PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Car seized and impounded
agresr
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 16:33
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 16:45
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,501
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StuartBu
post Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 16:53
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,123
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 .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 17:41
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,372
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 ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 18:45
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,481
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.


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emsgeorge
post Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 19:22
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 440
Joined: 2 Dec 2007
Member No.: 15,762



QUOTE (StuartBu @ Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 17:53) *
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"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
agresr
post Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 20:08
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 3 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,237



QUOTE (StuartBu @ Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 17:53) *
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 .



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 18:41) *
And is your insurance company aware of the modified exhaust ?
And any other modifications ?



QUOTE (emsgeorge @ Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 20:22) *
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 17:53) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 21:26
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,617
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (agresr @ Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 21:08) *
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.


--------------------
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
Dwain
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 07:45
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 550
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 07:52
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,809
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Dwain @ Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 08:45) *
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


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Logician
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 11:00
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,481
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.


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



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PaulR986
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 12:20
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 34
Joined: 16 Mar 2013
From: Suffolk
Member No.: 60,578





QUOTE (agresr @ Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 21:08) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
agresr
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 18:38
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,886
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
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.

QUOTE (agresr @ Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 19:29) *
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

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
peterguk
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 18:43
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,809
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (agresr @ Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 19:29) *
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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 08:32
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,558
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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 20:55
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,883
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 21:13
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,809
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 21:55) *
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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Durzel
post Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 15:28
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,344
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 16:54
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,585
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Durzel @ Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 16:28) *
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.


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


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 >
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: Wednesday, 26th September 2018 - 15:45
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.