Words of advice...section 59

[Boggert]

Just some advice guys, a mate of mine just got an old disco and it turned out is had a section 59 notice on it from the previous owner. I think this is something to be aware of when getting an older car as they can have a history of being involved in crime.

If you have any questions about the Section 59 do post below and as a serving Officer I will try to answer it.

If you want to know what a Section 59 is, put into your search engine "Section 59, 2002 police reforme act" and that will give you the basics.

[Llanigraham]

Nope.
Tried to google it and it threw it back at me.

So what does it mean?

[Boggert]

Ok...If you have a section 59 on YOU or YOUR vehicle the police can take you vehicle or the vehicle you are driving off you

See below

Seizure of motor vehicles
 
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.
 
60.   Retention etc. of vehicles seized under section 59
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to - (a) the removal and retention of motor vehicles seized under section 59; and
 
(b) the release or disposal of such motor vehicles.
 
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision - (a) for the giving of notice of the seizure of a motor vehicle under section 59 to a person who is the owner of that vehicle or who, in accordance with the regulations, appears to be its owner;
 
(b) for the procedure by which a person who claims to be the owner of a motor vehicle seized under section 59 may seek to have it released;
 
(c) for requiring the payment of fees, charges or costs in relation to the removal and retention of such a motor vehicle and to any application for its release;
 
(d) as to the circumstances in which a motor vehicle seized under section 59 may be disposed of;
 
(e) as to the destination - (i) of any fees or charges payable in accordance with the regulations; and
 
(ii) of the proceeds (if any) arising from the disposal of a motor vehicle seized under section 59;
 
 
(f) for the delivery to a local authority, in circumstances prescribed by or determined in accordance with the regulations, of any motor vehicle seized under section 59.
 
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that a person who would otherwise be liable to pay any fee or charge under the regulations shall not be liable to pay it if - (a) the use by reference to which the motor vehicle in question was seized was not a use by him; and
 
(b) he did not know of the use of the vehicle in the manner which led to its seizure, had not consented to its use in that manner and could not, by the taking of reasonable steps, have prevented its use in that manner.
 
(4) In this section -   "local authority" - (a) in relation to England, means the council of a county, metropolitan district or London borough, the Common Council of the City of London or Transport for London; and
 
(b) in relation to Wales, means the council of a county or county borough;
 
 
  "motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in section 59.

[Bob696]

and they were all saying that this law would never be used against us ... LOL

[Skibum346]

and they were all saying that this law would never be used against us ... LOL

If it's the many posts on the confiscated motocross bike your refering to... as I remember it... "we" were saying that as long as we as responsible laners did the appropriate research and were confident that we were on a legal route... or.... if we were warned by an officer, as they are required to do, we desisted as required... we'd be fine.

Still don't see a problem here... I'm sure others will have other opinions...

[Range Rover Blues]

Check out point 4, you have to be the person who appears to have been commiting the nuisance.  They still have to PROVE you were the guilty party.

[Bob696]

Check out point 4, you have to be the person who appears to have been commiting the nuisance.  They still have to PROVE you were the guilty party.

and from boggart

n old disco and it turned out is had a section 59 notice on it from the previous owner.

The officer dosnt have to prove jack. Proof is for courts.

(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;

From skibum

if we were warned by an officer, as they are required to do

(

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;

There are also another couple of reasons they dont have to give a warning.

Careful what you buy folks. If it wasn't a potential problem why would a seving officer be giving us advice/warning?

I am not going to argue any more on this point. Its started to impact on 4x4s and if you are of the opinion that it will never happen to you or anyone you know  then good luck to you but I think you will be disapointed.

[Boggert]

If you are caught in a 4x4 on a Bridleway for example and the officer runs your car through the system and it shows a PNC marker for section 59, its up to the officer to take you car off you, even if you did NOT get the section 59 notice.  :shock:
The section 59 notice is on both the car and the driver, and will last for 1 year from date of issue.

Example...

Young lad is given a section 59 for manner of driving; a week later we caught him doing burnouts and doughnuts in a local car park in his dad’s works van... we take the van off him...Dads not happy.

That’s the thing, its a hidden PNC marker and its a case of buyer beware. But if you drive the BOATS etc sensibly you'll have no problems. Just be careful who you lend your car to as well.

Section 59 can be issued if you are, were or likely to cause Distress, alarm or annoyance to other people

Or driving on Bridleways etc

And BOB696 has a very good point an officer does not have to prove anything Proof is for courts!

[Lord Shagg-Pyle]

I wonder if a law coulb be brought in to stop arrogant, single minded, self- righteous, bobble hat wearing know it alls, from making right pains in the ar*es of them selves?

[Boggert]

I wonder if a law coulb be brought in to stop arrogant, single minded, self- righteous, bobble hat wearing know it alls, from making right pains in the ar*es of them selves?

Yes I'm sure section 5 of the public order act covers them... :twisted:  :lol:  however its enforcing it that’s the problem! LOL  :lol:

[Llanigraham]

Boggert
So a couple of the little Peugot owning scrotts around here think it is fun to wheel spin up and down our street, showing off to their mates in the Kebab Shop.
Being as the nearest copper is normally 15 miles away from here, when I call it in to Police Control 90 miles away,quoting the reg no, can I report it as a Section 59 violation as it is causing me "distress, alarm or annoyance"?

[Lord Shagg-Pyle]

Boggert
So a couple of the little Peugot owning scrotts around here think it is fun to wheel spin up and down our street, showing off to their mates in the Kebab Shop.
Being as the nearest copper is normally 15 miles away from here, when I call it in to Police Control 90 miles away,quoting the reg no, can I report it as a Section 59 violation as it is causing me "distress, alarm or annoyance"?

My understanding of the 'Act' is yes. Go get 'em Floyd!

[Lord Shagg-Pyle]

I wonder if a law coulb be brought in to stop arrogant, single minded, self- righteous, bobble hat wearing know it alls, from making right pains in the ar*es of them selves?

Yes I'm sure section 5 of the public order act covers them... :twisted:  :lol:  however its enforcing it that’s the problem! LOL  :lol:

I always try to stick by the 'rules', being in the same 'trade' as yourself, Boggert, but I do find telling people like that to 'S*d off, and stop wasting my time' very satisfying.
Mind you the usual response from them is  "I pay your wages". It is at this point I usually hand them 50p, informing them that that amount should cover their contribution for the day and would they mind calling someone who gives a damn.

[Evilgoat]

I wonder if a law coulb be brought in to stop arrogant, single minded, self- righteous, bobble hat wearing know it alls, from making right pains in the ar*es of them selves?

Yes I'm sure section 5 of the public order act covers them... :twisted:  :lol:  however its enforcing it that’s the problem! LOL  :lol:

I always try to stick by the 'rules', being in the same 'trade' as yourself, Boggert, but I do find telling people like that to 'S*d off, and stop wasting my time' very satisfying.
Mind you the usual response from them is  "I pay your wages". It is at this point I usually hand them 50p, informing them that that amount should cover their contribution for the day and would they mind calling someone who gives a damn.

So you've been to the fairground also known as Hedge End Retail Park :)

[Ja1983]

I`ve been served with a section 59 in Feb last year.. the reason:

my phone rang, so like a responsible person i pulled into a layby. within a few seconds, the police landrover that had just passed screeched in behind me, out jumped a snotty CSO, and insisted that i cannot enter the land known as mount skip (it does get used by 4x4`s and bikes, but too tight and steep for a pickup) and that i was been served with a notice whereby if i am caught doing anything as stupid in the near future i will have my vehicle crushed... i managed to get a word in edgeways, and simmered the level of conversation down to a slightly more even level, I asked if she knew where i could use my 4x4 lawfully, seen as tho the subject had been raised.. i am still waiting for the letter she promised she would send me  

yes, the layby was the entrance to this area (no barriers, warning signs, or anything to suggest it was anything other than for example a picnic spot or as i had deemed it a safe and reasonable place to answer a phonecall) and yes i was in a 4x4 however, it seems the young lady was keen to make an impression, and experience tells me not to argue with a copper.. but i was mad!

what are the long term implecations of this?

if me and the truck end up somewhere we shouldnt be ...through no intent or purpose other than shear bad luck... will i have to walk home? this seems ridiculous!

..looking forward to a reply!

[PS, SWMBO is looking to join the force soon, so I`m not a cop hater] )

[drmike]

Presumably at the time you could have taken it up with the local inspector or whatever it is because I'm sure we were assured that a section 59 order would have to go through channels to be approved? Or am I getting muddled?

Mike

[Boggert]

Boggert
So a couple of the little Peugot owning scrotts around here think it is fun to wheel spin up and down our street, showing off to their mates in the Kebab Shop.
Being as the nearest copper is normally 15 miles away from here, when I call it in to Police Control 90 miles away,quoting the reg no, can I report it as a Section 59 violation as it is causing me "distress, alarm or annoyance"?

In a word YES!  :lol: and when you do make sure you mention Section 59 causung Distress alarm and annoyance when you call it in! It will get their attention then a Police officer or community officer can issue a section 59 notice retrospectively once they have a statement from you.

In my area we has a real issue with this so put an operation together, now all the boy and girl racers have a 59 and some have had their cars removed from them! it costs £117 to get it back next day. After word got around they slowed down. :lol:

[Boggert]

I`ve been served with a section 59 in Feb last year.. the reason:

my phone rang, so like a responsible person i pulled into a layby. within a few seconds, the police landrover that had just passed screeched in behind me, out jumped a snotty CSO, and insisted that i cannot enter the land known as mount skip (it does get used by 4x4`s and bikes, but too tight and steep for a pickup) and that i was been served with a notice whereby if i am caught doing anything as stupid in the near future i will have my vehicle crushed... i managed to get a word in edgeways, and simmered the level of conversation down to a slightly more even level, I asked if she knew where i could use my 4x4 lawfully, seen as tho the subject had been raised.. i am still waiting for the letter she promised she would send me  

yes, the layby was the entrance to this area (no barriers, warning signs, or anything to suggest it was anything other than for example a picnic spot or as i had deemed it a safe and reasonable place to answer a phonecall) and yes i was in a 4x4 however, it seems the young lady was keen to make an impression, and experience tells me not to argue with a copper.. but i was mad!

what are the long term implecations of this?

if me and the truck end up somewhere we shouldnt be ...through no intent or purpose other than shear bad luck... will i have to walk home? this seems ridiculous!

..looking forward to a reply!

[PS, SWMBO is looking to join the force soon, so I`m not a cop hater] )

PM'd you

[drmike]

As a matter of interest what should you do if a section 59 is issued in what seems unreasonable circumstances? I assume that you can take it up with a senior officer - what would the procedure be?

Is a Section 59 some form of caution or fixed penalty? Ie something you have to agree to in order to avoid court procedings.

Mike

[Boggert]

I would speak to a solicitor and take it up with their inspector... But before you do make sure you were in the right.

There is no caution or FPN with the section 59 its simply a warning marker that sits on the vehicle and driver for one year.

Also like Lord Shagg-Pyle said don't gob off or you might get nicked for a public order offence!  :shock:  The last guy that told me "I pay your wages only got 1p refund from me"  :lol:

[drmike]

Well it's fair to say I'm not impressed. It sounds a lot like a shirty police officer can issue a section 59, is judge and jury, the 59 stays on you and the vehicle for a year and you have no recourse to oversight unless you engage a solicitor and prove your (assumed) innocence!

I'm not having a go at you or your fellow officers just wondering how the hell we allowed our politicians to enact these draconian laws. Quite possibly we get laws like this because the politicians are too lazy to actually enact sensible and enforcable laws and provide resources for swift effective justice.

Of course a law like this is only a danger to law breakers which the above guy making the phone call clearly was.

Mike

[dazzawhipple]

How can we (Joe Public) see that a car just purchased has a S59 on it??????

[Lord Shagg-Pyle]

I would have to agree that S59 does seem like a draconian bit of law, but so many of these Acts are. Believe me, I sometimes have to wrestle deeply with my conscience when doing my job.
It would appear that there the Act is open to 'interpretation', by all legal parties involved.
The very few times that I have used S59, I have always tried to find out alternative places for people to go first. The prime example would be the lads who gather with their cars. I mean, be honest, haven't we all done that at some part of our lives?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of David 'Hug a Hoody' Cameron, but if they are in an area where people are living, sleeping etc then yes, warn and if ignored hit in with a S59 notice, but if they are on a car park or industrial estate miles from habitation, whats the problem?
In response to drmike's post, most laws in this country are kneejerk reactions e.g the Dangerous Dogs act.
I had never heard of a Japanese Toza fighting dog until that law was passed.
It didn't stop irresponsible people getting hold of dogs totally unsuited to them, which then became dangerous.
In relation to finding out if there is a S59 in force on your car; I'm sure that this must be accesible under the Data Protection/Disclosure rules. I'll see what I can find out.

I dare say I will get some adverse comments come back, but hey, ces't la vie!

[Bob696]

OK I wasnt going to post again but I need to ask something

It will get their attention then a Police officer or community officer can issue a section 59 notice retrospectively once they have a statement from you.

Lets say a rambler (spit) decides to tell a few fibs, makes a statement to the police and you get a S59. Its only a tag as you say so there is no recourse. It would however count as your warning so the next time there is a supposed transgression you are stuffed.

What happens if another rambler makes a statement resulting in another instance of a s59?

[drmike]

I'm with Bob - that's quite a feasible scenario.

I feel for our two local bobbies though, they must feel we are getting at them when we aren't. We appreciate their explaining how to deal with these situations.

As was said recent law seems to be fatuous knee jerk stuff that as often as not can't be enforced and fails to solve the problem. There seems to be lots of perfectly good laws that could be applied if the resources were there and dumb ass 'targets' were removed.

I suspect we should all be writing to our MP once again.

But do any of us believe that the next lot will be better than this lot? I don't. If I were 40 years younger I'd be bloody worried about the way things are going in this country.

Mike

[Boggert]

Oh god why did I post this... LOL  :lol:

Ok a Rambler... :shock:  can do this however they would need to back it up with other evidence so like Llanigraham said he has had a continuing problem that hads been documented with the local force this could be done retrospectively as it is ASB (anti social behaviour)... Other than that it would need to be witnessed by a PCSO or Police officer. So some ranting rambler does not mean you will get a S59.

Just be careful when you are out there.

[Lord Shagg-Pyle]

Oh god why did I post this... LOL  :lol:

Ok a Rambler... :shock:  can do this however they would need to back it up with other evidence so like Llanigraham said he has had a continuing problem that hads been documented with the local force this could be done retrospectively as it is ASB (anti social behaviour)... Other than that it would need to be witnessed by a PCSO or Police officer. So some ranting rambler does not mean you will get a S59.

Just be careful when you are out there.

As you sow, so shall ye reap, Boggert me old matey! :D

I had a similar issue with the Hunting with Dogs Farce, sorry, Act. I was expected to take the words of a group of Hunt Sabs as gospel after the Act came into farce, sorry there I go again, force, when the week before we had been nabbing them for aggravated trespass and threatening behaviour. Would they be reliable witnesses?
It's all confusing, and I am glad now that I have decided to 'drive a desk' for a few years.

[Boggert]

Oh god why did I post this... LOL  :lol:

Ok a Rambler... :shock:  can do this however they would need to back it up with other evidence so like Llanigraham said he has had a continuing problem that hads been documented with the local force this could be done retrospectively as it is ASB (anti social behaviour)... Other than that it would need to be witnessed by a PCSO or Police officer. So some ranting rambler does not mean you will get a S59.

Just be careful when you are out there.

As you sow, so shall ye reap, Boggert me old matey! :D

I had a similar issue with the Hunting with Dogs Farce, sorry, Act. I was expected to take the words of a group of Hunt Sabs as gospel after the Act came into farce, sorry there I go again, force, when the week before we had been nabbing them for aggravated trespass and threatening behaviour. Would they be reliable witnesses?
It's all confusing, and I am glad now that I have decided to 'drive a desk' for a few years.

LOL I know how you feel, they cause more trouble than the hunts... which are impossible to police unless you have a fleet of 4x4's and even then it would be hard.
The only good thing is the fines for Hare Coursing are harder, plus we use the Section 59 to great affect, then the diesel thefts and other rural crimes seem to drop as well.  :lol: Hmmmm I wonder why!  :lol:

[wildsmith]

If I'm driving along what I believe is still a carriageway without extinguished rights and a Police Officer issues me with a fixed penalty notice, what do I have to do to get my day in court? Am I being cautioned and should refuse to accept the caution, or do I get something in the post and can tick the 'I want my day in court' box? (assume I already had a s56 warning)

Am I under any obligation to assist the officer in the removal of my vehicle should that prove to be the route they take? Curious because the size of low loader needed to recover my vehicle may not fit (especially with a vehicle on it) down a lot of the country roads leading to/from the places this might happen.

It seems like this legislation gives officers useful powers for dealing with genuinely anti-social/dangerous behaviour but it's open to serious misuse.

Best regards,
Jon.

[jalopy joe]

The police force of this free democracy mis-using their powers against law abiding citizens, surely not :roll:  :roll: