Discussion
So no paperwork. A couple of friends wern't informed they had a s59, I told them as the police told me everybody had one and proudly showed me the number plate list.
They could have gone next Sunday, not realising they had a s59, and had their cars taken. Something doesn't seem right.
They could have gone next Sunday, not realising they had a s59, and had their cars taken. Something doesn't seem right.
For those not au fait with the law on Section 59s ...
It seems clear that there is some disproportionate use of this section.
Regrettably, challenging such use is thought (by many, and increasingly typically)unlikely to be beneficial.
Streaky
Police Reform Act 2002 said:
59 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.
The offence was first mooted to provide the police with a means to taking proportionate action against misuse/abuse of so-called 'green lanes'. As is not uncommon, as it passed through the legislative stages, it changed.(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.
It seems clear that there is some disproportionate use of this section.
Regrettably, challenging such use is thought (by many, and increasingly typically)unlikely to be beneficial.
Streaky
streaky said:
For those not au fait with the law on Section 59s ...
a)is the bit about driving like a numptie or off road and b) might upset other folksPolice Reform Act 2002 said:
59 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).
Regrettably, challenging such use is thought (by many, and increasingly typically)unlikely to be beneficial.(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).
Driving offroad wwhich might upset other folks??
StottyZr said:
So no paperwork. A couple of friends wern't informed they had a s59, I told them as the police told me everybody had one and proudly showed me the number plate list.
They could have gone next Sunday, not realising they had a s59, and had their cars taken. Something doesn't seem right.
Yep, and really it's the existance of S59. For the most part I'm actually quite supportive of the police since they have to do an unpopular job which generally aims to benefit the majority of decent people but S59 in it's current form is an abhorrent bit of legislation and sadly it seems that plenty of police are happy to use it They could have gone next Sunday, not realising they had a s59, and had their cars taken. Something doesn't seem right.
It will be the same if they give the power to suspend someones driving licence, say for poor eyesight.
The intetions are good, but there HAS to be a route of appeal, or some kind of separation.
By my mind a S59 should have to be rubber stamped by a Judge or someone, or at least a higher up in the Police. As it is at the minute it seems that one bobby can take offence at the way you look, drum up some s
te about how you shouldn't have been driving, and then give you a S59 notice. All without a route to challenge.
The intetions are good, but there HAS to be a route of appeal, or some kind of separation.
By my mind a S59 should have to be rubber stamped by a Judge or someone, or at least a higher up in the Police. As it is at the minute it seems that one bobby can take offence at the way you look, drum up some s
te about how you shouldn't have been driving, and then give you a S59 notice. All without a route to challenge.saaby93 said:
daz3210 said:
saaby93 said:
ee sections 3 & 4
Cars can only be siezed if a warning had previously been given?
If you bought a car after it had got a S59 how would you know? Would it show on HPI?Cars can only be siezed if a warning had previously been given?
I thought it had been said that the interpretation was same person or same vehicle.
daz3210 said:
It will be the same if they give the power to suspend someones driving licence, say for poor eyesight.
The intetions are good, but there HAS to be a route of appeal, or some kind of separation.
By my mind a S59 should have to be rubber stamped by a Judge or someone, or at least a higher up in the Police. As it is at the minute it seems that one bobby can take offence at the way you look, drum up some ste about how you shouldn't have been driving, and then give you a S59 notice. All without a route to challenge.
It can be cancelled by a senior officer, a PHer has reported that he had one cancelled after he found himself in a car park with some anti-social loons.The intetions are good, but there HAS to be a route of appeal, or some kind of separation.
By my mind a S59 should have to be rubber stamped by a Judge or someone, or at least a higher up in the Police. As it is at the minute it seems that one bobby can take offence at the way you look, drum up some s
te about how you shouldn't have been driving, and then give you a S59 notice. All without a route to challenge.saaby93 said:
daz3210 said:
saaby93 said:
ee sections 3 & 4
Cars can only be siezed if a warning had previously been given?
