PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Section 59 Car Seized but No NIP/Summons
asrman
post Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 18:48
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,603



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 18:48
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 18:53
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,331
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



They might have decided the section 59 was enough. However a NIP only needs to warn you that proceedings are contemplated. By your own account the officer told you matters might be taken further, that's a verbal NIP, there's no requirement for the warning to be in writing.


--------------------
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
peterguk
post Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 18:58
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,243
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (asrman @ Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 19:48) *
or issued me with a ticket there and then.



Most forces decide on further action centrally and it is quite normal for no "ticket" to be issued at the roadside.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
asrman
post Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 19:02
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,603



Thanks for your prompt reply. You are correct that does seem like a NIP however the officer said a couple of times if I don't receive anything within 14 days that will be the end of it. It is for this reason I am led to believe I was not in fact issued with a verbal NIP as doing so means they have 6 months to consider further action / summons. So either the officer himself was unaware that he has inadvertently given me an NIP or as you say they believed the section 59 was enough. I would have thought at the very least the officer would have written down some details of the facts or issued me a ticket if he believes this would be progressed but I was only left with a producer. Going by what the officer had told me if I am then to receive anything after 14 days then the officer must have given me incorrect advice since if a verbal NIP is given the 14 day rule does not apply.

This post has been edited by asrman: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 19:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 19:04
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,243
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (asrman @ Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 20:02) *
then the officer must have given me incorrect advise


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


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
asrman
post Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 19:12
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,603



QUOTE (peterguk @ Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 19:58) *
QUOTE (asrman @ Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 19:48) *
or issued me with a ticket there and then.



Most forces decide on further action centrally and it is quite normal for no "ticket" to be issued at the roadside.


Thank you for your response. It does seem the norm these days for forces to decide on further action centrally. My only confusion in this case is that there was no verbal indication by the officer himself he wishes to charge me with speeding /driving without care but more simply informing me that our conversation was being recorded on recording equipment. As stated he also seemed fairly certain I could comfortably forget about it if nothing is heard within 14 days. A friend of mine has previously been stopped for something similar and was notified by the officer that the matter will have to be dealt with in court and to expect court summons within 6 months and that's exactly what he received 5 months later. The fact I was given the Section 59 and nothing else seems fairly convincing. The officer himself was also very polite and thankful for my frank admission and simply requested I slow down especially on that stretch. Having said that I remain open for all possible eventualities and look forward to hearing more views on this.

This post has been edited by asrman: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 19:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 19:35
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,555
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Officers, especially regular patrol officers, aren't always trained in every aspect of traffic law and so it is worth taking the 14 days with a pinch of salt. Fourteen days is convention in many police forces even with a verbal NIP which he could be referring to.

That said, most forces use Traffic Offence Reports if they wish to progress the matter further. Normally you would have been given a copy at the time. It is in theory possible someone could look through the chest cam footage and piece things together, but it would seem grossly inefficient and thus unlikely.

As others have said very likely the S59 is as far as it goes, but certainly they were doing you a favour if so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
asrman
post Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 19:45
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,603



Thank you for your reply. You are correct in saying take what the officer said with a pinch of salt as having read the Act itself it seems I probably was given some form of verbal NIP therefore throwing the 14 day service period out of the window. A friend of mine as mentioned above who did in fact reveieve court summons was not only told clearly by the officer he intended to progress to court but as you state was also required to verify and sign a traffic offence report which the officer used to give a written account of the offence. Both officers in my case were very polite and courteous and even offered me a lift home well out of their way had they not had a back row of seats full of equipment! It does seem quite inefficient to trawl through chest cam footage and the officer himself hinted at this being unlikely. That said it remains anyone's guess what I might receive through the post within the next few months.

This post has been edited by asrman: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 19:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dwain
post Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 09:45
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 557
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Member No.: 6,174



So, the OP can be subject to a S59 and a speeding ticket? For one offence?

He has his vehicle impounded, pays a fee to get it out and then gets procecuted, 3 points and another fine. All for the same offence?

I know the law can be daft, but that seems really unfair.

Dwain

This post has been edited by Dwain: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 09:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 10:00
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,639
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,528



QUOTE (Dwain @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 10:45) *
So, the OP can be subject to a S59 and a speeding ticket? For one offence? He has his vehicle impounded, pays a fee to get it out and then gets procecuted, 3 points and another fine. All for the same offence? I know the law can be daft, but that seems really unfair. Dwain


s.59 is indeed a rather heavy-handed weapon, designed to deter persistent anti-social use of vehicles, and one of the targets is car cruisers. The OP is not really being punished twice for the same offence, although it may seem like it, but for a course of conduct. He received one warning 'a few months back' and is then caught speeding and undertaking on a stretch of road he knows is used by car cruisers and subject to an injunction, so clearly he did not take on board the earlier warning.



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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 10:13
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40,209
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



It equates to an ASBO, breach the ASBO and you get punished for that as well as any individual crime committed.


--------------------
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
asrman
post Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 11:19
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,603



QUOTE (Dwain @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 10:45) *
So, the OP can be subject to a S59 and a speeding ticket? For one offence?

He has his vehicle impounded, pays a fee to get it out and then gets procecuted, 3 points and another fine. All for the same offence?

I know the law can be daft, but that seems really unfair.

Dwain


Whilst it does seem harsh I agree with the other posters it is unfortunately logical. Initially I was stopped for speeding and undertaking. On further inspection of my details the officer noted an earlier issue of Section 59 which meant almost as a matter of course he would be required to seize my car (especially since he had chest recording equipment). On making the decision to do so he did not make any further reference to the other offences of speeding and undertaking besides simply noting our conversation was being recorded. Whilst it seems in my case he had no interest in dealing with this beyond Section 59 I would think in other cases all charges and offences would be persued in their own right. Hats off to this particular officer who felt he was able to use his discretion and come to a just decision without feeling the need to progress even further.

On a side note my entire day was spent trying to recover my car since there was confusion over where it had been impounded (unfortunately turned out the officer had given me the wrong address). So lesson thoroughly learnt for me and I will be slowing down my driving especially on that stretch of road.

This post has been edited by asrman: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 11:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 12:23
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,872
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Dwain @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 10:45) *
So, the OP can be subject to a S59 and a speeding ticket? For one offence?

He has his vehicle impounded, pays a fee to get it out and then gets procecuted, 3 points and another fine. All for the same offence?

I know the law can be daft, but that seems really unfair.

Dwain

There appear to be two offences in play here - speeding and careless driving. No reason there can’t be a seizure for the careless and prosecution for the speeding (or both). The aim of s 59 isn’t punishment, it’s to prevent the commission of further offences at that time.


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


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
asrman
post Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 17:44
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,603



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 13:23) *
QUOTE (Dwain @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 10:45) *
So, the OP can be subject to a S59 and a speeding ticket? For one offence?

He has his vehicle impounded, pays a fee to get it out and then gets procecuted, 3 points and another fine. All for the same offence?

I know the law can be daft, but that seems really unfair.

Dwain


There appear to be two offences in play here - speeding and careless driving. No reason there can’t be a seizure for the careless and prosecution for the speeding (or both). The aim of s 59 isn’t punishment, it’s to prevent the commission of further offences at that time.


Strictly speaking in fact I would say there are three offences:

1. Speeding
2. Driving without due care
3. Breach of Section 59

Whilst the aim of Section 59 is not punishment I would imagine in any case such as this which might be progressed to court one may include the hardship as referred to above as a form of punishment due to being stranded without a car in the middle of a dual carriageway in the middle of the night together with a day off work in arranging to recover the vehicle and paying for transport and impound fees in doing the same. I would think a reasonable person would view this as a form of punishment and as such do not see any reason why it cannot be used as mitigating factors in front of a judge.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 17:52
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,467
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (asrman @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 18:44) *
1. Speeding
2. Driving without due care

They appeared to have occurred on the same occasion - even if they did pursue them separately only the highest endorsement would be levied.

The impact of the s59 would not offer any mitigation to these offences. Although, there are 2 elements of a s59 - were both met?

This post has been edited by Jlc: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 17:55


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

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 17:56
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,331
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (asrman @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 18:44) *
Strictly speaking in fact I would say there are three offences:

1. Speeding
2. Driving without due care
3. Breach of Section 59

Whilst the aim of Section 59 is not punishment I would imagine in any case such as this which might be progressed to court one may include the hardship as referred to above as a form of punishment due to being stranded without a car in the middle of a dual carriageway in the middle of the night together with a day off work in arranging to recover the vehicle and paying for transport and impound fees in doing the same. I would think a reasonable person would view this as a form of punishment and as such do not see any reason why it cannot be used as mitigating factors in front of a judge.

There is no offence of "breaching section 59".


--------------------
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 Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 18:26
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,872
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (asrman @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 18:44) *
Strictly speaking in fact I would say there are three offences:


Strictly speaking, you would be wrong.

QUOTE
3. Breach of Section 59


Last time I looked that wasn’t an offence.

QUOTE
and as such do not see any reason why it cannot be used as mitigating factors in front of a judge.


Not much point in you asking for advice if all you want us to do is confirm your unqualified opinion.


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


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
asrman
post Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 18:26
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,603



QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 18:52) *
QUOTE (asrman @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 18:44) *
1. Speeding
2. Driving without due care

They appeared to have occurred on the same occasion - even if they did pursue them separately only the highest endorsement would be levied.

The impact of the s59 would not offer any mitigation to these offences. Although, there are 2 elements of a s59 - were both met?


Thanks for taking the time to reply. Yes it seems in my case both elements were met 1. Careless driving and 2. Potential to cause alarm to a member of public seeing as I was not the only person on the road (undertaking). Thanks to everyone else for their detailed replies this place is an invaluable source of information
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
asrman
post Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 18:39
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 21 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,603



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 19:26) *
QUOTE (asrman @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 18:44) *
Strictly speaking in fact I would say there are three offences:


Strictly speaking, you would be wrong.

QUOTE
3. Breach of Section 59


Last time I looked that wasn’t an offence.

QUOTE
and as such do not see any reason why it cannot be used as mitigating factors in front of a judge.


Not much point in you asking for advice if all you want us to do is confirm your unqualified opinion.


Thanks for your reply. I am asking for advice in order to obtain the opinions of people who are better placed to provide me with information in relation to my circumstances. I am happy to be corrected. So far I am happy with the information I have been given and have already obtained some useful knowledge. As stated above whether or not this case is progressed is out of my control and I remain open to all potential eventualities (fail to see where your last comment has come from).

What is your qualified opinion on my case?

This post has been edited by asrman: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 18:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 18:41
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,872
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (asrman @ Tue, 10 Jul 2018 - 19:39) *
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.


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


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

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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, 15th December 2018 - 05:45
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.