Car seized and impounded |
Car seized and impounded |
Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 16:33
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 3 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,237 |
Hi all, hoping someone can shed some light on my current situation.
I was given a section 59 on 13/5/18 which is 3 weeks ago. The officer produced it on sloane street in Central London for my exhaust being too loud. This was at 3pm on a Sunday afternoon! No slip was given to me, only verbal. Fast forward to the early hours of this morning 3/6/18 my car was seized by a traffic officer on park Lane, London for "no insurance code A601" and section 59. His reasoning for this was I was apparently "racing" another car which invalidates my insurance hence him seizing it for no insurance. I wasn't racing at all and explained to him my car is loud so it sounds like it's travelling quicker than it actually is. When I confronted him for the footage, he said I can't see it and I can only view it in court. He also said I'll be summonsed to court for "racing" He produced a pink slip with the no insurance code ticked and wrote section 59 himself and ticked it. Once everything was done, I was waiting for my uber and he said I might get lucky with the "racing" charge as his main camera wasn't recording but his overview camera might have got it. He pointed towards a camera behind his rear view mirror. Where do I stand as both of these apparent section 59's I feel are given to me unlawfully. I plan to take this to court so the apparent footage of me "racing" can be seen, which there isn't anything off. How do I claim back all costs including impound charges and fees etc? Thanks for your help This post has been edited by agresr: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 18:32 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 16:33
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 16:45
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Yes they could seize it (with legitimate reasons) despite you leading it.
An S59 should only be issued if your action causes distress or annoyance, as well as being careless and inconsiderate driving, a loud exhaust (which is illegal under the construction and use regulations) could be argued I guess to be inconsiderate driving though as a specific C&U offence covers it a prosecution is unlikely for that offence. Racing (correctly a trial of speed) could well of course count though. Losing the illegal exhaust may stop you getting the attention you don’t want (as well as presumably the attention you did). -------------------- 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 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 16:53
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,178 Joined: 1 Jan 2013 From: Glasgow Member No.: 59,097 |
OP....was the exhaust already on the car when you started the lease or did you fit it yourself? ....if the latter is that allowed under the terms of the lease..I can't imagine it would be .
|
|
|
Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 17:41
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
And is your insurance company aware of the modified exhaust ?
And any other modifications ? |
|
|
Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 18:45
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
For the offence of motor racing on the highway to be committed there must be more than one vehicle, however fast you were going and however loud your car, you were not racing unless another vehicle was present. on the other hand there does not have to be any prior arrangement, a spontaneous race with another vehicle with no particular beginning or end can be a race.
It seems to me a real stretch to say that your insurance was invalidated by this 'racing' because he does not know the terms of your policy. Looking at a couple of policies, their exclusions are directed to organised competitions, not anything occurring spontaneously. I think a prosecution might struggle to prove the charge of no insurance. -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 19:22
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 449 Joined: 2 Dec 2007 Member No.: 15,762 |
OP....was the exhaust already on the car when you started the lease or did you fit it yourself? ....if the latter is that allowed under the terms of the lease..I can't imagine it would be . Bet you that's going to be an interesting conversation with the lease company Monday morning. "why did they seize it " "because of the loud exhaust, and I was racing it " "wait, what loud exhaust - lease terminated for breach of contract, oh and you owe us lots of cash for putting the car back to original, and our costs" |
|
|
Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 20:08
Post
#7
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 3 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,237 |
OP....was the exhaust already on the car when you started the lease or did you fit it yourself? ....if the latter is that allowed under the terms of the lease..I can't imagine it would be . And is your insurance company aware of the modified exhaust ? And any other modifications ? OP....was the exhaust already on the car when you started the lease or did you fit it yourself? ....if the latter is that allowed under the terms of the lease..I can't imagine it would be . Bet you that's going to be an interesting conversation with the lease company Monday morning. "why did they seize it " "because of the loud exhaust, and I was racing it " "wait, what loud exhaust - lease terminated for breach of contract, oh and you owe us lots of cash for putting the car back to original, and our costs" The car isn't modified!! The exhaust is "louder" when in race mode as the valves open up. This is why the first section 59 annoyed me. I felt it was out of order. |
|
|
Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 21:26
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
The car isn't modified!! The exhaust is "louder" when in race mode as the valves open up. This is why the first section 59 annoyed me. I felt it was out of order. I imagine stopping people from driving their cars in loud "race mode" is one of the reasons section 59 was brought in, although I agree there's little chance of a no insurance charge sticking. If you explain the circumstances to the insurance company and get them to issue a letter saying they would have covered you in the event of an accident, that should make the police see sense. Failing that, the CPS should discontinue as there would be no realistic prospect of conviction. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 07:45
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 617 Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Member No.: 6,174 |
My car has three modes, efficiant, Sport and Sport plus, I am certain BMW don't expect me to drive it in efficiant all of the time.
When in the latter two modes a valve opens in the exhaust and the car becomes a lot louder. Mine has the standard exhaust, there are two BMW approved after market exhausts, both louder than mine. So could you consider sport or sport plus to be 'Race' mode. and as such should I not drive it on the road? BTW, my car is only a M4. Dwain |
|
|
Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 07:52
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
My car has three modes, efficiant, Sport and Sport plus, I am certain BMW don't expect me to drive it in efficiant all of the time. When in the latter two modes a valve opens in the exhaust and the car becomes a lot louder. Mine has the standard exhaust, there are two BMW approved after market exhausts, both louder than mine. So could you consider sport or sport plus to be 'Race' mode. and as such should I not drive it on the road? BTW, my car is only a M4. Dwain Yes, i know. I have fitted them to at least a dozen cars inc. BMW, Lotus and Vauxhall V8s. None of them make any real increase in noise until the revs are up in the 4K ish range. Which i assume is not necessary in built up London. Just because BMW fit one as standard, doesn't mean you could not fall foul of the law by mis-use. It's not unusual to have to disconnect for track day use due to volume - go figure... This post has been edited by peterguk: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 08:26 -------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 11:00
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
You have now attracted the attention of two separate officers by your manner of driving in central London, so regardless of whether or not there was anything illegal about it, it is just foolish to continue the same way. I did see that the police are fed up with Arab princes and wealthy Russians bringing in their supercars for the Summer and making a nuisance of themselves, so they are probably being particularly vigilant and you have got caught up as a consequence.
-------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 12:20
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 37 Joined: 16 Mar 2013 From: Suffolk Member No.: 60,578 |
The car isn't modified!! The exhaust is "louder" when in race mode as the valves open up. This is why the first section 59 annoyed me. I felt it was out of order. Rather an unfortunate turn of phrase that - you put the car into "race mode" but you were not racing! This post has been edited by PaulR986: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 12:21 |
|
|
Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 18:29
Post
#13
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 3 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,237 |
So I'm not allowed to use my car in race mode unless on a race track... please 😂
Back to the main topic with the unlawful impounding of my motor vehicle, what's the best procedure I can take, to get justice against the officer and my impound fees back? I'm happy to take this to court. I was insured at the time and still am. It shouldn't have been seized for no insurance. |
|
|
Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 18:38
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
I would guess the vehicle was impounded for two section 59's.
There's a thread running in the flame pit - here. A Judicial Review is the only (legal) recourse. You could 'complain' to Force in question. Of course, you can fight any prosecutions on the way. So I'm not allowed to use my car in race mode unless... As noted above - this does not, in itself, amount to any defence. If your actions caused distress/annoyance & inconsiderate driving etc. (in the officer's opinion) then the s59 may well be considered justified. This post has been edited by Jlc: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 18:35 -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 18:43
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
Back to the main topic with the unlawful impounding of my motor vehicle There is a strong suggestion, even from what you say, that the car was lawfully impounded. -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 08:32
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,746 Joined: 29 Oct 2008 Member No.: 23,623 |
If you could explain why you believe the seizure of your car was unlawful you will probably get some comments on that contention. Do you understand what is needed for an officer to invoke his powers under S59?
|
|
|
Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 20:55
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,356 Joined: 30 Jun 2008 From: Landan Member No.: 20,731 |
As for the, frankly, rather corrupt-sounding "no insurance" charge, can't the OP simply produce a letter from the insurer stating that he was insured on such and such a date?
--Churchmouse |
|
|
Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 21:13
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,735 Joined: 22 Oct 2007 Member No.: 14,720 |
As for the, frankly, rather corrupt-sounding "no insurance" charge, can't the OP simply produce a letter from the insurer stating that he was insured on such and such a date? --Churchmouse Of course he can. -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 15:28
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,496 Joined: 27 Sep 2006 Member No.: 7,899 |
Kensington & Chelsea have since 2016 been hot on people cruising around Sloane Street et al revving their engines and basically showing off. See: https://www.rbkc.gov.uk/press-release/antis...vers-face-fines
Furthermore the legal definition of Section 59 is "Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance" - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/section/59. It is abundantly clear to everyone involved, even yourself I suspect, that revving your engine, and booting it up the usual streets in London is designed to attract attention. That attention, sadly for you, can come from people besides the ones you want to take notice of you - including the Police, bystanders and residents. This post has been edited by Durzel: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 15:28 |
|
|
Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 16:54
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Furthermore the legal definition of Section 59 is "Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance" - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/30/section/59 It still has to be in breach of either s 3 or 34 of the RTA though. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 11:06 |