section 59
 

Hi guys
I wonder if anyone could help me out, i was stopped last week by old bill,

He had seen me pull out quickly from my mates tyre garage and followed me up the road, where he put his blues on and stopped me got out and proceeded to bollock me

He said in his opinion i was speeding, my exhaust was very loud, and i showed no care to other road users

In his words if you drive like an idiot i will treat you like one, he checked the car over, and found nothing wrong except the noisey exhaust, the same one that passed the mot last week

Then he issued me with a section 59, and said if i was stopped within a year doing the same sort of offence, they would take my car

can they do this ?

Forgot to add i am in my mid 40s so not your average boy racer:p

Seriously thinking of selling the car now, as i have this hanging over me

thanks in advance

is the exhaust silly loud?

Hi mate
yes it is very loud, but it has been on the car since i have owned it, 2 yrs now, passed the mot last week, day before i was stopped, i thought it was mot testers own opinion on noise level

I know there is a law on motorbikes noise level, is there one for cars aswell then

found on another thread on here but may shed some light for you .......

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


Green Lane Association Ltd. - Section 59 Vehicle Seizures


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.


Green Lane Association Ltd. - Police Reform Act notes


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.

Night mare that Mate !! They can take it off you and it will cost about £150 to get it back form th epound, they would also add fees for every day it's with them - kind are'nt they.

They can take it :razz:for all sorts, too dark tints, noisy, manner of driving - but you must have been warned first - as you have been - I googled the info when my Niece's boyfriend got impounded, following a bit of spirited driving - it seems to be a cover all "get you" even if your'e not exactly being done for anything, they would obviously have to check the decibels of your system if they were going to pursue you in court for the exhaust:brickwall too much work for the average cop - it's more likely to be his opinion of you and the loudness, as it would appear to be in the hands of the Cop dealing and how he feels at the time :Whatever_


Didn't see that previous post - Nice one ;)

i would appeal the notice though a short (thinking of your costs) letter from your solicitor to the issuing police station,
maybe the man at the top would give the ****wit plod a slap on the rist and you have the notice thrown out,

in the letter explain your not a "boy racer" and the fact it passed the mot and you have no intention of "distressing the public" etc etc etc :D got to be worth a try...

I'm sure there was something about this issue on the general section a couple of months back - they took the boy's car (as mentioned above) as the Cop didn't believe he had insurance - even though it was confirmed over the airwaves by the insurance company ???? he wasn't done for any driving offences either, even though that was why he was spoken to in the first place........

Thanks for the input guys
Looks like they have covered every thing then , think i may change my exhaust, and drive like a vicar for a year then :(

Lets be honest who beats the police and courts.

well in a way i did fella,

i was charged with Death by dangerous driving when i aquaplained at 70mph and hit a lamp post killing my mate instantly.
the police said my 2 rear tyres were 1.4 and 1.3 so nder the legal limit and thats what caused the crash and the death of my mate,
i thought for a year that i was gunna be found guilty as how can you argue that,
luckly both my tyre expert AND the polices expert both said that it wasnt the fact the tyres were under the legal limit but the fact that the front tyres were better than the rear causeing the way the water expleled away from the car to make me spin,

i was found not guilty withing 20mins from all 12 of the jury.

i could have just said guilty at the start but even before knowing the above i didnt belive the police when they said my tyres were so low and wanted my own expert look at them (which his readings were that i had more tread but one still under the limit in "some" areas.

ok i had a lot more to lose than you but you see my point