PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Prohibition Notice + points
root0
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 13:12
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,878



I was involved in a motorway car crash, in Scotland, Glasgow. In my eyes im not at fault and my insurance seem to be siding with me. I tried to run my car as far off the road as possible to reduce danger to other drivers. It was on a dual carriageway, i dumped the car into the left hand side grass verge, completely off the road. Not into the central res. Initially 2 cops showed up, I explained everything to them, told them I have my friend coming up with a recovery truck, should be a couple of hours as he was slightly south. about an hour later traffic cops show up, call me and tell me I need to come down and recover my car within half an hour, otherwise they will recover it and will cost me more, as its in a dangerous position (dont see how, completely off the road). Regardless, I arrive at the site with a recovery truck that those 2 traffic cops recommended I get, as it was the nearest company, and they say they are now going to seize my car, as its a highly modified track car (completely insured, with unlimited mods, taxed, and mot'd) and they want to inspect it to make sure its road legal. They then get the recovery truck guy to recover it to his impound lot which happens to be an approved one, for the police.

The following day they called me down and issued me a "Prohibition notice, Road traffic act 1988, form PG9", with 6 notice of defects. Along with the usual 2 white bits of paper stating they are giving me a Fixed penalty of 3 points and £100 fine for; "Namely Dangerous use of vehicle (see note a) Sub division LA Beat 19 Offence code 320.002" The accident happened 13/2/2018 1350hrs. They issued me those two documents the following day. Prohibiton Notice states it was issued on the 14/2/2018 at 1500hrs (they said their shift only starts at 1500hrs, thus they will only begin inspecting the car at 1500hrs). The FPN document states I committed the offense on the 13/2/2018 at 1600hrs (car already off the road in the side verge at this point).

Defects are as follows;

Parking brake does not operate on atleast 2 road wheels
Front anti roll bar system removed
Battery insecure
Front inner wings- large sections removed- structural integrity compromised
Driver + passenger door not operating correctly due to removal of parts
Vision obstructed due to large windscreen sticker

So firstly id like to state, Im a Marine Engineer by trade, With a HNC qualification in the subject, including naval architecture, statics and strength of materials and so on. I have welding qualifications and a number of years of experience. So I tend to know what Im talking about. As well as having checked up on laws regarding these subjects. Now I will run through why the cops are invalid;

I had the stock handbrake cables removed, and in place a hydraulic handbrake, which does have a mechanically operated locking mechanism on it, therefore legal. The cops clearly didn't know how to operate it, therefore defect. As a matter of fact they actually broke it while trying to operate it. Front ARB is removed, along with all mounting brackets such as drop-links. Its not there to test so legal, no dangerous parts hanging loose etc. Multiple new cars out the factory dont come with ARBs. Battery is in my boot, on a flat floor it does have play in it, however it is attached to the body via a tight neg. strap, and a bolt through some plastic webbing on the battery to the flat floor. MOT rules state "The battery must be so insecure such that it is unrestrained and likely to fall from its vertical position when the vehicle is in its presented condition (i.e. bonnet / access panels closed). " Its on a flat floor, in the boot, there is nowhere for it to fall. Car flips ? bolt will stop it from falling in such scenario. Front inner wings have been cut out for extra wheel clearance, MOT rules state "Deliberate modification which significantly reduces the original strength, excessive corrosion, severe distortion, a fracture or an inadequate repair of a load bearing member, its supporting structure or supporting paneling within 30cm of an actuating linkage mounting point" is a reason for rejection. Me being a qualified engineer, I can guarantee it does not significantly reduce strength, keyword being significantly. I have had other rally car MOT testers confirm this. My inner door handles are removed, and to open the door from the inside you have to pull the metal wire. Both outer door handle mechanism have snapped. Yes i admit to not having had these fixed. Im a busy man and simply hadn't had the time yet, not that its an excuse, but can you get point for it ? not sure. Last is the sun strip, Car is stripped out so no sun visors, the sun strip does not go lower than the stock sun visor, and the wiper arm does not come in contact with the sun strip sticker at any point.

I genuinely feel like im being discriminated against for driving a modified car. Its not like its some **** box corsa with a loud exhaust and busted bushes along with 4 bald tires. The cops are clearly being anal. I want to take this to court, but not sure what chances I have of winning. If I genuinely was in the wrong, I can admit it and take the points and fine. But Im certain Im correct. Just talked to Michael Lyon lawyer in Glasgow. Got advised id be best fighting this case myself as its very unique, and the lawyers dont know much on these aspects involved in my case, which I have no problem doing. They said I seem to know what im talking about so shouldn't have an issue with it. Other than I've already had a CU20, about 2 years ago, for having wheels protrude my front arches excessively. By law they are only allowed to protrude a max of 30mm, mines was under, but I just took the hit anyway. Apparently you can get banned for 6 months if you get 2 construction and use offense within 3 years, regardless of not having 12 points yet. Starting to get sick of this entirely.

Apologies for the long read, I just didn't want to leave any information out, as its quite an unusual situation, Comical and extremely trivial in my eyes. As if the cops have an ego fueled grudge against me. But anyway are any of those defects able to land me points, genuinely ? or are they full of **** ? Any advice from anyone whatsoever would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance!



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 15)
Advertisement
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 13:12
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
peterguk
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 13:54
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,784
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (root0 @ Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 13:12) *
I had the stock handbrake cables removed, and in place a hydraulic handbrake, which does have a mechanically operated locking mechanism on it, therefore legal.


Incorrect. Has to operate inedependant of the hydraulic system.

QUOTE (root0 @ Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 13:12) *
The cops are clearly being anal.


You mean they're applying the law as it is written?

This post has been edited by peterguk: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 13:57


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 13:54
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,447
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Is the hydraulic handbrake wholly independent of the footbrake? As I understand it the operation (linkage from human to 'corner' but can be same calliper/pads) must be wholly independent to be legal. So the hydraulic handbrake would need to be independent of the hydraulic footbrake and that loss of fluid from one wouldn't impact the other.

Removing the front ARB 'could' make a car dangerous, but not necessarily so as you rightly point out, likewise cutting away the front arches. The MOT doesn't necessarily save you from that.

A bystander being unable to open a door in the event of an accident is clearly less than ideal, not sure if its enough for 'dangerous condition', that would depend on the court. some cars have pull straps as standard (MkI Mini, some GT3 for example).

The sun strip may be illegal if it interferes with where the wiper blades (not arms of course) would be as standard.

As for the battery, its far from clear how its restrained from your description (to me anyway), but would it be enough to restrain the battery in the event of a severe impact, if the answer is no then you have an issue, the negative terminal certainly won't do that.

It would only need one of these to be made out and you'd struggle to get a not guilty verdict in court in my opinion.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 14:14


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 14:20
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,605
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The only realistic way to run a defence would be to pay a (truly) independent expert to look at the vehicle, we can't inspect your vehicle and because we only have what you tell us to go on, we can't provide reliable advice (In any event I'm also not persuaded that the battery is secure).

If you can get a reputable and independent expert (A former police collision investigator or similar would be ideal) to examine the vehicle and he agrees that the police are wrong, you have a fighting chance.


--------------------
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
root0
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 14:26
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,878



QUOTE
You mean they're applying the law as it is written?


Clearly not. The vast majority of stuff is a gray area, thus you need to be a specialist to confirm it, and be qualified. I am. They are not. They dislike anyone with even slight modifications, as due to the whole idiotic "boy racer" stereotype everyone in this country seems to have. Its blatantly just pure ignorance.

QUOTE
Incorrect. Has to operate independent of the hydraulic system.
#

Incorrect. You are not permitted to have solely hydraulic brakes. In my vehicle, The hydro is plumbed in, inline, between M/C out- rear caliper T. The hydraulic handbrake is equipped with a mechanically operated locking mechanism. New age siroccos are the exact same. It is legal. Just slightly gray area.

Hydraulic parking brakes as a sole means of operation are not acceptable on vehicles first used on or after 1 January 1968. However, they may be used to assist the application or release of a mechanical brake.

QUOTE
It would only need one of these to be made out and you'd struggle to get a not guilty verdict in court in my opinion.


Right, so even if one of them was made out, however that one does not result in points and a fine, by law, therefore I can still be found guilty. But surely they cant give me points and a fine for it ?

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 14:20) *
The only realistic way to run a defence would be to pay a (truly) independent expert to look at the vehicle, we can't inspect your vehicle and because we only have what you tell us to go on, we can't provide reliable advice (In any event I'm also not persuaded that the battery is secure).

If you can get a reputable and independent expert (A former police collision investigator or similar would be ideal) to examine the vehicle and he agrees that the police are wrong, you have a fighting chance.



regardless, my point is, if my battery was not adequately secure, its not something you are able to get points for. Then what would be the outcome ?

Correct. You have been alleged to have committed an offence contrary to Section 42 Road Traffic Act 1988. This offence, upon conviction, is not endorsable with penalty points (scroll down to s.42 RTA) and none would be added to your licence (despite plod giving you an endorsable fixed penalty notice at the time rolleyes.gif ).


My point stands. I have been treated unfairly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 14:29
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,616
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



No, they've made an allegation - as you point out, if it is a grey area, then only a court can decide and you will likely need expert testimony on this - your own I would presume would NOT be accepted as such.
Or you accept the fixed penalty, but as you say, it might cause you issues.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 14:37
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,605
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (root0 @ Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 14:26) *
My point stands. I have been treated unfairly.

No, you haven't. The police, rightly or wrongly, believe you have committed an offence. The vehicle will without doubt have been looked at by a trained police vehicle examiner, not your neighbourhood beat bobby. The vehicle examiner will have formed an opinion that the offences have been committed and there is no evidence the police have acted in bad faith or have targeted you specifically due to a personal dislike of you, or due to your gender, age, sexual orientation or any other irrelevant factor.

In fact if the police have an honest opinion that the offences have been committed, they are pretty much duty bound to process those offences just as if they had been committed by anyone else.

So your (sensible) options remain:

a) Get an expert to examine the vehicle and if the expert opinion supports your view that you are innocent, use that expert opinion to rebut the police's evidence, you will be given a fair trial at court where the police will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty, while you will only need to prove that there's a reasonable possibility (as opposed to a fanciful one) that you might be innocent in order to win.

b) Accept the Fixed Penalty Notice.

If you chance it at court by representing yourself and just saying "this is all a grey area" I think there's a very good chance you'd be convicted so I definitely wouldn't recommend that.


--------------------
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
root0
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 15:56
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,878



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 14:37) *
QUOTE (root0 @ Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 14:26) *
My point stands. I have been treated unfairly.

No, you haven't. The police, rightly or wrongly, believe you have committed an offence. The vehicle will without doubt have been looked at by a trained police vehicle examiner, not your neighbourhood beat bobby. The vehicle examiner will have formed an opinion that the offences have been committed and there is no evidence the police have acted in bad faith or have targeted you specifically due to a personal dislike of you, or due to your gender, age, sexual orientation or any other irrelevant factor.

In fact if the police have an honest opinion that the offences have been committed, they are pretty much duty bound to process those offences just as if they had been committed by anyone else.

So your (sensible) options remain:

a) Get an expert to examine the vehicle and if the expert opinion supports your view that you are innocent, use that expert opinion to rebut the police's evidence, you will be given a fair trial at court where the police will have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty, while you will only need to prove that there's a reasonable possibility (as opposed to a fanciful one) that you might be innocent in order to win.

b) Accept the Fixed Penalty Notice.

If you chance it at court by representing yourself and just saying "this is all a grey area" I think there's a very good chance you'd be convicted so I definitely wouldn't recommend that.



Clearly not. If it had indeed been looked at by a trained police examiner, they would have not listed down all of these defects. It states on the prohibition notice it was examined by the traffic police officer himself. If he an MOT tester? no. Does he have qualifications in engineering, and so on ? No. Just an average Joe. Also, why would one set of rozzers show up, not see any issue, then a second set show up. First they dont see any issue, then when I arrive they decide to seize my car ?

Once again, clearly they have no training, one of the things they are trying to do me for is a loose battery. You cant get points and a fine for having a loose battery. As it states; Section 42 Road Traffic Act 1988 This offence, upon conviction, is not endorsable with penalty points (s.42 RTA).

I didn't say Im planning to go to court and just say everything is a grey area. I would like to go to court and take this as far as writing out step by step, complex mathematical equations (actually as far as drawing out stress strain curves describing yield behavior of the metal used) proving that they are incorrect in instances such as them stating me removing sheet metal webbing, severely weakens structural integrity. I AM an expert in this subject. I dont see what the issue is with that, and neither did the lawyer I consulted.

Why do I feel like everyone targets me here just as much.... I just came for actual helpful advice, apparently this place seems to be full of your typical internet know it all's, DIY mechanics...

At least the lawyers helped I guess.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 16:05
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 113
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



Running this one past my brother who is a constable albeit in England and who examines vehicles and accident scenes..

His comments were

1. hydraulic handbrake only permitted if there is another mechanical locking system that you can set from the drivers seat once stopped. If you dont have that, you breach construction and use.
2. If you had a factory arb on teh front and removed it you would upset the steering geometry excessively. IF they fitted it at the factory and it wasnt an option then it needs to be fitted for road use.
3. It doesnt matter if the removal of the wing panels has no real bearing on integrity. If its within 30cm of the mounting area and it's removed then structural integrity is reduced. It doesnt matter if the remaining strength is more than ever will be needed, the offence is the reduction in strength.
4. Battery - if it wiggles it's a fail. The case can undergo fatiguing in use and crack, and a loose battery can burst out in a crash.

His general comment was that the police have been more than generous and you should rip their hand off with the FPN offer
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 16:08
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,447
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (root0 @ Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 16:56) *
Clearly not. If it had indeed been looked at by a trained police examiner, they would have not listed down all of these defects. It states on the prohibition notice it was examined by the traffic police officer himself. If he an MOT tester? no. Does he have qualifications in engineering, and so on ? No. Just an average Joe.

A traffic officer can also be their trained vehicle examiner, your also jumping to conclusions about his ability and qualifications. Also stop getting hung up on the MOT which doesn't in any way prove a car isn't dangerous or legal.

My point above is that only one of those 'changes' have to be shown to be dangerous for the car to be in a dangerous condition, the battery looks the easiest for them to prove (beyond reasonable doubt) from what you say (or how I read it).

So what mechanical system backs up the hydraulics on the handbrake? Noting the MOT wording is 'assist' (which has been the case on all my fords anyway as its easier to pull the handbrake up with the footbrake applied - I thought the Golf V/Roc rear calliper was similar)

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 16:12


--------------------
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
baggins1234
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 16:20
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 827
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Member No.: 39,849



QUOTE (root0 @ Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 15:56) *
Why do I feel like everyone targets me here just as much.... I just came for actual helpful advice, apparently this place seems to be full of your typical internet know it all's, DIY mechanics...


Stop acting like a spoilt child.

You got advice...free.... but it’s not the advice you wanted. So that’s why you’ve upset yourself.

“Internet know it alls”. Great way of thanking people who’ve offered an opinion. You have no idea of knowing their individual qualifications compared to yours.

