Traffic Law - Vehicle Seizure

[Guest red7]

I was at a kit car tyre kicking evening in the car park of a local pub last week.

 

A nice summers evening with over 17 sevenesque cars and a group of Austin 7's on a rally to Scotland.

 

Two of the lads had a small group standing around their Tiger/Westfield cars. They told us the tale of being stopped on their way to the pub by an armed responce Range Rover and charged with the following:-

 

"The police have the power to seize a vehicle if it’s being used in an anti-social manner (causing alarm, harassment or distress). This includes inconsiderate driving."

 

Now I don't know how they were driving, but the noise level of their cars was part of the problem and racing off from traffic lights and squeeling rear tyres was. They were not charged for Speeding (no evidence?).

 

So, what happens next? Will they have their vehicles seized by the police? Can they get them back? What offence have they committed? How much will they be fined.

 

Just curious, it's a month before the next pub meeting, when I'll be interested to hear the outcome.

 

P.S. After they had been charged the boys in blue asked for a guided tour of the cars....they were told to F...Off.

[Guest warwick7735]

Hi

 

I've heard of that around my way with the Boy Racer brigade, they can confiscate the car until a fine is paid.

But where I live it would probably be for too much noise out of their stereo rather than speed, they all drive 1000cc Novas of Escorts with dustbins for tail pipes , all noise no go.

 

Warwick

[Guest crwoodford]

Without further information it will be impossible to predict the outcome. What exactly were they charged with? What part of the Road Traffic Act did they commit an offence against? Were they actually charged?

 

The 'tyre squealing' could come under Driving without Due Care and Attention amongst others, the 'noisy exhaust' could possibly be related to the roadworthiness of the car (exhaust modified so as to cause noise above acceptable levels etc....) although you mention anti-social behaviour? That is not exactly the realm of the Traffic Division unless motoring offences were being committed? Although you did mention an ARU?

 

The Police could have impounded the car's there and then if they thought they were unroadworthy? Or at least prevented the drivers from continuing their journeys? But what's to stop the owners from selling the cars tomorrow.. impossible to retrospectively impound?

 

No evidence for speeding? I'm guessing no camera which is unusual but it wasn't a traffic unit? I'm wondering why an armed response unit would fart around pulling a couple of boy racers? Unless they genuinely pulled them for a look at the cars and the lads got a bit gobby? (Never a good idea!)

 

At the end of the day, it is worth remembering, your car should be maintained within the law and you should always drive within the law. Save the wheel spins and lairy manoeuvres for Track days. Rich, what's your angle on this?

 

Col (Taunton)

[enforcer]

This'll be the relatively new powers under Sect 59 of (I think) the Police Reform Act 2002.

 

"Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 refers to vehicles being used in a manner which causes alarm, distress or annoyance. Where a vehicle is being used in this way, or otherwise amounts to careless or inconsiderate driving, a constable in uniform will have the powers set out in subsection (3) below. An example might be performing screeching 'handbrake turns' in a housing estate.The constable will also have these same powers where he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle has been used on any occasion in such a manner. The powers cannot be exercised unless the driver is BOTH using the vehicle anti-socially AND is committing either the section 3 or the section 34 offence. Someone driving in a way that might be considered anti-social but not committing either of these offences is not liable to having his vehicle seized, nor is someone committing a different motoring offence. "

 

Basicly if a police officer has evidence to show that a vehicle has been used in an anti-social manner he or she may warn the driver ( normally a written notice is served) that if a similar act is committed within 12 months the vehicle may be seized. The evidence can either be from the officer themself or through a complaint from a third party. An entry is placed on the Police National Computer indicating that the vehicle is subject to a sect 59 notice, so anyone checking the car across the country would be aware.

 

Examples of anti-social use might be:

 

Careless or incosiderate driving

Excessive noise (sitting at traffic lights at 3am in a built up area with the boom box blaring)

'Displaying' (handbrake turns etc on your local Sainsbury's car park

 

The power is widely used to keep order at 'Cruises' but has been just as effective at dealing with mini motos being driven around housing estates and driving everyone mad.

 

Up here in Shropshire my ARVs don't get that many armed incidents to deal with so they while away their time keeping the roads safe ( they had three cars seized and recovered today for being driven without insurance. (Another excellent new power). Incidentally the power to seize vehicles under Sect 59 extends to Community Support Officers as well.

 

The driver has to pay the recovery and storage charge to get the car back (about £150). Useful bit of kit.

[Guest salty_monk]

Sounds sensible to me.... Squealing wheels & boom boxes are never necessary, can they also get those little 16 year old twats on scooters with it too... please say they can

 

Over here they have a curfew on under 18's & although they'll give them a licence at 16 they cannot drive unaccompanied at night....

 

Don't get as many scrotes hanging around that's for sure...

 

Dan

[Guest TerryBarry]

I note that some US states and Australian territories restrict drivers under 18 and/or 21 to zero alcohol drink/drive limits.

Excellent idea - provided they dont apply the same restrictions to the over 60's

[Guest salty_monk]

DUI as they call it over here seems far worse (it's much less frowned upon) in my experience than in the UK....

 

On the other side... There's bugger all public transport in a LA & a lot of other parts of the states I've been to which really can't help....

[Guest crwoodford]

they had three cars seized and recovered today for being driven without insurance. (Another excellent new power).

 

Rich, I totally agree, it is an excellent new power! Does the same go for vehicles with no MOT's? Which I assume the Police can now also spot-checked over the radio?

 

Col (Taunton)

[enforcer]

Not yet for MOTs, but I'm sure it will come. It does make a big difference to be able to access Insurance and MOT details. We now have a much deeper access to the DVLA database for driving licence records. It has all but marked the passing of the much hated 'producer' which used to be given out like confetti!

 

Like the new proposal on the news yersterday to give us powers to seize (and CRUSH) mini-motos! Bring it on!

[Guest red7]

Excellent information guys. So it looks like the boys have had their warning. Sounds sensible to me, rather than hitting them with a fine or court immediately. One to remember. It certainly put the bejabers up them.

[Guest elwe]

"Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 refers to vehicles being used in a manner which causes alarm, distress or annoyance.

 

So you can impound cars that are driven constantly in the middle lane of the motorway? Fantastic, could you start a clampdown today?

 

The power is widely used to keep order at 'Cruises' but has been just as effective at dealing with mini motos being driven around housing estates and driving everyone mad.

 

Surely in the case of mini motos on housing estates the riders should be prosecuted for driving without insurance, driving an unregistered vehicle, no MOT etc.

[Guest vacinc]

if anyone want to read it link http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2002/20020030.htm

[enforcer]

Surely in the case of mini motos on housing estates the riders should be prosecuted for driving without insurance, driving an unregistered vehicle, no MOT etc.

 

Well of course, but if you seize the machine as well or even have it crushed you are preventing the problem reoccuring. It's a far more realistic way of dealing with the problem and doesn't clog up an already struggling legal system by putting hundreds of 11 year olds in front of the courts. I only wish we could hold parents responsible and endorse their licences for causing the problem in the first place through their niaive stupidity.

[Longboarder]

Please don't confuse legislation with action. How many times has the Blair government genuinely sorted a problem with new legislation. Are the car ringering gangs unable to get hold of numberplates? Do the scrotes submit SORN declarations or register mickey mouse addresses? Has mobile phone abuse in cars stopped?

These bits of legislation are half baked, innefective attempts to address real problems which inconvenience and increase costs for those of us still stupid enough to try to be honest and comply with the law. How long before an honest joe has his car crushed because of two charges based on the purely subjective judgement of a policeman. Is there a court process involved where the charges may be argued in public? An appeals process?

I accept there is a problem. It needs a solution. Is this realy it.

 

Nigel

[enforcer]

These bits of legislation are half baked, innefective attempts to address real problems which inconvenience and increase costs for those of us still stupid enough to try to be honest and comply with the law. How long before an honest joe has his car crushed because of two charges based on the purely subjective judgement of a policeman. Is there a court process involved where the charges may be argued in public? An appeals process?

 

Read it again. The power to destroy vehicles applies to so called mini motos and other off road motorcycles. The legislation under sect 59 refers to the seizure only of a vehicle used in an anti-social manner. And it would be on the 'purely subjective judgement' of 2 police officers, or the same officer witnessing two different examples. And where is the subjectivity in deciding whether or not a mini moto has been ridden illegally on a road? Either it has or it hasn't

 

Nigel, why not try to be a bit more negative about it! These are the most useable pieces of roads policing legislation that have been made available to the police for many years. I would say that in Telford alone we have probably removed a couple of hundred uninsured cars from the road since the powers came in. Would you call that 'action'??? All of those cars have either been collected by their owners after taking out a proper insurance policy and paying £150 or have been destroyed.Whats the matter, someone seized yer mini moto? Or maybe you're on your first warning for anti social driving

 

Sorry, but I fail to understand why you feel this way