myblackwrx

iTrader: (1)

I don't know if anybody had heard of this (i didn't until last Sunday whoops) but one of mates nearly got 1 for having a noisey exhaust (HKS Hi power decatted system which is fairly loud ) on his impreza.

He does night shift and left work on Thursday (midnight),went into Asda (Poole) and was followed out by a copper, who stopped him and said he didn't like the amount of noise his exhaust was making.
Thankfully he only got a warning but was told if he was caught driving the car again with that exhaust he would get a section 59.

It seems that the opinion of the police is now becoming law.


http://www.glass-uk.org/index.php?op...267&Itemid=492


The Legislation:
Section 59 Police Reform Act 2002 states that -
Where an officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used in a manner which contravenes Road Traffic Act Section 3 (Careless Driving) OR Section 34 (Driving elsewhere than on a road) AND also the manner of use of the vehicle is causing or has been causing or is likely to cause, alarm distress or annoyance to members of the public, Section 59 can be used to:-

initially give a written warning (valid for twelve months)
(commonly called a Section 59 Notice)

and on a subsequent occasion to seize the vehicle.
(it will probably end up in the crusher, or may be ransomed back to the owner)

A constable in uniform has the power to order the person driving to stop the vehicle, to seize and remove the vehicle, to enter any premises on which the officer has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be and to use reasonable force. Seizure can made only if a warning has been given, or believed to have been given, or if a warning is clearly being ignored.

So, usually it's a two-stage process - a warning or notice first, seizure if you persist or repeat.


http://www.glass-uk.org/index.php?op...223&Itemid=444


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

( 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;

( power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;

© power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (, 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 ©.



(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

( 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;

( 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;

© 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)© 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

( 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;

( 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;

© 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

( 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

( in relation to Wales, means the council of a county or county borough;


"motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in section 59.

Suresh

FWIW the Dutch police have also started clamping down heavily on anti-social and illegally 'pimped rides'. Avoiding attention in the first place is my game plan. And I'm an old git with kids anyway, so I don't need a pimped ride.

White ST

iTrader: (1)

If you think thats harsh try comeing up to Notts on a sunday nite and you can get 1 for just parkin up watchin other cars
they have also started to crack down on moe than 4 cars (modded) as it intimedates other road users

billythekid

I think its a law that was brought in for good reason but is often used in either an unfair manner or disproportionatly. Its a bit like CPSOs, at the time when they were brought in they were only to be used for community policing, yet within 3 years they are being used for all sorts and it wont be long before you see a fully kitted up CPSO driving a traffic car! All IMHO - sorry to any CPSOs on here, its the only example I could think of right now..

sandyRS16i

iTrader: (13)

this has been happening in the Inverness area for years, the Northern Constabulaty issue fixed £30 fines for anyone with a 'non-standard' exhaust, thats anyone with a scooby, saxo, corsa anything. they even give them for Evos with the factory HKS item and Scoobs with PPP or STI exhausts. they use the road traffic act trying to sight section 54 iirc which refers to the modification or alteration of exhaust to make more noise or divert gas flow. they also have mickey mouse non home office approved sound equipment etc. I have been issued 3 of these fines and they have all been thrown out by court due to insufficient evidence and incorrect police procedures.

but this is something all the forces are trying to clamp down on tho, the claims are that any exhaust louder than standard OE is illegal, problem is that most coppers dont know wht is and isnt OE on most cars

this just seems like other forces have started looking into this and deciding what to do. i agree it can be a nuisence for residents, so perhaps this will be good in towns etc at night......but i got all of mine on dual carrigeways during the middle of the day

PeteBrant

I can see the reasoning behind the law, but I do have issues with legislation that involves opinion and not fact.

Obviously the acceptable noise level of an exhaust is going to vary based on the surrounding accoustics/ Police officers ears/ Whether said police officer got a bunk up the previous night.


You could get nicked in one town and let off in another. Not really fair, is it.

myblackwrx

iTrader: (1)

That's my issue that it's opinion not actual law (the bunk up bit did make me ) after all my mate has had the same job (always been night shift)for about 2 years and the car for nearly a year with the exhaust.

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Hmm believed to have been given now that is the big question isn't it, so it is left to the copper to decide what he thinks, if he thinks you have been warned then bye bye car, and if it turns out that you have not been given a warning previously will they return your car to you with an apology for any inconvenience caused ????

I don't think so!!!

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

They are doing it around here. Heaven forbid you drive into town on a weekend in anything other than the most eco friendly type of car. Anything with spoilers, or exhaust, or lowered, or loud stereo is IMPOUNDED after supposedly one warning. If you have more than 2 of the above things to your car, its gone right there and then, as they have "reason to believe that you will have been warned about your car elsewhere at some other point"

The police were moaning in the paper that they could not impound the cars for life...

StickyMicky

yup got one a few weeks back because some off duty copper made a statement that i had done some "crazy things" while on my way into work

myblackwrx

iTrader: (1)

Now you have it hanging over your head for a year because of someones' opinion

lpski1

I wish they would apply this law to the ***** near me that has a major hole in one of his exhaust boxes, he thinks its a sports exhaust and thinks to drive it like a sports car is cool. Is it worth reporting to the Police or slashing all four tyres with a polite note to get it fixed ?

what would scooby do

lpski1

pointless asking really.

Leslie

They will bring that kind of section in to apply to people eventually if they get the chance. Only to be applied to middle england and to normally law abiding people!

Les

HokerrokitSex

Hi people in your event i advise this preparations mometasone latanoprost betadine trazodone effexor ortho evra oxazepam zelnorm cozaar cheap phentermine proventil epivir misoprostol rabeprazole tamoxifen ... I they helped in a moment when I faced such problem

jods

HokerrokitSex is 1 away from Instant Ban

finalzero

I got done for this when I had my scooby, got £30 fine but it really is at their discretion.

Remember something, the law was designed to serve those within the legal profession - we are being dictated to plain and simple now folks and its amazing the level of hypocracy going on.

I can understand if someone has a loud exhaust and deliberately revs his/her car creating noise polution but the funny thing is, these people tend to be rep mobiles or idiots in flash motors!

reedy6712

listen its 2009 now the bizzys daint need to prove anything now they can do what they want its a police state now this is just the start of it loosing your cars nowt compared to whats coming wait till you start going to jail for things that havent even happened you get iz.

psigeek

iTrader: (17)

Say. Again. Please.

Boro

iTrader: (1)

Been here before, this law was meant to be for the idiots on mini-motos driving around on wasteground etc. But as usual, the law gets passed for one reason, then the cops start using it for another.

Anyway, this is the important bit:-

(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

( is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public)

So, my question would be.

What exactly did i do that contravened section 3 or 34 of the RTA officer?

Edit: Section 3 of the RTA looks like this

Section 34 of RTA is here >>> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988...#pt1-pb8-l1g34

Blatantly, you have to either have been driving your car without due care and attention or not give reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or driving off-road.

Print it off and next time, ask him to read it, then shove it up his own ar$e!!

Bonehead

The thing is your mate has only been given a verbal warning that he MAY get a sct 59 notice.
The sct 59 notice is only issued with regards to the manner of driving. I would think that plod were trying scare tactics or your mate may have been driving in a manner that needed some kind of calming down.

As for these warnings being issued because someone from the plod FEELS someone deserves one then you need to remember that ultimatley the plod need to be able to justify in front of a court of law why they have acted in a certain manner.
Despite the paranoier shown by some on here you can question these warnings and they can be revoked should plod be seen to have acted unlawfully

If the police officer wanted to do something about your mates exhaust then mentioning sct 59 warnings is not the way he should be dealing with it.
If it's all legit then your mate has nothing to worry about and maybe the cop only talked to him cause he was bored and lonely!

Boro

iTrader: (1)

I'd question that, ive been told they cant be appealed against. I know there are some police here, so maybe they can officially clear that up.

Si_Cosis

I know this is an old thread,

I got approached by a plastic copper (community support officer) today and got told that someone had complained that my girlfriend had been speeding while taking the kids to school of a morning in my car. Then he said if it happened again he would seize my car under section 59? wtf? How the hell can he even say that unless she had got caught speeding on a camera? Not just some member of the public accusing her of speeding. I might be being dumb here, but I thought for speeding you got a speeding ticket? Not your car seized. Am I going mad?

Felix.

I don't think he can. If they can say it was being used in an anti-social manner and have a witness to it, then maybe. But speeding can not be judged by a member of the public it has to be a measured thing

Xx-IAN-xX

Ask him to accompany you to the police station and repeat his warning to you in front of his boss

SunnySideUp

Well, I think it's a good thing clamping down on kiddies with loud exhausts.

Everyone has the right for their peace and quiet not to be disturbed .... fine them first, ban them next and crush their cars

Little, quiet, exhausts please!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I've got a Ninja Backbox ... but it's as quiet as a church mouse

hodgy0_2

i though so too, and was shown to be wrong on a thread some time ago

"in the opinion of the police officer" is enough for a magistrate to convict you of speading/dangerous driving

GC8

Complain about them. Its only through people complaining about fools like this that theyre weeded out.

billythekid

2 things to be aware of.

1) He cant do a s.59, he does not have the power (unless there is a bylaw but I dont know of any). However, if the next time it was an actual PC then it might well happen. You get 1 warning. It lasts 12 months and will go on file. Second time there is no warning and car will be gone. Not chest poking here - just giving you the facts.

2) Quite a few forces down south have now started to acquire noise meters. The general rule of thubm is 89dB, if its over this quesions might be asked. Before you start to panic, there is no actual noise limit for normal cars - so the actual sound level is not the problem. But what they will then do is have a good poke around and use the construction and use laws to pot you for non standard exhaust or do an emissions test (if VOSA are there) and check if you have a CAT etc etc.

Again, not chest poking - just passing on the good (lol) news.

Will enjoy being stopped with my weekend car... 104dB last time out at Oulton...