the latter.
This was a good few years ago, but I guess they are still the same.
The latter would be no different to a group from here arranging to meet up would it not?
daz3210 said:
I've been to one of these meets, purely through curiosity.
There appeared to be different sections.
There was the loony section where a couple of McDonalds/KFC trays under the back wheels made drifting easier (the anti-social area?)
Then there were the section where folks just parked up and admired each others cars and basically talked crap most of the night (and admired the scantily dressed laydees ).
I can see the problem with the former, but not the latter.
This was a good few years ago, but I guess they are still the same.
The latter would be no different to a group from here arranging to meet up would it not?
It could...emphasis on the 'could'...but one would doubt it being as plod are handing out s59's like there was no tomorrow in this instance.There appeared to be different sections.
There was the loony section where a couple of McDonalds/KFC trays under the back wheels made drifting easier (the anti-social area?)
Then there were the section where folks just parked up and admired each others cars and basically talked crap most of the night (and admired the scantily dressed laydees
).I can see the problem with the former, but not the latter.
This was a good few years ago, but I guess they are still the same.
The latter would be no different to a group from here arranging to meet up would it not?
Sounds like these particular 'meets' are becoming a regular nuisance and time has come to stop them rather than move them on.
oldsoak said:
It could...emphasis on the 'could'...but one would doubt it being as plod are handing out s59's like there was no tomorrow in this instance.
Sounds like these particular 'meets' are becoming a regular nuisance and time has come to stop them rather than move them on.
Becoming? They have been happening for years, and they have been trying to stop them I guess.Sounds like these particular 'meets' are becoming a regular nuisance and time has come to stop them rather than move them on.
But is misuse of legislation really the way to stop them?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff