I think there was a thread about this a little time ago but I can't find it! The son of a friend was sent a ticket stating he had been driving recklessly (or similar) spinning his wheels and generally driving in an antisocial manner. Apparently it wasn't him but he has a bright orange car and had just parked outside his brothers when another car (dark) took off. Someone must have heard the noise looked out, assumed it was the orange car and reported it. Now it seems that there is no way of appealing against this and if you get 2 tickets they will take your car. Does anyone on here know any different? Seems like an easy way to get even with an annoying neighbour, just get a couple of people to report them and bobs your uncle!
SECTION 59
Vehicles used in a 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 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.
None of that post really helps to be honest, as far as I can see.
The end result is "yes the police have free reign to warn you with no evidence whatsoever" and two in a row means you lose your car.
I've no idea how any law can be enforced if a police officer is not present at the time - otherwise I could just complain multiple times about
anyone in my neighbourhood who cheeses me off.
Consult a lawyer
Ask for evidence
Don't take it lying down
Whining won't help
Action will
quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
None of that post really helps to be honest, as far as I can see.
The end result is "yes the police have free reign to warn you with no evidence whatsoever" and two in a row means you lose your car.
I've no idea how any law can be enforced if a police officer is not present at the time - otherwise I could just complain multiple times about anyone in my neighbourhood who cheeses me off.
The Sec 59 stinks. Last summer the plod confiscated five cars belonging to a bunch of youths who used to park up in the local station car park. The
same few cars and the same few kids. They sometimes had a bit of music on but as its no a residential area, and next to a noisy station and nightclub,
music wasn't an issue. Every tuesday evening is 'biker night' at the station cafe and a few of these bikes made a bit of a noise when
they left. The plod turned-up and quoted section 59 and took the cars! The kids pointed out the cctv cameras and protested their innocense but got
accused of 'getting lippy'.
So, well done plod, you've cost these kids a lot of cash but more importantly, made them hate the police, much like you did when I was a teen!
PArt of the problem is the people arguing the case are not lawyers and have no idea of the law:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/24719
If someone put together a sensible one I'm fairly sure the many car forums would nail 100K signatures.
quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
PArt of the problem is the people arguing the case are not lawyers and have no idea of the law:
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/24719
If someone put together a sensible one I'm fairly sure the many car forums would nail 100K signatures.
Mate a mine got done under this the other day driving home from work. He said he was getting frustrated behind slow drivers in the fast lane (dual carriageway) and driving too close - though he didn't undertake apparently. I know he was quite shocked when they told him they could take his car next time - mind you it's only worth scrap!
i cant see how you can get done without ANY evidence - your word against theirs.
By the look of it this could get you done while you're at home in bed while the car is garaged
That is what seems to be the problem, in this case there is no need for evidence just purely that one or two people reported what they thought had happened, I think it was about 10.30 at night , dark coloured car driving off verses bright orange car arriving, why you would spin your wheels coming to a stop is not considered. The lads dad recons the car is so gutless that its impossible to do it anyway!
we live in a fee country with a law that has no appeal (yer that work!!!!!!!), how can the police issue a kind of ticket that has no appeal system, it does make a joke of the police, and i think it is only a matter of time before a section 59 is issued to the wrong person and all hell will break loose when its challenged in some court with a good legal team, it seems to be in place just to turn everyone against the police, i know if i was issued with one i would fight it as far as i could afford, i would get the papers in on it and everything, its a dictatorship type of law, that has no place in a democratic legal system, with a section 59 YOU ARE GUILTY even if you didn't do anything or if you weren't even at the place in the vehicle in question, you are guilty cos the copper says so.
quote:
we live in a fee country with a law that has no appeal (yer that work!!!!!!!), how can the police issue a kind of ticket that has no appeal system, it does make a joke of the police,