Discussion
Hello
I recently received a section 59, for being a silly boy in my supra in the wet, in an empty car park and got caught by an undercover unit which was fair enough.I was given a section 59 of which I had to sign a piece of paper ,this section 59 lasts for 1 year apparently .
Last week I overtook a doctors car on a very long piece of straight doing some numbers of course, anyway that night I was parked up chatting to some friends out side a retail car park and a traffic car pulled in and seized my car ,as I had been apparently (dangerous driving) earlier on that day reported by the doctors car, they then called down the tow-away lorry and proceeded to load my car on some lorry, the only way to get my car back was £105 on the spot which I paid other wise it was £12 a day and the £105 on top
.
The traffic copper proceeded to tell me if any member of the public puts a report in this will happen. Can that be true? .If it is a so a not so nice friend could phone up put in a fake report and I get my car seized!
I am hoping somebody is able to tell me what exactly this section 59 is and what it involves.
I recently received a section 59, for being a silly boy in my supra in the wet, in an empty car park and got caught by an undercover unit which was fair enough.I was given a section 59 of which I had to sign a piece of paper ,this section 59 lasts for 1 year apparently .
Last week I overtook a doctors car on a very long piece of straight doing some numbers of course, anyway that night I was parked up chatting to some friends out side a retail car park and a traffic car pulled in and seized my car ,as I had been apparently (dangerous driving) earlier on that day reported by the doctors car, they then called down the tow-away lorry and proceeded to load my car on some lorry, the only way to get my car back was £105 on the spot which I paid other wise it was £12 a day and the £105 on top
. The traffic copper proceeded to tell me if any member of the public puts a report in this will happen. Can that be true? .If it is a so a not so nice friend could phone up put in a fake report and I get my car seized!
I am hoping somebody is able to tell me what exactly this section 59 is and what it involves.
Section : 59
Act : Police Reform Act 2002
Subject : Vehicles Used In Manner Causing Alarm, Distress Or Annoyance
(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which-
(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,
he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).
(2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).
(3) Those powers are-
(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle
(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be
(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).
(4) A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section unless-
(a) he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use continues or is repeated and
(b) it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the the warning.
(5) Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if-
(a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning
(b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him or
(d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
(6) A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3)(a) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(7) Subsection (3)(c) does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house.
(8) The powers conferred on a constable by this section shall be exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 60 are in force.
(9) In this section-
"driving" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)
"motor vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle, whether or not it is intended or adapted for use on roads and
"private dwelling house" does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.
Act : Police Reform Act 2002
Subject : Vehicles Used In Manner Causing Alarm, Distress Or Annoyance
(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which-
(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,
he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).
(2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).
(3) Those powers are-
(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle
(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be
(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).
(4) A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section unless-
(a) he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use continues or is repeated and
(b) it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the the warning.
(5) Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if-
(a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning
(b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him or
(d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
(6) A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3)(a) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(7) Subsection (3)(c) does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house.
(8) The powers conferred on a constable by this section shall be exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 60 are in force.
(9) In this section-
"driving" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)
"motor vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle, whether or not it is intended or adapted for use on roads and
"private dwelling house" does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.
Doesn't mean to say it's just though does it?
OK so on the face of things posted you have been fairly open about the background circumstances.
However let us imagine a situation where a complainant's perception of your behaviour was unwarranted and inaccurate. What then?
Personally I have been shouted at to slow down by a dog walker who thought a particular public highway was her personal dog walking track. At the time and on final approach was down at tickover in first gear. Not sure how much slower one can reasonably be expected to go.
Just because you and I may be reasonable people doesn't mean to say others are the same. I do agree with your tactics though re: best behaviour.
OK so on the face of things posted you have been fairly open about the background circumstances.
However let us imagine a situation where a complainant's perception of your behaviour was unwarranted and inaccurate. What then?
Personally I have been shouted at to slow down by a dog walker who thought a particular public highway was her personal dog walking track. At the time and on final approach was down at tickover in first gear. Not sure how much slower one can reasonably be expected to go.
Just because you and I may be reasonable people doesn't mean to say others are the same. I do agree with your tactics though re: best behaviour.
I take it you mean Chaz could be on his best behaviour, someone perceives he is doing something wrong and call the Bib and complain?
Basically that would be one persons word against another but they may choose to believe the word of the person they haven't come across before instead of the driver?
In which case....is he stuffed?
Basically that would be one persons word against another but they may choose to believe the word of the person they haven't come across before instead of the driver?
In which case....is he stuffed?
So you do something naughty, get spotted by a copper, nicked. Fair enough.
Section 59 sounds similar to an autmotive version of being bound over.
You then get reported by a member of the public and you have to pay a silly amount to get your car back because of the Section 59
This raises a couple of points in my mind
1) MASSIVELY open to abuse, anyone who dislikes you could cause you massive issues and personal cost if their word is to be taken as truth as it appears to have been in this case.
2) A tax by any other name...
Section 59 sounds similar to an autmotive version of being bound over.
You then get reported by a member of the public and you have to pay a silly amount to get your car back because of the Section 59
This raises a couple of points in my mind
1) MASSIVELY open to abuse, anyone who dislikes you could cause you massive issues and personal cost if their word is to be taken as truth as it appears to have been in this case.
2) A tax by any other name...
In my opinion from the previous account, my car will be going on the back of a lorry whether I did something or not.
At the time as the officer in hand does not care, he did not ask if me anything about the dangerous driving incident nothing, which is fair enough he is just doing his job, and my car shows up as stop and seize the motor vehicle, and If I feel I have been targeted for no reason I would take that person to court and try and get the compensation for the tow-away charge.
In my own opinion any member of the public should not be able to do that as like (plotloss) reasons. I think only a police officer should be able to have that say.
At the time as the officer in hand does not care, he did not ask if me anything about the dangerous driving incident nothing, which is fair enough he is just doing his job, and my car shows up as stop and seize the motor vehicle, and If I feel I have been targeted for no reason I would take that person to court and try and get the compensation for the tow-away charge.
In my own opinion any member of the public should not be able to do that as like (plotloss) reasons. I think only a police officer should be able to have that say.
chazuk said:
The £105 I paid directly to the lorry driver which gave me a receipt, that was the call out charge for the flat bed lorry to come out, (a 4min drive down the road) might I add as well.
Now where can I buy a flatbed truck from. This sounds like a license to print money for doing f-all......
Nice.....
FiF
I've just read section 59 which you've copied over. Cheers.
As I read it a police officer has to witness the use of the car in the prescibed manner. Which in this instance did occur and a warning was given.
Then there was a second incident which was witnessed by a doctor. Can anyone advise where it says the car can be seized, following a report/complaint from a member of the public? Even if the witness to the second incident is a doctor he is not BiB.
DAZ
>> Edited by dazren on Monday 18th April 12:43
I've just read section 59 which you've copied over. Cheers.
As I read it a police officer has to witness the use of the car in the prescibed manner. Which in this instance did occur and a warning was given.
Then there was a second incident which was witnessed by a doctor. Can anyone advise where it says the car can be seized, following a report/complaint from a member of the public? Even if the witness to the second incident is a doctor he is not BiB.
DAZ
>> Edited by dazren on Monday 18th April 12:43
dazren said:
FiF
As I read it a police officer has to witness the use of the car in the prescibed manner. Which in this instance did occur and a warning was given.
DAZ
>> Edited by dazren on Monday 18th April 12:43
Exactly my point, but those words that come out of the traffic officers mouth quote “ any one that reports such misbehaviour” this will happen each time .
dazren said:
As I read it a police officer has to witness the use of the car in the prescibed manner.
"reasonable grounds for believing" opens the can of worms imo.
To me this is one of those laws intended to deal with the repeat idiots.
Please note I'm not making any judgement in respect of the thread author here. At least he has had sufficient spine to put hands up on PH.
Like all laws there is the potential that others become embroiled even though they may not have been the target of the original legislation.
Remember the recent discussions about carrying knives?
Presumably the statement from the doctor who had been overtaken was sufficient for a marker to be put against the VRN no and the events that followed.
It is another example of roles of witness, judge, jury and executioner all possibly being delivered into the hand of just one person, the loser may / may not be justice.
In this case, on the basis of the evidence presented here, the roles of witness, judge and jury were fulfilled by the doctor, who may / may not be qualified to comment, police reduced to that of executioner.
As stated before given what appears to have happened I cannot see any alternative other than for whiter than white behaviour to be pursued. Sad state of affairs but there it is.
Its this 3rd party perception garbage. Another true anecdote. Friday pm last week out en route on an urgent mission. Single carriageway NSL, 35-40 mph bimbler, decent opportunity for an overtake, carried out all according to system of car control. Didn't even have to exceed speed limit ffs! Didn't stop the customary flash in the mirror from bimbler, you know what I mean.
Two miles down the road, appraoching left hand bend, oncoming queue of traffic headed by a slow heavy. Taking a cross view of the bend just over the hedge caught the reflection off the roof of a vehicle overtaking into what was for them a blind right hander.
Nobody behind so braked firmly, no drama resulted as leading lorry and overtaker appear in front of me side by side. Sufficient space had been made for oncoming overtaker to recover his correct side of road.(1)
Supposing I hadn't braked and there had been a coming together. What is the betting the 35-40 bimbler would come along and assertively attest to the whole thing being the fault of the mad FiF?
FiF
(1) Only to be expected but apparently he was later pulled out of the ditch about 5 miles down the road. Lesson obviously not learnt.
Another point.
What is the feeling about the following?
Section 59 issued because of behaviour type A witnessed by plod: -Fair enough, though suggest it could have been contested before the beaks.
Behaviour type B at another location results in action.
Different offence? Different location? MoP report, no of witnesses?
I would hope that malicious reports would be dealt with appropriately, but probably only after repeated occurrences of such reports.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Monday 18th April 13:30
What is the feeling about the following?
Section 59 issued because of behaviour type A witnessed by plod: -Fair enough, though suggest it could have been contested before the beaks.
Behaviour type B at another location results in action.
Different offence? Different location? MoP report, no of witnesses?
I would hope that malicious reports would be dealt with appropriately, but probably only after repeated occurrences of such reports.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Monday 18th April 13:30
Flat in Fifth said:
Another point.
What is the feeling about the following?
Section 59 issued because of behaviour type A witnessed by plod: -Fair enough, though suggest it could have been contested before the beaks.
Behaviour type B at another location results in action.
Different offence? Different location? MoP report, no of witnesses?
I would hope that malicious reports would be dealt with appropriately, but probably only after repeated occurrences of such reports.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Monday 18th April 13:30
I'm of the opinion that it'll end up costing a few hundred £££ before you get anywhere. Like you say, repeated occurences. If someone has a grudge it's an easy way to get their own back.
I am not going to get my self worked up about it, until I have to take action against I believe something I have not done, which hoping will not ever happen.
However if I come into the same situation, I would like to see what would happen if;
1. I had the traffic police still with me; say after paying £105 to have my car released as last time he hanged around for a while having a chat .
2. I make a phone call to the local police station saying that my car had just been driving through town wheel spinning etc.
3. What’s the betting my car gets put back onto seize this car.
4. And all the time I have had traffic copper next to me.
Be a good way to see and find out sort of thing I would need on film as well.
Still I reckon I would get another £105 fine and probably in alot of trouble for doing that infront of a policeman (wasting their time).
However if I come into the same situation, I would like to see what would happen if;
1. I had the traffic police still with me; say after paying £105 to have my car released as last time he hanged around for a while having a chat .
2. I make a phone call to the local police station saying that my car had just been driving through town wheel spinning etc.
3. What’s the betting my car gets put back onto seize this car.
4. And all the time I have had traffic copper next to me.
Be a good way to see and find out sort of thing I would need on film as well.
Still I reckon I would get another £105 fine and probably in alot of trouble for doing that infront of a policeman (wasting their time).
So , you COULD tell a (very good) friend of this and get THEM to phone the police, from the other side of town about what they THINK is a car matching yours (including reg no) while you and your car are in the presence of the local Bib.
Not that I'm suggesting you actually do this of course..
, you COULD tell a (very good) friend of this and get THEM to phone the police, from the other side of town about what they THINK is a car matching yours (including reg no) while you and your car are in the presence of the local Bib. Not that I'm suggesting you actually do this of course..
Plotloss said:
So you do something naughty, get spotted by a copper, nicked. Fair enough.
Section 59 sounds similar to an autmotive version of being bound over.
You then get reported by a member of the public and you have to pay a silly amount to get your car back because of the Section 59
This raises a couple of points in my mind
1) MASSIVELY open to abuse, anyone who dislikes you could cause you massive issues and personal cost if their word is to be taken as truth as it appears to have been in this case.
2) A tax by any other name...
This occurred to me to when read the opening post...
Und it ist open to abuse...und this was
normal practice in Leizig under Stasis.... .....only in that instance ... people 
disappeared .....
lol Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff