Section 59 Car Seized But No NIP/TOR/Summons
Discussion
Unfortunately got pulled over recently for speeding and undertaking by an undercover police vehicle. I was going too fast and would probably say 20mph over the 60mph dual carriageway limit. I put my hands up immediately to the offence and admitted to both officers I had been driving poorly. The reason the officer gave to stop was for the speed and driving without due care, he cautioned me and then went on to check my details which revealed a previous Section 59 being issued a few months back. Since it was my second stop the officer said he'll have to seize the car which I did not argue with.
I did not receive any verbal NIP nor an indication the officer intended to progress this to court. On both times I was stopped it was the same stretch of road that I use frequently as my route home but it is also a stretch used by car cruisers as there is an injunction in place and police are clearly cracking down on it. I was given a producer for my insurance since the officer could not verify my insurance at the scene. Reason for this was change of plate but have since contacted my insurance and this has been sorted and they confirmed I was covered at the time.
As we waited for the recoevry truck one officer did mention that he needed to just inform me our conversation was being recorded on his chest camera and that theoretically the central ticket office 'may' possibly decide to look at it and decide to progress it further beyond the section 59 but made it clear if I don't hear anything within 14 days that will be the end of the matter. Both officers were very appreciative of my honesty and did not state they wished to progress this themselves beyond the Section 59. They even said they would have offered me a lift home had it not been for their back seats being loaded full or equipment! The following day I collected my car from the impound and produced my insurance documents at the police station and went on my way.
Given these details is it likely that I will now receive an NIP through the post or a court summons? Surely if NIP/Summons was the intention the officers would have informed of that intention at the time of the stop and/or issued me with a traffic offence report there and then but this was not the case. Since the officers themselves did not appear interested in progressing this it is unclear to me as to how the central ticket office would then go onto somehow view this specific incident and then go onto issue a ticket/proceedings.
I did not receive any verbal NIP nor an indication the officer intended to progress this to court. On both times I was stopped it was the same stretch of road that I use frequently as my route home but it is also a stretch used by car cruisers as there is an injunction in place and police are clearly cracking down on it. I was given a producer for my insurance since the officer could not verify my insurance at the scene. Reason for this was change of plate but have since contacted my insurance and this has been sorted and they confirmed I was covered at the time.
As we waited for the recoevry truck one officer did mention that he needed to just inform me our conversation was being recorded on his chest camera and that theoretically the central ticket office 'may' possibly decide to look at it and decide to progress it further beyond the section 59 but made it clear if I don't hear anything within 14 days that will be the end of the matter. Both officers were very appreciative of my honesty and did not state they wished to progress this themselves beyond the Section 59. They even said they would have offered me a lift home had it not been for their back seats being loaded full or equipment! The following day I collected my car from the impound and produced my insurance documents at the police station and went on my way.
Given these details is it likely that I will now receive an NIP through the post or a court summons? Surely if NIP/Summons was the intention the officers would have informed of that intention at the time of the stop and/or issued me with a traffic offence report there and then but this was not the case. Since the officers themselves did not appear interested in progressing this it is unclear to me as to how the central ticket office would then go onto somehow view this specific incident and then go onto issue a ticket/proceedings.
Edited by ASRman on Wednesday 11th July 00:39
Edited by ASRman on Wednesday 11th July 00:51
Cardinal Hips said:
Audi S3
Birmingham
Within 1 mile of a McDonalds
How close am I?
I just now looked through OP post history after typing that and he was asking for a new exhaust for an s3 in Birmingham. I amaze myself sometimes. How close to a Maccas?Birmingham
Within 1 mile of a McDonalds
How close am I?
2 out of 3 still ain't bad. Off to buy a lottery ticket.
Just call me Septic Peg
ASRman said:
...and then went on to check my details which revealed a previous Section 59 being issued a few months back.
You're not good at taking hints, then?ASRman said:
The following day I collected my car from the impound and produced my insurance documents at the police station and went on my way.
So minimum inconvenience. I wonder if you'll take the hint this time?ASRman said:
Given these details is it likely that I will now receive an NIP through the post or a court summons?
It's far from impossible. 3pt/FPN for each. Will that be a problem for totting up/revocation?Durzel said:
OP has been polite and level headed. OP has been spoken to by the Police and isn't kicking up a fuss about it or whining about the Man keeping them down like some "enlightened" members seem to do whenever they're caught.
Not sure why any thinly veiled stereotyping is called for?
After 99 months here surely you'd realise that was standard fare for PH?Not sure why any thinly veiled stereotyping is called for?
SonicShadow said:
After 99 months here surely you'd realise that was standard fare for PH?
Yup, was sortof rhetorical.Ordinarily where someone is whining about being caught (fairly) and can barely string a sentence together I have less sympathy, but OP isn't doing any of that. Obviously someone getting two Section 59s isn't something to be lauded, but OP appears to have accepted the circumstances and is asking questions without emotion or making excuses.
@KevinCamaroSS
Yes on further digging around the net it seems I was indeed given a verbal NIP but seemingly inadvertently since the officer himself stated on two occasions do not worry about it if you hear nothing within 14 days whereas we all know once that verbal NIP is given the 14 day period is out the window and they have up to 6 months. Interesting to hear you still believe it's highly likely to be progressed despite neither officer expressing intention to do so. No doubt I'll be keeping my eye out in the post regardless.
@Cardinal Hips
Nice research work there chap on my previous post history but unfortunately I am not from Birmingham and was in a different car at the time (the S3 is my partner's), not sure if the closest MCDs is within 1 mile radius of where I was stopped however.
@TooMany2cvs
Clearly not it seems, although I am here looking for some advice on opinions on the next most likely scenario not finger pointing since I have already put my hands up to both offences to the officers at the time with a full and Frank admission ready for whatever consequences they deemed fit. As for your last point, unless somehow this turns into an instant ban then it will be not a problem for totting up no.
@garyhun
Yes as per my reply above. Seems the officer in my case may not have been fully acquainted with the law on verbal NIPs and therefore technically I could receive something within 6 months I suppose I'll have to wait and see.
@Durzel
Thanks for your reply it does seem a bit unwarranted since I've already put my hands up to the officers and will accept whatever further charge, if any, they now decide to bring. Either way looks to be a wait and see game for the most part.
Yes on further digging around the net it seems I was indeed given a verbal NIP but seemingly inadvertently since the officer himself stated on two occasions do not worry about it if you hear nothing within 14 days whereas we all know once that verbal NIP is given the 14 day period is out the window and they have up to 6 months. Interesting to hear you still believe it's highly likely to be progressed despite neither officer expressing intention to do so. No doubt I'll be keeping my eye out in the post regardless.
@Cardinal Hips
Nice research work there chap on my previous post history but unfortunately I am not from Birmingham and was in a different car at the time (the S3 is my partner's), not sure if the closest MCDs is within 1 mile radius of where I was stopped however.
@TooMany2cvs
Clearly not it seems, although I am here looking for some advice on opinions on the next most likely scenario not finger pointing since I have already put my hands up to both offences to the officers at the time with a full and Frank admission ready for whatever consequences they deemed fit. As for your last point, unless somehow this turns into an instant ban then it will be not a problem for totting up no.
@garyhun
Yes as per my reply above. Seems the officer in my case may not have been fully acquainted with the law on verbal NIPs and therefore technically I could receive something within 6 months I suppose I'll have to wait and see.
@Durzel
Thanks for your reply it does seem a bit unwarranted since I've already put my hands up to the officers and will accept whatever further charge, if any, they now decide to bring. Either way looks to be a wait and see game for the most part.
Edited by ASRman on Wednesday 11th July 12:25
ASRman said:
As for your last point, unless somehow this turns into an instant ban then it will be not a problem for totting up no.
Then really all you can do is sit back, wait, and hope it goes no further.It's been recorded, they've recommended no further action, but they don't get the final say.
What are the rules for S59 stuff? Is it a second stop for "antisocial driving" or whatever that can see your car seized, or a second stop for anything?
The way it comes across to me from the OP is that he was pulled fair and square for the speeding/undertaking (the latter I may or may not agree with as being a thing, depending on circumstance), so he's getting nabbed for that, and has had his verbal NIP from plod at the roadside.