My advice.... well you know nothing about me or my qualifications....I’m just an anonymous person like you on the internet....yes, all coppers are out to get you... you’ve been badly treated....how dare they question your vast intelligence....take it to court.... you’ll be fine.... happy now?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
root0
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 16:22
Post #12


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,878



QUOTE (bearclaw @ Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 16:05) *
Running this one past my brother who is a constable albeit in England and who examines vehicles and accident scenes..

His comments were

1. hydraulic handbrake only permitted if there is another mechanical locking system that you can set from the drivers seat once stopped. If you dont have that, you breach construction and use.
2. If you had a factory arb on teh front and removed it you would upset the steering geometry excessively. IF they fitted it at the factory and it wasnt an option then it needs to be fitted for road use.
3. It doesnt matter if the removal of the wing panels has no real bearing on integrity. If its within 30cm of the mounting area and it's removed then structural integrity is reduced. It doesnt matter if the remaining strength is more than ever will be needed, the offence is the reduction in strength.
4. Battery - if it wiggles it's a fail. The case can undergo fatiguing in use and crack, and a loose battery can burst out in a crash.

His general comment was that the police have been more than generous and you should rip their hand off with the FPN offer



1. Once again, No where states you need a secondary mechanical locking system. Just A mechanical locking system. Thus legal. I have been on the phone to various rally car mot testers that confirmed this.
2. If there is no arb mounting points they cant test it. Also it does not upset the steering geometry excessively. I specifically compensated for removing it by lowering the car a specific amount, widening my front track accurately, increasing spring ratings
3. How about you learn to read and stop being ignorant

http://www.ukmot.com/manual/3.3/Vehicles-w...igh-servo-boost

"Reason for Rejection" "Deliberate modification which significantly reduces the original strength, excessive corrosion, severe distortion, a fracture or an inadequate repair of a load bearing member, its supporting structure or supporting panelling within 30cm of an actuating linkage mounting point, that is, within a prescribed area see Appendix C."

Your brother is yet again incorrect. He literally just stated the complete opposite of that.

4. Here is a video of an mot tester, passing two battery WITH ADVISORIES, that wiggle excessively.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5_rU5V-tjU



What freaking world do we live in, a cop with no experience nor qualifications in engineering, not only advises an engineer how to do his job, but tries to take away his driving license....

Im away to kill myself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 16:28
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,572
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Enough. This is clearly just an argument now, as the OP doesn’t appear to want advice.


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


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
baggins1234
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 16:29
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 827
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Member No.: 39,849



QUOTE (root0 @ Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 16:22) *
What freaking world do we live in, a cop with no experience nor qualifications in engineering, not only advises an engineer how to do his job, but tries to take away his driving license....

Im away to kill myself.


3 points won’t take away your driving licence. Unless you’re on 9 points already or 3 points in your first two years.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 16:29
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,447
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



STOP USING THE MOT - yet again.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/schedule/3/made

QUOTE
The braking system shall be so designed that in the event of failure of any part (other than a fixed member or a brake shoe anchor pin) through or by means of which the force necessary to apply the brakes is transmitted, there shall still be available for application by the driver brakes sufficient under the most adverse conditions to bring the vehicle to rest within a reasonable distance

So if you have no fluid in the footbrake system will the handbrake still work as required?


--------------------
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
bm1957
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 16:30
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 184
Joined: 23 Aug 2013
Member No.: 64,667



QUOTE (root0 @ Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 16:22) *
3. How about you learn to read and stop being ignorant

http://www.ukmot.com/manual/3.3/Vehicles-w...igh-servo-boost

"Reason for Rejection" "Deliberate modification which significantly reduces the original strength, excessive corrosion, severe distortion, a fracture or an inadequate repair of a load bearing member, its supporting structure or supporting panelling within 30cm of an actuating linkage mounting point, that is, within a prescribed area see Appendix C."

Your brother is yet again incorrect. He literally just stated the complete opposite of that.

Maybe I need to learn to read too... I thought that's what he said.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Closed 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: Saturday, 22nd September 2018 - 02:25
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.