If you bought a car after it had got a S59 how would you know? Would it show on HPI?Cars can only be siezed if a warning had previously been given?
Edited by covboy on Tuesday 31st January 12:29
The S59 applies to the car AND driver it was issued to so if your stopped in another car that will be siezed or if someone buys your car an they are stopped the car will be siezed as the 1st warning on the car still stands
All depends on the access to the carpark for that event,even thou store was closed was there still public access ? you cant contravene section 3 or 34 of the RTA sitting in a carpark with public access so ticket would be incorrect-go see the desk sargent an get it sorted if thats the case
Tickets have been torn up when the error of their ways have been shown
view VDSR forum (welsh off road bike riders ) some good advise on there
All depends on the access to the carpark for that event,even thou store was closed was there still public access ? you cant contravene section 3 or 34 of the RTA sitting in a carpark with public access so ticket would be incorrect-go see the desk sargent an get it sorted if thats the case
Tickets have been torn up when the error of their ways have been shown
view VDSR forum (welsh off road bike riders ) some good advise on there
f1rob said:
The S59 applies to the car AND driver it was issued to so if your stopped in another car that will be siezed or if someone buys your car an they are stopped the car will be siezed as the 1st warning on the car still stands
All depends on the access to the carpark for that event,even thou store was closed was there still public access ? you cant contravene section 3 or 34 of the RTA sitting in a carpark with public access so ticket would be incorrect-go see the desk sargent an get it sorted if thats the case
Tickets have been torn up when the error of their ways have been shown
view VDSR forum (welsh off road bike riders ) some good advise on there
Yes thats been posted beforeAll depends on the access to the carpark for that event,even thou store was closed was there still public access ? you cant contravene section 3 or 34 of the RTA sitting in a carpark with public access so ticket would be incorrect-go see the desk sargent an get it sorted if thats the case
Tickets have been torn up when the error of their ways have been shown
view VDSR forum (welsh off road bike riders ) some good advise on there
Looking above the s59 attaches to the vehicle but isn't it only when the person has been warned a second time that it can be siezed? Otherwise as you say thered be all sorts of trouble on change of ownership. There's 12months in there too
StottyZr said:
F1rob that sounds like a good idea. But as mentioned, no slip and I've been told not to expect anything through the post!
Oh great - secret S59's so you don't even know you've been issued with one now? 
I'm not even sure they can do this - issue with a notice without actually issuing you with anything physical? "You're on the list, you don't know you're on the list, except that I just told you, and you can only take my word for it".It might well be that it was just a threat, and they haven't done anything more than made a list of registrations with the intention of possibly issuing a S59 if you turn up next week? Maybe enquiring anonymously for clarification might be an option. I wouldn't give your registration if you do, otherwise they might formalise it for you...
Whatever is going on, it sounds like an abuse of process.
mjb1 said:
StottyZr said:
F1rob that sounds like a good idea. But as mentioned, no slip and I've been told not to expect anything through the post!
Oh great - secret S59's so you don't even know you've been issued with one now? I'm not even sure they can do this - issue with a notice without actually issuing you with anything physical? "You're on the list, you don't know you're on the list, except that I just told you, and you can only take my word for it".It might well be that it was just a threat, and they haven't done anything more than made a list of registrations with the intention of possibly issuing a S59 if you turn up next week? Maybe enquiring anonymously for clarification might be an option. I wouldn't give your registration if you do, otherwise they might formalise it for you...
Whatever is going on, it sounds like an abuse of process.
What is the procedure for the car to be taken on the second 'offence'?
Is there any process of appeal for that, and is there a burden of proof that the first notice was actually given in a lawful manner? Surely there should be provision for them getting you to sign something to acknowledge you have been given it, otherwise its a right nightmare scenario. I can just imagine the roadside convo.....
Copper - I'm taking your car for a second s59
MoP - But I haven't had one before
C - Yes you have
M - No I haven't
C - Yes you have
M - You prove it then
C - Well actually I can't but you have had one
And on it could go........
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff