Section 59 Car Seized but No NIP/Summons Options

[asrman]

Unfortunately got pulled over recently for speeding and undertaking by an undercover police vehicle. I was going too fast and would probably say 20mph over the 60mph dual carriageway limit. I put my hands up immediately to the offence and admitted to both officers I had been driving poorly. The reason the officer gave to stop was for the speed and driving without due care, he cautioned me and then went on to check my details which revealed a previous Section 59 being issued a few months back. Since it was my second stop the officer said he'll have to seize the car which I did not argue with. I did not receive any verbal NIP nor an indication the officer intended to progress this to court. On both times I was stopped it was the same stretch of road that I use frequently as my route home but it is also a stretch used by car cruisers as there is an injunction in place and police are clearly cracking down on it. I was given a producer for my insurance since the officer could not verify my insurance at the scene. Reason for this was change of plate but have since contacted my insurance and this has been sorted and they confirmed I was covered at the time. As we waited for the recoevry truck one officer did mention that he needed to inform me I was being recorded on his chest camera and that the team may possibly decide to look at it and decide to progress it further beyond the section 59 but if I don't hear anything within 14 days that will be the end of the matter. The following day I collected my car from the impound and produced my insurance documents at the police station and went on my way. Given these details is it likely that I will now receive an NIP through the post or a court summons? Surely if NIP/Summons was the intention the officers would have informed at the time of the stop and/or issued me with a ticket there and then but this was not the case.

This post has been edited by asrman: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 18:50

[Advertisement]

[peterguk]

What is your qualified opinion on my case?

You'll just have to see what arrives in the post in the next 6 months...

[asrman]

What is your qualified opinion on my case?

Wait and see if anything turns up. You seem to be guilty of both offences so I’m not sure what defence you could hope to succeed with.

Sound advice, although if you had bothered to read my initial post you will see I immediately put my hands up to both offences therefore clearly no defence will be put forth, only mitigating factors.

This post has been edited by asrman: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 18:50

[southpaw82]

What is your qualified opinion on my case?

Wait and see if anything turns up. You seem to be guilty of both offences so I’m not sure what defence you could hope to succeed with.

Sound advice, although if you had bothered to read my initial post you will see I immediately put my hands up to both offences therefore clearly no defence will be put forth, only mitigating factors.

I have “bothered” (in fact, I went back and re-read it) but since you want it put bluntly, you’re stuffed and will have to accept what comes, if it does. Happy now?

[asrman]

What is your qualified opinion on my case?

Wait and see if anything turns up. You seem to be guilty of both offences so I’m not sure what defence you could hope to succeed with.

Sound advice, although if you had bothered to read my initial post you will see I immediately put my hands up to both offences therefore clearly no defence will be put forth, only mitigating factors.

I have “bothered” (in fact, I went back and re-read it) but since you want it put bluntly, you’re stuffed and will have to accept what comes, if it does. Happy now?

Not so sound advice. These are not complicated facts I do not see the need to re-read my OP unless of course, as I suspected, you did not bother read, or at least read properly, the original post to begin with. Your post confuses me, the first part you have stated I am 'stuffed', is this qualified or unqualified as you seem to have gone to suggest it is, and if so, your post seems a bit immature and I would request no further input from yourself in my thread. Many thanks.

[Jlc]

...your post seems a bit immature and I would request no further input from yourself in my thread. Many thanks.

SP (as a moderator - and other 'qualifications', note the signature) should be ignored at your peril...

[peterguk]

your post seems a bit immature and I would request no further input from yourself in my thread.

Don't be disappointed if SP requests the same of you.

[asrman]

your post seems a bit immature and I would request no further input from yourself in my thread.

Don't be disappointed if SP requests the same of you.

Does not bother me in the slightest. In fact to do so will only serve to solidify the comment I made above.

[Churchmouse]

I wonder how many times since its inception that s.59 has been used simply to prevent a subsequent offence from occurring (as opposed to the obvious punishment aspects related to needless vehicle seizure, impounding, release and fines). At least a dozen, I'm sure...

--Churchmouse

[southpaw82]

Done and dusted I think.