Because his plate change messed up them being able to confirm the car as insured, they impounded it, but the relevance of the S59 to this is that having the previous record of him being got for doing something he shouldn't tipped the balance of whether they were going to believe him regarding the insurance. Without that previous S59, plod may have accepted the plate change argument and left it at the driving offence.
The way it comes across to me from the OP is that he was pulled fair and square for the speeding/undertaking (the latter I may or may not agree with as being a thing, depending on circumstance), so he's getting nabbed for that, and has had his verbal NIP from plod at the roadside.
Because his plate change messed up them being able to confirm the car as insured, they impounded it, but the relevance of the S59 to this is that having the previous record of him being got for doing something he shouldn't tipped the balance of whether they were going to believe him regarding the insurance. Without that previous S59, plod may have accepted the plate change argument and left it at the driving offence.
You have two options in this scenario 1) you fess up and hope they don't go too hard on you 2) You don't admit to anything but risk failing the attitude test. If they have video of you driving they may have you bang to rights anyway.
Since they have body cam of you confessing and maybe footage or an officer/s statement its possible you could be summoned. The sec 59 just deals with the fact you have been warned before about the anti-social manner of your driving and if you caught again the car is ceased as the warning was not heeded. So its like they gave you a chance the first time and you have blown it so you lose the car.
Since they have body cam of you confessing and maybe footage or an officer/s statement its possible you could be summoned. The sec 59 just deals with the fact you have been warned before about the anti-social manner of your driving and if you caught again the car is ceased as the warning was not heeded. So its like they gave you a chance the first time and you have blown it so you lose the car.
surveyor_101 said:
You have two options in this scenario 1) you fess up and hope they don't go too hard on you 2) You don't admit to anything but risk failing the attitude test. If they have video of you driving they may have you bang to rights anyway.
Since they have body cam of you confessing and maybe footage or an officer/s statement its possible you could be summoned. The sec 59 just deals with the fact you have been warned before about the anti-social manner of your driving and if you caught again the car is ceased as the warning was not heeded. So its like they gave you a chance the first time and you have blown it so you lose the car.
Thanks for your reply. Interesting point Re admittance to guilt/NG at point of the stop. Whilst I may like you say have passed the attitude test (and also possibly the reason the officers felt S59 was enough for them) it could potentially shoot me in the foot later should any sort of proceedings be brought. In the circumstances however I felt little point in denying anything since they were probably not more than 50m behind when I undertook so was a fair stop and therefore I'd rather pass the attitude and get nabbed rather than get nabbed AND fail the attitude. Since they have body cam of you confessing and maybe footage or an officer/s statement its possible you could be summoned. The sec 59 just deals with the fact you have been warned before about the anti-social manner of your driving and if you caught again the car is ceased as the warning was not heeded. So its like they gave you a chance the first time and you have blown it so you lose the car.
I still think it's possibly I may get summoned, although speaking to a friend who did have to go to court a couple years back for something not too dissimilar he stated in that case the officer required him to sign a Traffic Offence Report which he was given a copy, the original of which was probably sent to the Central Office for consideration. Here is was left with nothing more than a producer for insurance and 'slow it down' comments from the officers.
Edited by ASRman on Wednesday 11th July 13:20
InitialDave said:
What are the rules for S59 stuff?
Lol rules, police says so, so there. Be nice if you could even appeal it. Basically used as a we haven't got the evidence to prove anything so we'll give you this. Such a bad piece of legislation as its so often used not in the context it was designed for.
speedking31 said:
Sounds like abuse of the S.59, where was the antisocial element of the OP's driving, who was distressed?
Why was the police car not keeping left?
Undertaking if done in a certain way could cause alarm and distress.Why was the police car not keeping left?
The OP never said he undertook the unmarked just said that car caught him.
take a look at this driver in Bristol going at these sort of speeds>
https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/da...
Lazadude said:
Lol rules, police says so, so there. Be nice if you could even appeal it.
Basically used as a we haven't got the evidence to prove anything so we'll give you this. Such a bad piece of legislation as its so often used not in the context it was designed for.
It seems fine if applied correctly.Basically used as a we haven't got the evidence to prove anything so we'll give you this. Such a bad piece of legislation as its so often used not in the context it was designed for.
When you have people being anti social in cars saying do it again and we sieze your car.
Better than the French system of 40kph over we cease your car and may give it back after the court case.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff