My car has been confiscated!!

[MikeFish]

Well, thought I'd do the wife and a favour this afternoon and pop to the shops to pick some bits up for her. I ended up getting pulled over for driving too fast on a dual carriageway on the way back.
Anyway, the lovely boy in blue said he had no evidence so was just going to give me a little telling off. Then he radioed through to check my car and details and lo and behold my Section 59 pops ups. He then had no choice other than confiscate my car! So my car is now impounded and I couldn't get it out tonight as they were closed so best I can do is go get it tomorrow. I have 7 days to collect otehwise it gets crushed, although he did say they don't normally crush cars of any value, its the ones that cost more than the £20 a day storage charge that get crushed as no-one will pay for them to get released after a weeks worth of charges.

Instead of leaving me in the middle of nowhere, he did drive me the 12 miles home and brought my shopping back too which was very nice of him.

So let that be a lesson to you all, slow down!

[ArthurPE]

what's a section 59

btw, that sucks

[Noyjatat]

Sorry to hear that you had the car took off you buddy.

+1 what's a 59?

[lofty]

what's a section 59

btw, that sucks

Its a piece of <beep> legislation that was brought in to stop chavs in Corsa' s doing donuts in Mc Donald's carparks, it was brought in for the right reasons, but has now given the police the right to be judge, jury and executioner. Its a total misuse of power IMHO.
Where you driving in a manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance, I doubt it.

[ArthurPE]

New laws in respect of certain anti social driving offences can now be dealt with by Section 59 of the Police Reform Act.

Basically what that means is if you are seen:
• Driving in a careless or inconsiderate manner
• Driving on common land, a footpath or bridle way or any land which is not part of a road
• Driving in a manner which is causing/has been causing, or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public.

Then a Section 59 warning can be issued to you. This warning is placed against both the driver and the vehicle and lasts for 12 months.

If the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle with the warning issued to it is then seen driving in any of those conditions again in the next 12 months the vehicle can be seized and, if not collected after paying for recovery and storage costs, it will be crushed. Please note that this relates to either the driver with the Section 59 or the vehicle.

[MikeFish]

I was speeding, and as usual there were people in the outside lane just doodling, so when they saw me coming up they moved back into the left hand lane. The police saw this as me causing the other drivers distress. No doubt i was going too fast so can't really complain.
As lofty says, Section 59 was designed for the police to have powers to stop the youngster wheel spinning, racing etc or just causing a gneral nuisance under the heading of 'causing distress to other road users'. It carries no points or fine, it's just a warning that stays with you and your car for 1 year. If you, or anybody else driving your car, is stopped for a similar 'causing distress' offienc within the year then they can confiscate your car. The idea being that the warning should stop the kids driving like that cos £100 odd pounds to recover the car is a lot of money when you are young. I picked up the warning for driving on the inside lane, whilst other people were driving on the outside lane slower than me (I wasn't undertaking, just driving on the inside lane).

On the upside, I know my Tracker works as I received a call just after I got home from Tracker saying they have deteced an authorised movement of my car. They must have locked it once it was on the flatbed and then set the alarm off I'm guessing (with movement or whatever it is that sets the Tracker off as alarm activation alone won't).

[MikeFish]

New laws in respect of certain anti social driving offences can now be dealt with by Section 59 of the Police Reform Act.

Basically what that means is if you are seen:
• Driving in a careless or inconsiderate manner
• Driving on common land, a footpath or bridle way or any land which is not part of a road
• Driving in a manner which is causing/has been causing, or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public.

Then a Section 59 warning can be issued to you. This warning is placed against both the driver and the vehicle and lasts for 12 months.

If the driver of the vehicle or the vehicle with the warning issued to it is then seen driving in any of those conditions again in the next 12 months the vehicle can be seized and, if not collected after paying for recovery and storage costs, it will be crushed. Please note that this relates to either the driver with the Section 59 or the vehicle.

That's the one Arthur! On either occassion they couldn't prove i was speeding or doing anything that would be considered dangerous driving etc and in fact I would have got no more than a slapped wrist today had I not already had the Section 59.

[lofty]

There was a case on Pistonheads a while back and a solicitor on there was very vocal about this law and how it should be repealed, he even said if the guy could drum up support he would work on a case for free.There is no form of appeal, no going to court, its a joke and has no place in the laws of its country, it really boils my piss when I read about it and I've never had so much as a parking ticket in my 28 years of driving, so I'm not anti police or anything like that, its just wrong.
Why didn't the cops stop the cars that were driving in the wrong lane, isn't that just as dangerous

[MikeFish]

I know, driving on the outside lane when not overtaking anyone is one of my bug bears and gets me into trouble!!
In fact i have grounds for an appeal as I seem to recall reading that a section 59 can only be issued by uniformed police but I was issued the warning by 2 plain clothes policemen in an unmakred car. I mentioed this earlie but he said he didn't think they had to be uniformed to issue this but either way it won't stop him confiscating the car but I'd have to appeal and could get my money back but ot be honest i just don't have time or the will to do this.
I don't know how I'm going to get my car back yet as they are only open from 10-5 tomorrow so means I will have to take half the day off to get there in time and there is no train station local so either need to drive another car there and leave it car parked close by until I can get a lift to pick it up or getting a cab there (it's about 14 miles away from me, the joys of living in the sticks).

[sonny]

Expensive pint of milk, <beep> like this always happens when you pop to the shops, gutted to hear this Mike, crap you dont need.

Its a bit excessive, from what I understand the S59 is there to give the Police extra powers if need be, but if he was going to let you off then he should have just waved it and let the car go, surly they have to judge the situation and make a decision.

[bam_bam]

What if you'd refused to get out of your car and performed a lock-in? Did they ask if you understood their wording and the actions that were to take place, could you plead ignorance and defer to PACE? There must've been a point within the verbal warning that you could defer to PACE, I still think a lock-in would be interesting. You'd not be under arrest and they have no legal right to detain you but they cannot move your car with you in it. It would cause the very same ballache that a defer to PACE would cause (with the coppers rolling eyes and wishing they'd never pulled you).
You were close by asking about other road users but you need to be direct and ask as to why they targeted you in particular, they HAVE to explain themselves, keep asking, and when they answer, tell them to record both your question AND their answer as a contemporaneous note within their duty notebook. You query everything and you make sure they record your question and the answer, if you got a notebook, do the same. You can also use a camera phone or voice record.

I know you've said you accept responsibility BUT these guys are there to do a job, if they're not following the correct procedure, laws or rules, then they're not being professional, nor are your rights protected, those rights are there to protect you... and guess who pays their wage? the taxpayer,and if you're paying for something/someone, you expect professionalism and compliance.
I must go and find the Pheader thread...

[adsgreen]

Nice to know they know the rules...

Section 59 can ONlY be issued/enforced by a uniformed officer.
No exceptions. Granted, what they could have done is simply ring for a uniformed officer who under section 59 section 2 can issue one if he has reasonable belief an offence has been committed (a non uniformed officer would carry some weight here).
However it is clear that the relevant procedure have not been followed and the officer was not in a position to issue the section 59 and especially confiscate the car.

In full as the detail is important here:
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.

[adsgreen]

The other part is careless driving - you have to cause alarm and distress AND be guilty of careless driving.
Not just causing alarm.

[adsgreen]

Now there technics isn't an appeal process for a s59 but doesn't mean you can't bitch about it.
I'd write a letter detailing the situation (don't incriminate yourself though) and make te point that you find it very worrying that two officers do not have the relevant knowledge on traffic legislation they are enforcing and contravening the police process an procedures.
Worth a call to a solicitor too...

[lofty]

Sounds like you have grounds for an appeal, trouble is, as already mentioned you can't appeal against these.All you can do is write a letter to the Chief Constable and hope he sees sense.It won't help you in the short term i.e getting your car back, but it may help you to get your money back, and the cops might get a lesson in the law, they may not be as keen to dish out these out in the future if they get a bollocking.Its a really slippery slip we are on when the police do not need any evidence, or proof of an offence being committed to 'prosecute'.I'm not one for kicking up a fuss and prefer the quiet life, but if received one of these I'd be livid, I'd be ringing my local MP, police commissier etc.