Section 59 carried by both car and driver

[anonymous-user]

Is this right?

https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/12210633...

Seems a bit harsh that the first offender in a particular car gets away with a warning, but the second offender, who happens to be in a car that a previous offender was caught in, loses the vehicle

[Greendubber]

Yes its right.

[anonymous-user]

Seems harsh

If you buy a car and get clocked at 44 in a 40, you don’t automatically lose the potential for a speed awareness course just because the previous owner got clocked at 44 in a 40 eleven months previously. Why is s59 different? It’s not the car that’s at fault! It’s the driver

[wiliferus]

I think there has been a legal challenge to this via Hantspol... you might have to give me a few days.

[anonymous-user]

A car carrying an s59 is at more risk of being seized than one with no s59. It is, therefore, worth less. Buyers should know that

It should on the HPI

[gazza285]

Have vehicles become sentient now?

[anonymous-user]

The s59 law treats them as such

[wiliferus]

This has been subject to much legal discussion in our office...

Police reform act section 4(a) states -

(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

I have seized vehicles before having had markers on them. Now I’ve dug down into the legalities, I’m not so convinced that’s legal and the spirit in which the law was intended. The wording above seems quite clear.

Happy for someone more knowledgable to come along however

[vaud]

Doesn't sound like it should be legal, given S59 should be about the behaviour of a driver, not a non-sentient vehicle.

IANAL.

[Greendubber]

vaud said:

Doesn't sound like it should be legal, given S59 should be about the behaviour of a driver, not a non-sentient vehicle.

IANAL.

Look at it with regard to the use of a quad bike being ragged about by a bunch of twerps on an estate - perfect for that.

Checks into the change of ownership of a car can easily be carried out at the roadside. I'd never take a car if the warning was before the current owner got it, for obvious reasons.

[The_Nugget]

I expect the theory is that cars are often used as pool cars and prevents multiple warnings having to be given before the car is seized if being used by multiple drivers. Whether it is legal I don’t know. Seems daft though, if as mentioned you have simply bought the car. That said, what were you doing to get a s59 in the first place.

[SS2.]

wiliferus said:

This has been subject to much legal discussion in our office...

Police reform act section 4(a) states -

(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

I have seized vehicles before having had markers on them. Now I’ve dug down into the legalities, I’m not so convinced that’s legal and the spirit in which the law was intended. The wording above seems quite clear.

It needs to be read in conjunction with the rest of the provision - in particular, Section 5 which confirms the circumstances under which no warning is required before seizure.

[untakenname]

I was under the impression that the Section 59 applies to the number plate plate and not the car?

[SS2.]

untakenname said:

I was under the impression that the Section 59 applies to the number plate plate and not the car?

The legislation refers to 'that motor vehicle' - no mention is made of its registration.

[untakenname]

Do they link it to the VIN instead of the plate then?

Few years back I bought a car from a friend who already had a Section 59 given against it for antisocial revving and the advice given (by a serving police officer) was to get a private plate as then it would come back clean for any roadside checks.

[SS2.]

untakenname said:

Do they link it to the VIN instead of the plate then?

Few years back I bought a car from a friend who already had a Section 59 given against it for antisocial revving and the advice given (by a serving police officer) was to get a private plate as then it would come back clean for any roadside checks.

The assumption there would be that the police wouldn't realise it was the same vehicle with the marker, but sporting a different plate.

If they knew it was the same car, the fact it had a different VRM wouldn't preclude it from being lawfully seized.