I took this from FiestaTurbo forums. Just thought id share it with you lot. I had my car taken off me last Saturday 6th Jan, heres what happened :-

I cant beleive what has just happened - had my car taken off me - section 59.

Driving down into town and i drive in past mcdonalds were there are about 13 cars parked go round the corner and a police officer waves me down.

"Did you know that this is a pedestreanised zone? Blah Blah!" So anyway he tells me that [ERRR] not suppose to drive down this area - which i was unaware of because people do it all the time - countless number of cars passed us whilst he had pulled me. So anyway because i got a section 59 last year - 1 in Jan and 1 in April and had my car taken off me, but now i have a new car. I was under the impression that section 59s are placed on the vehicle.

How can he take my car off me for driving into town which i thought i was allowed to? £105 to get my car back to. Discriminaton because im in a modified car....

I have now written a letter to the local Cheif Supt which I will post on here later, just want to see peoples views first...

 

Should of been more careful after you got the first section 59! Plus it might be better to write to the chief constable?

 

that's your side of the story yeah, which sounds a little shady anyway!

bet the other side of the story paints a clearer picture, they dont just take your car for no reason. what were the previous two 59's for?

 

All sounds above board to me.

And yes, its the Chief Constable you want to write to. Superintendants are a couple of steps down

 

It applies to ANY vehicle you are found to be driving:

Section 3.1.3 http://www.hampshire.police.uk/NR/rd...D9/0/28503.pdf

.

 

what is a 59 lol

i know a 69

 

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

 

69 you're shafted, you wish

59 you're shafted against your wishes.


.

 

So what you're saying is basically you got the other section 59's for "cruising" around town and causing a nuisance?

 

quality

 

No, not at all. I was dropping a friend off in town and there is a road that goes through a part of town which they open barriers after 5pm and everyone uses it. I didnt know you werent suppose to use it, neither does hardly anyone else in my area by the looks of it because there were about 15 cars parked outside mcdonalds which is just off the road.
I wasnt doing anything to cause nuisance nor was i 'cruising'.

 

It should be sign posted to say it is pedestrianised zone between certain hours.

 

Yes it does, but the signs are put in a really stupid place where you wouldnt notice them if you drive on to the road and even if you did notice them you would have to stop to read it all because there is like 3 or 4 signs in total and they are placed blindly on the corner going in so you wouldnt be able to stop to read them or a car would go into the back of you. I have mentioned this in my letter...

 

 

those other chavs were prob from www.midnightracing.co.uk

 

I hope you get a result .

 

 

yeah,you MAY have a case if they will give you the info you asked for,if it clearly shows discrimination etc then im all for it,i hate being singled out for the car you drive or how you look (although to a certain extent we all do it)and especially the way that police can treat people and get away with it sometimes.ive been pulled over before for overtaking.......legally!i got a lecture telling me i would have been home if i hadnt have done it,but it was COMPLETELY legal and if anything the police were VERY dangerous in following me,unfortunately they didnt expect me to know my rights and carry all my documents, so they couldnt even issue a producer.
if youre in the right go for it,hope it works out.

 

So the signs are there then.

might help if you go and read them, and if they say you have right to use the area in the time you were, get a photo and then they can go and swivel

 

dunno bout the case, but certainly a good well written letter.

good luck...

 

i believe the section 59s last for one year, so in theory you should have had the car confiscated last april, but yeah if your letter is correct then good luck. I believe police can only issue a fine rather than points for driving in a pedestrianised area, but not sure about handing a section 59 out for it. Have they been doing anymore recent inspections there?

i got one this year for overtaking an off duty police offer, he only spoke to me over the phone but said he was giving me one, i don't believe they actually have to hand you any paperwork either. Does anyone know this? Also can they issue one if they see you speeding when they are off duty. Does anyone know this?

 

Well they said to me that they were clamping down on it but judjing by the fact they never bothered to stp other people i highly doubt this and in my opinion he just said that to try and justify stopping me.

And last April i did have my car taken off me, i was speeding and an unmarked police car was behind me. But i hold my hands up for that and take it on the chin as it was my fault and i deserved what I got, but this time i didnt deserve it

 

I have read them but thats besides the point really, whats the use in putting a sign up where the drivers wont see it and have enough time to read it all before he goes on to the road in mention? Its not about the fact that if i did something wrong or not because i did. The thing I am pissed off about is the harshness,unfairness and discriminaion.

 

ah so from the looks of it they don't cancel the previous even if you have your car confiscated until one year has expired. Would be interested to see if they can issue a speeding ticket and a section 59 like you said you got. Keep this thread updated, good luck

OK you obviously should not of been in there, so leave that fact out. But if you can get the other info to see if they have targeted you on purpose that would be interested.

 

thanks , will do

 

good luck mate, well written letter, but I would seek some legal advice as well as the fuckers will try everything to do you, cos they are a bunch of lazy can't-catch-real-criminal-CUNTS

 

If they can prove you committed an offence for which they gave you a section 59 then your letter is wasted time, in all honesty. You could say ''so were other people'' but that's about as good as stabbing somebody in the street and saying ''well officer, I've seen other people being stabbed too''...

