PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Loitering,littering and and anti-social driving ?, Warning
DaveyBadBoy
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 06:36
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5
Joined: 5 Feb 2012
Member No.: 52,928



Morning,

My daughter was recently parked in a car park with 2 other vehicles. 1 of the other drivers had days previously received a warning from the police about frequenting a particular location, loitering,revving loudly and throwing McDonald wrappers out of the window. My daughter has never been to this location with her friend or as a group.

My daughter was approached by the same officer who had issued the warning to her friend days earlier. The officer asked was her name "XXXX". My daughter said no, she was then asked to confirm her name which she did. She was then asked was she aware of a particular address, she said no. The officer then went on describe where the address was in more detail, my daughter then realised she did know the address. The officer then asked her had she ever been there and my daughter said "maybe twice,but ages ago". The police lady then said we have a letter for you too. End of conversation. My daughter returned home and told us of the events.

The next day the Police arrived at our address with a brown hand written envelope. Officer said she was issuing a warning letter because our vehicle had been reported revving loudly, throwing litter and being driven anti socially at said address.

I asked what date did these offences take place, as 4 family members drive that vehicle, officer said there are no dates but this cars reg has "been reported" to us as being "part of a group" responsible. I repeated again I would like dates as the vehicle has a tracker for insurance purposes that records everything including location and manner of driving including speed,corenering acceleration and braking rates. And is scored daily.We also have CCTV at home to prove if the car was actually in use at all the times she said it was being anti social. Again I was told there was no dates ?

I put the letter straight in the bin without opening it in front of the officer and said if you cant provide dates, or incident numbers of the alledged offences I cannot take the warning seriously.

We was warned if alledged behavior is repeated the car will be seized.

I got the car keys out and started the car for the officer, it s a tiny 1.0 litre with a really quiet engine its barely audible, i revved it up for him and said are you seriously saying the noise is anti social ? The officer agreed it was a really quiet car but said if my daughter carrys on going to that place and driving around with "the others" they would seize the car. She does not go to that place but historically the car has been there, twice in its lifetime. Weeks and weeks ago.

Officer said "its a only a letter this time but next time it will be more serious".

Anybody have any idea what has just gone on and whether its legally enforceable?

Many Thanks


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 06:36
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Dwaynedouglas
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 07:12
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 85
Joined: 9 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,346



I suspect the answer is in the letter you threw away, however this is only speculation.

I would further guess that it is a s.59 notice:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/section/59

(from https://www.westmercia.police.uk/article/25...tion-59-Issued)

'A Section 59 was written in law to stop anti-social use of motor vehicles. Effectively the law is there to stop inappropriate use of vehicles that annoy the public or place people at risk.

It also stops offenders who disrupt the quality of life of others at homes nearby. A Section 59 Warning is issued first to allow the driver to make adjustments to their driving style or to their motor vehicles.

If there are any further complaints about the driver once the Section 59 Warning has been issued, Police then have the power to seize the motor vehicle. Once the vehicle is seized, the keeper of the vehicle is then liable for recovery and storage costs once they get the vehicle back.'


But I remind you that this is all supposition until we know what was in the letter.


--------------------
I'm not a lawyer or legally trained, my opinion is based on my experience - follow at your own risk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 08:58
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,588
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Throwing the letter away was rather silly* to say the least, I'd try and get it back and open it.
It sounds like an S59 warning, while there is no formal challenge that can be made to one a decent letter to a local CC can have some effect.


*Polite version


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AntonyMMM
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 09:43
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,356
Joined: 17 May 2010
Member No.: 37,614



The letter may have had better information or an explanation, but my guess would be a group of vehicles gathered together, perhaps regularly, and some being "shown off" - revving engines, squealing tyres etc , and others just watching. ..... all VRMs are noted down and reported, and police response is to issue a blanket s59 on all the vehicles present.

Quite a common way of dealing with car park gatherings.

This post has been edited by AntonyMMM: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 10:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 12:58
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,350
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002. It helps the police do policey things--at the expense of the public's rightsy things. You may now write to your MP...

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darkatmosphere
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 20:59
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 108
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,643



Only options here are speaking with the force area Chief Constable who issued the S59 warning or writing a letter, The second option would be opt for a judicial review at the high court be warned it can be expensive.


--------------------
There are a lot of laws in this country, but there isn't any justice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 22:34
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,200
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Darkatmosphere @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 20:59) *
Only options here are speaking with the force area Chief Constable who issued the S59 warning or writing a letter, The second option would be opt for a judicial review at the high court be warned it can be expensive.

Standing might be an issue when it's only a warning.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 23:17
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,908
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Maybe me being sceptical but if my daughter told me the police had warned her about an address that they initially couldn't remember, but then did go there in the dim and distant past, I would at least be hearing the police out. It seems incredibly unlucky that they were chosen at random in McD and *coincidentally* knew that address.

As for revving the one litre car, I'm surprised that the officers didn't say "yes, that noise, that's what car meets sound like".

Not disbelieving you, but in my parenting experiences "freak occurrences" happen fairly often to kids. There are plenty of examples on here if parents being told a slightly santised version of what happened.


--------------------
No longer posting - please do not PM for advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darkatmosphere
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 11:21
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 108
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,643



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 22:34) *
QUOTE (Darkatmosphere @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 20:59) *
Only options here are speaking with the force area Chief Constable who issued the S59 warning or writing a letter, The second option would be opt for a judicial review at the high court be warned it can be expensive.

Standing might be an issue when it's only a warning.

Its the legal process of the warning the OP I think is questioning, did they do it right?, could they do it that way? I mean the police did not witness the incident, a person reported it, did they identify them accurately, did they have they Reg accurate? Was the process of issuing a warning within the realms of the law and force guidance?
I think standing is there for it to be heard.

Another option other than judicial review, is police ombudsman.



--------------------
There are a lot of laws in this country, but there isn't any justice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 11:48
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,228
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



Some plod are using section59 as an intimidative tool. My son was threatened with vehicle confiscation along with one other vehicle simply for being in the vicinity of a meet which wasn't actually happening and there were no other cars around. His car was not loud or anti social in any way a 6 month old factory spec car.
In the OPs case, assuming the fact are exactly as described I would also question the process. To serve a s59 where there appears to be no corroberated evidence seems an abuse of authority.

This post has been edited by mickR: Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 11:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 12:03
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,588
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Darkatmosphere @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 11:21) *
I mean the police did not witness the incident, a person reported it, did they identify them accurately, did they have they Reg accurate? Was the process of issuing a warning within the realms of the law and force guidance?
I think standing is there for it to be heard.

Another option other than judicial review, is police ombudsman.

We don't know from the posts whether it was witnessed by a Police officer, PCSO or member of the public, to say it wasn't is a leap of faith?
The identity doesn't seem in question as the driver has admitted being there? Same applies to the reg.

We don't know what the warning is, formal, informal or an S59 (as seems likely), if it's an S59 it has to comply with the law, not force guidance.

I thought the only Police Ombudsman in the UK was for NI?


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darkatmosphere
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 15:27
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 108
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Member No.: 101,643



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 12:03) *
QUOTE (Darkatmosphere @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 11:21) *
I mean the police did not witness the incident, a person reported it, did they identify them accurately, did they have they Reg accurate? Was the process of issuing a warning within the realms of the law and force guidance?
I think standing is there for it to be heard.

Another option other than judicial review, is police ombudsman.

We don't know from the posts whether it was witnessed by a Police officer, PCSO or member of the public, to say it wasn't is a leap of faith?
The identity doesn't seem in question as the driver has admitted being there? Same applies to the reg.

We don't know what the warning is, formal, informal or an S59 (as seems likely), if it's an S59 it has to comply with the law, not force guidance.

I thought the only Police Ombudsman in the UK was for NI?

or PCC then for correctness.


--------------------
There are a lot of laws in this country, but there isn't any justice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 19:16
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,200
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



To be honest the best way forward in this scenario is to have a dashcam and importantly make sure it records audio. If the car is seized under section 59, make sure to grab the SD card or preferably the whole camera out of the car (they normally let you collect your belongings out of the car) and get a taxi home. If you have a video showing the car was being driven in a totally routine manner and in could no way be considered to have been driven antisocially, a letter to the force's legal department with the video and a claim for the cost of towing + taxi home + taxi to the pound to recover the car should result in a swift payment.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 20:37
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,999
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (mickR @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 11:48) *
Some plod are using section59 as an intimidative tool. My son was threatened with vehicle confiscation along with one other vehicle simply for being in the vicinity of a meet which wasn't actually happening and there were no other cars around. His car was not loud or anti social in any way a 6 month old factory spec car. In the OPs case, assuming the fact are exactly as described I would also question the process. To serve a s59 where there appears to be no corroberated evidence seems an abuse of authority.


The police are now obtaining court orders forbidding various activities in areas which have been used for car meets, one of those is driving in convoy which of course would not normally be anti-social or anything else. If your son and the other car drove together to an area covered by such an order, they would be breaching it. In fact it is a risk now for anyone to be even in the area of a car meet.



--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 21:27
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,200
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Logician @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 20:37) *
QUOTE (mickR @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 11:48) *
Some plod are using section59 as an intimidative tool. My son was threatened with vehicle confiscation along with one other vehicle simply for being in the vicinity of a meet which wasn't actually happening and there were no other cars around. His car was not loud or anti social in any way a 6 month old factory spec car. In the OPs case, assuming the fact are exactly as described I would also question the process. To serve a s59 where there appears to be no corroberated evidence seems an abuse of authority.


The police are now obtaining court orders forbidding various activities in areas which have been used for car meets, one of those is driving in convoy which of course would not normally be anti-social or anything else. If your son and the other car drove together to an area covered by such an order, they would be breaching it. In fact it is a risk now for anyone to be even in the area of a car meet.

Surely court orders have to be served to be binding on individuals, or at the very least the individuals bound by them must be made aware of their existence. AFAIK imputed knowledge applies to enactments passed by Parliament and the devolved legislatures, but not to court orders.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 22:52
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,785
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 21:27) *
Surely court orders have to be served to be binding on individuals, or at the very least the individuals bound by them must be made aware of their existence. AFAIK imputed knowledge applies to enactments passed by Parliament and the devolved legislatures, but not to court orders.

Intu obtained an injunction from the High Court preventing various activities at each of their sites in England and Wales. I’ve seen notices at several sites referring to it and it can be found online. The order deals with publication.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 01:52
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,999
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 21:27) *
Surely court orders have to be served to be binding on individuals, or at the very least the individuals bound by them must be made aware of their existence. AFAIK imputed knowledge applies to enactments passed by Parliament and the devolved legislatures, but not to court orders.


The orders are against "persons unknown" and are broad in scope; personal service of the injunction is dispensed with pursuant to rule 81.8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The provision against driving in convoy would actually cover a funeral cortege, a point which has been raised with councils and police, who respond that of course the order will be applied with discretion. It is concerning that perfectly legitimate activities should be covered in this way, and the public have to rely on police discretion in applying it. I think the first such order covered the Black Country, and full details are HERE

This post has been edited by Logician: Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 01:55


--------------------



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 10:17
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,200
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 22:52) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 21:27) *
Surely court orders have to be served to be binding on individuals, or at the very least the individuals bound by them must be made aware of their existence. AFAIK imputed knowledge applies to enactments passed by Parliament and the devolved legislatures, but not to court orders.

Intu obtained an injunction from the High Court preventing various activities at each of their sites in England and Wales. I’ve seen notices at several sites referring to it and it can be found online. The order deals with publication.

The order is directed at the defendants and "any other person who knows of this order", so if someone has no idea the order exists, and they help Ryan Taylor do something that is a breach of the order, that person cannot be in contempt of court or otherwise in breach of the order.

QUOTE (Logician @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 01:52) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 21:27) *
Surely court orders have to be served to be binding on individuals, or at the very least the individuals bound by them must be made aware of their existence. AFAIK imputed knowledge applies to enactments passed by Parliament and the devolved legislatures, but not to court orders.


The orders are against "persons unknown" and are broad in scope; personal service of the injunction is dispensed with pursuant to rule 81.8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The provision against driving in convoy would actually cover a funeral cortege, a point which has been raised with councils and police, who respond that of course the order will be applied with discretion. It is concerning that perfectly legitimate activities should be covered in this way, and the public have to rely on police discretion in applying it. I think the first such order covered the Black Country, and full details are HERE

Well again, CPR 81.8 says:

"(1) In the case of a judgment or order requiring a person not to do an act, the court may dispense with service of a copy of the judgment or order in accordance with rules 81.5 to 81.7 if it is satisfied that the person has had notice of it –

(a) by being present when the judgment or order was given or made; or

(b) by being notified of its terms by telephone, email or otherwise.
"

So while the court can dispense with service, it cannot impute knowledge, hence a total of 7 paragraph dealing with how the claimants must publicise the existence of the order. If despite all the warnings and advertising someone could show that they genuinely did not know about the order, I don't see how the HC could hold them in contempt.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 11:27
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,785
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 10:17) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 22:52) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 12 Jan 2019 - 21:27) *
Surely court orders have to be served to be binding on individuals, or at the very least the individuals bound by them must be made aware of their existence. AFAIK imputed knowledge applies to enactments passed by Parliament and the devolved legislatures, but not to court orders.

Intu obtained an injunction from the High Court preventing various activities at each of their sites in England and Wales. I’ve seen notices at several sites referring to it and it can be found online. The order deals with publication.

The order is directed at the defendants and "any other person who knows of this order", so if someone has no idea the order exists, and they help Ryan Taylor do something that is a breach of the order, that person cannot be in contempt of court or otherwise in breach of the order.



The point being that there are ways to apply orders against the world at large. Very many orders will apply to anyone who has knowledge of them and the order itself can define how that knowledge can be imported.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 13 Jan 2019 - 11:39
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,588
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Will you be able to import it after Brexit? ......... sorry.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 25th June 2019 - 04:51
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.