Section 59 Issued by PCSO for apparently speeding. Options

[Sam8519]

Hi everyone.

First post here, I've used the search button and been reading about Section 59 but not found any posts that are exactly the same as mine.

I have, in short been given a S59 by a PCSO because he “thinks” I was speeding.

A letter came through the post saying that the driving witnessed was unacceptable, and may be used as evidence of Driving without due care and attention or without consideration for others.

Rather than typing it all out, I’ll take a picture of it and post it below.

3 points to make:

Issued by a PCSO, not a constable in uniform. Is an Police community officer a constable?

He was ON HIS OWN at the time of the reported incident, I remember because I noticed him on the high street as I drove past and I have a friend who was with me who also remembers him being on his own rather than being with a colleague which I believe is necessary for “I think he was speeding” to hold up in court?

It is being issued because "in his professional opinion I was going too fast" (quote from the phone call) not because I inconvenienced another road user. Now I’m aware of how S59 can be used an abused by officers, however I can’t see that it is right that I should receive it purely because a PCSO “thinks” that I was going over the speed limit rather than its real use to stop children on mini-motos and more lately drifting.



The last point I can think to make right now is that for the whole of the high street I was in fact following another car and therefore if I was going over the speed limit (I wasn’t, it was all stop start, 0 to 25mph driving) too. Also were I going so apparently fast, how does he suppose that he would have read my registration at 8.41 at night when it is dark and only the poor lighting of the end of Tonbridge high street to view my reg. What may have given the impession I was speeding was my exhaust, which although loud is infact standard however this is still no proof of such a thing.

So any help or ideas anyone has to combat some PCSO who seems to want to be a GATSO operator then it will be very much appreciated.

He has demanded a meeting in person rather than issuing it over the phone or by post so I would like as much information as possible to take with me.

Attached is the letter I received.



This post has been edited by Sam8519: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 - 21:19

[Advertisement]

[Glacier2]

That is not a S59. It is merely the threat of one.

[jobo]

cheeky Bs


they cant issue a section 59 unless they can find out who the driver is and they cant do that unless you contact them,

they could send you a 172 form requiring you to name your self, but as far as i know CSOs, cant send 172 forms unless the CC has authorised them and it would seem that hasnt happened or they would have sent one
that cant be taken as a NIP, so they cant prosecute you for anything if they dont send an NIP with in 14 days of the offence so id avoid them for a week if i was you

they could serve a 172 on you and a section 59 thereafter, but prob not

[Glacier2]

Also they have to make you sign the S59.

[southpaw82]

Also they have to make you sign the S59.

Do they?

[ford poplar]

"driven in a manner, that in my professional opinion, amounted to driving in a reckless and careless manner"

????

This post has been edited by ford poplar: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 - 22:08

[Sam8519]

That is not a S59. It is merely the threat of one.

I am aware of this, but it is saying they want to give me one. And you cannot appeal once it is issued, so I want to try and avoid getting it in the first place if possible. I don't want to be stopped every single time a police car is behind me or risk having my car taken from me at 3am just because stop numbers are running a little low.

cheeky Bs


they cant issue a section 59 unless they can find out who the driver is and they cant do that unless you contact them,

they could send you a 172 form requiring you to name your self, but as far as i know CSOs, cant send 172 forms unless the CC has authorised them and it would seem that hasnt happened or they would have sent one
that cant be taken as a NIP, so they cant prosecute you for anything if they dont send an NIP with in 14 days of the offence so id avoid them for a week if i was you

they could serve a 172 on you and a section 59 thereafter, but prob not

Ohhhh balls. So ringing him and talking to him was the wrong thing to do? 14 days after the date will be this thursday coming up and the CSO in question has said he is on holiday all of this week so the 14 days will have ellapsed. Is this a good thing?

"driven in a manner, that in my professional opinion, amounted to driving in a reckless and careless manner"

????

Yes, very interesting use of words considering I didn't exceed 25mph, was restricted by traffic and no corners and no heavy braking were involved. I think someone has a bee in his bonnet...

[jobo]

to be honest an admission of driving over the phone is no use to them at all , for prosecution purposes and no nip in 14 days means the underlying threat to prosecute is meaningless, not sure if they can issue a 59 with just a telephone admission of being the driver ? id think not

after that either arse them about for fun or go along and accept the 59, i know what id do

[peterguk]

What may have given the impession I was speeding was my exhaust, which although loud is infact standard however this is still no proof of such a thing.

You might want to be careful, and BTW, i'm not judging you in any way whatsoever here...

There are plenty of examples on this forum and PH where the power to issue a S.59 has been abused for various reasons.

1st thought is that C & U Regs. demand exhaust systems to be quiet these days, and there are few standard cars that could be described as "loud". (TVRs, Nobles etc. excluded).

S.59 Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance

(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which-

(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,
he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3). Blah. Blah. Blah...

A noisy exhaust has been used on plenty of occasions as an excuse to issue a S.59, and in a heavily built up area like a narrow high street, exhausts can always sound louder than on an open road.

As you say, S.59 can't be appealed and is IMHO, one of the most unjust pieces of legislation in existance.

Just my 2p worth...

This post has been edited by peterguk: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 - 23:01

[Sam8519]

to be honest an admission of driving over the phone is no use to them at all , for prosecution purposes and no nip in 14 days means the underlying threat to prosecute is meaningless, not sure if they can issue a 59 with just a telephone admission of being the driver ? id think not

after that either arse them about for fun or go along and accept the 59, i know what id do

So if the 14 days elapses they have lost their chance to prosecute or to prosecute and issue a S59? I think I might know what I'll do then.

1st thought is that C & U Regs. demand exhaust systems to be quiet these days, and there are few standard cars that could be described as "loud". (TVRs, Nobles etc. excluded).

S.59 Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance

(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which-

(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,
he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3). Blah. Blah. Blah...

Its an Evo 8 FQ MR. All the FQ models were fitted with HKS exhausts as standard, which means a 3 inch pipe, minimal baffling and a 5 inch tail pipe. When backed upto the house on idle, the windows shake.

Yeah, I'm more than familiar with the S59 now and 3 and 34 of the traffic laws. Been reading looking for a loop hole!

A noisy exhaust has been used on plenty of occasions as an excuse to issue a S.59, and in a heavily built up area like a narrow high street, exhausts can always sound louder than on an open road.

As you say, S.59 can't be appealed and is IMHO, one of the most unjust pieces of legislation in existance.

Just my 2p worth...

I agree entirely, and although I know its harmless now I don't want to have a black flagged car that can be removed from me at will anywhere any time like 3am in the middle of wales on the way back from a BRC meeting or something because an officer feels like it. I don't want to give them the power to use this rubbish law against an honest motorist (abeit with a fast car) when I was doing nothing wrong and I tax, insure and MOT everything and wasn't even being an idiot or speeding.

[southpaw82]

If they want to put a s. 59 marker against you car they will... that's the state of play these days.

[Glacier2]

If they want to put a s. 59 marker against you car they will... that's the state of play these days.

And if you sell your car, the new owner will have an awful job trying to get rid of the marker.

[Starfighter]

(1) Where a constable in uniform ....

Is PCSO actually a "constable in uniform" in this context. I through a constable was warranted where a PCSO is not.

[jobo]

proberbly , but they cant ( shouldnt ) take it of a driver who hasnt got a warning against him

If they want to put a s. 59 marker against you car they will... that's the state of play these days.

[Top Cat]

(1) Where a constable in uniform ....

Is PCSO actually a "constable in uniform" in this context. I through a constable was warranted where a PCSO is not.

A PCSO is NOT a constable in uniform in any context,if an act says constable only,then constable it is,not PCSO.

Also PCSOs are not warranted,they do not carry a warrant card,they have an identity card.


Just don't get PCSOs confused with Specials.A special has the same powers as a police officer on and off duty.

This post has been edited by Top Cat: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 - 18:53

[Grant_W]

PCSO can and do issue Section 59's.

Power to seize vehicles used to cause alarm: Power to stop and seize a vehicle which a CSO has reason to believe is being used in a manner which contravenes sections 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving) and is causing or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002.

Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 to the Police Reform Act 2002

[Sam8519]

Ok so a PCSO is not a constable but can issue a S59. Getting a bi off topic here.


So once the 14 days are over, has he lost his chance or is a S59 not bound by the 14 days like other offences?

Also what are peoples opinions as to it being offered because PCSO "thinks" i was going too fast (when I know I was not)?

[jeffreyarcher]

but as far as i know CSOs, cant send 172 forms unless the CC has authorised them

Anyone can be authorised, not only a constable.

So once the 14 days are over, has he lost his chance or is a S59 not bound by the 14 days like other offences?

IMO S59 is not bound by the 14 days, because he only needs "reasonable grounds for believing", so not being able to prosecute you for the offence, because of the 14 days, doesn't mean that he doesn't have the grounds.

Also what are peoples opinions as to it being offered because PCSO "thinks" i was going too fast (when I know I was not)?

Where did he say that, on the 'phone? In any case, speeding (alone) is not sufficient for a S59.
If he had no witnesses (and no device) he couldn't do you for speeding anyway (no corroboration).

[jobo]

im contarary by nature

if there is no threat of prosicution andthey they cant issue you with a s 59 unless they have resonable suspicon you were the driver and they havent got that,, unless you admit it , so unless they serve you with a 172 request writen or verbal, id just tell them to FO and then complain bitterly if they issue one outside the lawful requirement

you cant be any worse off, can you ?

[Sam8519]

Where did he say that, on the 'phone? In any case, speeding (alone) is not sufficient for a S59.
If he had no witnesses (and no device) he couldn't do you for speeding anyway (no corroboration).

Yeah the letter demanded a response in the letter and I spoke to a man that sounded like he was out of Monty Python's quest for the Holy Grail. So I made the first move of ringing them. On the phone the only reason he gave for issuing a S59 was because he believed I was going too fast and from my prior reading I believed these were not good enough grounds to do so.

Anyone got any solid proof of this or was this law written in such a way that they can use it for what they like and there are no guidelines for it? As thats the way its starting to look more and more.

This post has been edited by Sam8519: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 - 15:01