Somebody took the trouble to produce and position signs so that the public were made aware of where they were not to drive. The idea you had to stop to read a sign is neither here nor there. Most parking signs you have to stop to read, they are usually in tiny font too.

rssteve, you are right, warnings last for 12 months from the date of the previous one.

Section 59

''(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-

(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. ''

Doesn't have to be the same vehicle.

 

if you really feel that you have been that badly treated and also that the road is that poorly sign posted you should contact the local paper.

In all honesty the Chief Constable is incredibly unlikely to overturn one of his officers decission.

By the sounds of what katie wrote they officer was with in his powers to confiscate the car.

 

get legal advice aswell as YOUR OWN CCTV of the area with cars using that road and police driving though it too

pedestian zones are a non criminal offence meaning that the councils wardens enforce them as a footway offence,,,, its almost like parking on a pavement,,,, unless they cause a obstruction that a double pram can not pass or on a corner they cant issue that offence im afraid

the section 59 is just another fine to claim,,,, same as the stop and search they use all the time when they wanna be racist or the anti terroist laws

the thing is they are set as GUIDE LINES,,,,, that means with legal help if its proved the offence IS a little off for the idea of the offence ( as in me having a tug at the side of the road under the anti terrorism act when in actual fact they then search the car for drugs/check insurance ect and have no thought in there mind or reason to belive im a terrorist cause im 19 driving a erst on 20 inch spinners ect THEN you have a case against them

the DOWN SIDE is they wont do SHITE unless you get legal help

when my cossie was nicked i found out they wasnt gonna investigate it as theres "more important crimes" and so i said theres a 3 hour time gap when it was nicked,,, theres cctv,,,,, FUCKING LOOK AT IT OR FUCKING LET ME"
they said theres NO chance,,,,, i asked about getting legal advice and the SNOTTTY PRICK said,,, you waste your time as its HIGHLY unlikey you will get the cctv with legal letters,,,,, so save your money mate and understand why we have to take things into consideration


anyway after that call BEFORE i went to a solictor i logged a complaint over the phone to the super,,,,,, he called me back 3 hours later SAYING hes read the complaint and tell me where the camera is and ill got our team to check it,,,,,,, i said in wanted a few tapes and he got funny and played the fucking rule book to the limit,,,,,, so he only done what he was fucking ment to do and FUCK ALL ELSE,,,, no going the extra mile for me just doing what hes ment to

oh and the cctv was owned by the local council and it was the council who told me the old bill aint bothered getting to them to check the cctv,,, even though i gave the "investigating officer" the guys name and number and ALL he needed was a letter faxed asking him for the infomation,,,,, he didnt have to fucking look at it

WHICH IS FUCKING ANOYING AS THEY WASNT EVEN GONNA DO THAT !!!!

the police can fuck right off after that,,,,, infact if i seen a local copper get a slap i wouldnt even stop to stare these days !!!!

 

LOL i take it your studying Law Katie

 

HOW could you tell?!

I trust you are keeping well Mr?

 

Any body which is wholly or partly constituted by appointment made by the Crown, by a Minister of the Crown, by a government department or by the National Assembly for Wales is exempt from the freedom of information act.... The police are one such example

Why do you think that the police can not legally state where sex offenders are living ?? --- they are exempt from this law.

 

No, the Police are public servants, myself who works for the Crown is a Cival Servant.

My place of work is NOT exempt from the Freedom of Information Act, and it meets ALL the critera above

There is no blanket exemption from FOI, what you have quoted above may form part of the basis for an objection to releasing information.

But considering the home office the other day had to release that information about British nationals comitting crimes abroad, then not knowing where they are now, I think they would of liked a little loophole to get out of it?

Back on topic, nice letter, but it WILL fall on deaf ears

 

The sex offenders thing breaches there ECHR, nothing to do with FOI.

 

katie,i think youre wrong there in your first statement unfortunately,its NOTHING like that. its more like them pulling you over for stabbing someone,then as they do that several other people are stabbing people in front of the cops but because they are not dressed in a chavvy or however perceived way they are not prosecuted!

 

section 59's account for car and driver

 

Yeh good thanks you?

 

That's often the same if somebody young committed an offence though. So what's the answer? Don't break the law. You can't be victimised for something you haven't done. Had he not failed to read a sign because he refused to stop, they couldn't have said anything..he wouldn't have been there.

Phil always used to get stopped for insurance checks/to be breathalised because he was a young male driving round late at night. It's not a breach of his human rights, it's the police trying to prevent somebody driving round drunk/uninsured. I'm sure a young guy in a hoodie driving round at silly o clock around the back lanes did look like he was trying to avoid something, doesn't mean he was though. I'm sure louds of people drove around at that time, I know for a fact they didn't stop them as I was with him on occasion. Plenty of people to stop, but you knew it'd be you, lol.

If somebody has been repeatedly stopped for similar offences, I begin to question whether or not they were ''repeatedly'' victimised...or they repeatedly gave cause for suspicion. I wasn't there, I don't know.

 

& I'm good thanks Mr Bowk..Uni is busy tho

Long time no see anyway!