Right ill post my letter, Maybe you will see in the letter that i shouldnt have had this Section 59 placed on me. Previous ones were for 'speeding' where they couldnt prove it But they were Jan and April '06.

Here is the letter:-

Dear Madam,

Re: Warning Notice Section 59 Police Reform Act 2002

I was issued with a Notice at 20-48hrs on the 6th of Jan 2007 in the High Street, Rhyl by PC 1918 Evans.

According to his information my vehicle already had a notice recorded against it and my car was confiscated. I was told by the officer that the anti-social behaviour I had committed was driving in a careless and inconsiderate manner, Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988. The behaviour amounted to me driving my vehicle in the pedestrian area of Rhyl High Street near McDonalds. At the time there were no barriers preventing access to the high street and there were already a number of vehicles in the area parked or being driven. There was no obvious danger to any pedestrians, and if just driving into the area amounts to such, then the police officer is also liable. Police officers are allowed to contravene traffic regulations in certain circumstances; he is never allowed to drive carelessly or inconsiderately. If I did it, then so did he. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Whilst I was there waiting for my vehicle to be recovered I saw a considerable number of other vehicles driving (Carelessly and inconsiderately?) through the pedestrianised area and this included more than a dozen taxis. The only other vehicle I recall being stopped was a car best described as being a ‘boy-racer’ type coincidently my car is also of that appearance. Why do you think the officer did not feel it necessary to intervene to mitigate such obvious blatant and ongoing dangers to pedestrians?

I am concerned that I have not been dealt with fairly and as a consequence had my vehicle confiscated and incurred considerable expense in making an alternative travel arrangements and recovering the vehicle.

The Officer in my view deliberately targeted my vehicle because of its appearance and as such I believe a breach of my human rights has taken place. His action was discriminatory in that I was selected purely on age and appearance.

The freedom of information act allows me to obtain information about the number of people who were issued with such notices on the day in question at that location; also available to me are the CCTV images from the town centre which will show that ‘boy-racer’ type cars were selected for enforcement action whilst others were ignored.

The reason why my vehicle was confiscated was that in April 2006 I was given another Section 59 notice at the same time as being given a speeding ticket. I feel this double jeopardy is also discriminatory, and as far as I am aware motorists are not normally given a speeding ticket and a section 59 notice at the same time, if that is policy then I accept it, however it would mean everybody being caught speeding on a second occasion having their vehicle confiscated. I do not believe that this is the case.

The notice handed to me and completed by the officer was not completed correctly and I was not told where my vehicle was being taken to and accordingly incurred additional expense in establishing what had happened.

I make a formal request under the freedom of information act for the following information:-

• The number of people who have been issued with a speeding ticket and a section
59 notice at the same time in relation to the total number of people issued with
speeding tickets.

• The number of Section 59 notices that were issued for driving in the pedestrian controlled area of Rhyl High Street on 6th Jan 2007.

• A copy of the authority given to the officer while not on an emergency to enter a pedestrian controlled area and the grounds for doing so (if it is so inconsiderate or careless to drive in that area then how can the police officer do so without his illuminated police signs being displayed.).

I have been given the notice for Section 3. I have been advised that my behaviour on the evening does not amount to such behaviour. In fact section 3 specifically outlines what amounts to such behaviour, wheel spinning, skidding and handbrake turns etc. It does not include driving in a pedestrianized zone. I may not have committed an offence in relation to driving in a pedestrianized area, had all the signs been properly placed.

I do not accept that the grounds for the issue of this notice were appropriate in these circumstances. I believe the officer was aware that I had previously been given a Section 59 notice before he issued this one and that my vehicle would be confiscated if he issued it. I believe that officers are credited with points for the confiscation of vehicles and that influenced his decision making unfairly in these circumstances. I ask that I be compensated for the full cost of expenses incurred including the recovery of my vehicle and other additional expenses amounting to £110.

I further ask that this notice or record of anti-social driving be eliminated from your records.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Alexander