im a chavy boy racer

Originally Posted by gruntygiggles

Only if he actually is being that bad! Personally, I'd rather go down, query it, find out the details and take copies of paperwork and file it. Keep a log of all conversations and names etc and if you find you're being targeted get a solicitor and have them all for harrassment!

PM Ed and see what he thinks!

I sought advice for mine when it come through, I was going to contest it, the advice I received was...what if they are holding the picture/video card up their sleeve (unlikely, but not unknown), if not and they do let you off, they will be waiting for you in the same place all the time to catch you out.

Without aiming too much offence to Pete etc, but remember, this is the Police, traffic offences are high priorities, theft, robberies, assault take them a couple of days to be bothered around by me. Soon onto you with a traffic offence.

Hell yeah, if I received a second one for someone just seeing me and reporting it, I will be losing my licence and vehicle anyway, so I will contest it whatever happens. I want proof if I ever get caught for the second time.

I won't be getting caught again though, I ain't that stupid to act a tw*t around housing estates.

WB, is it an official Section 59?

Widepants.

My 2p worth......

1)You won't get anywhere by complaining, but if you genuinely feel this is a mistake o and speak to the local Police but...........BE POLITE.

2)If you do speak to them they wont be waiting for you to mess up later on. They have bigger fish to fry.

3)The S59 Warning under the Police reform act will be recorded on PNC for 12 months, if you get pulled again for being naughty in the next 12 months on bike or in car you will more than likely have your car/bike seized there and then as it is being used in an anti-social manner.

4) Im NOT having a dig at you here.

[gruntygiggles]

Originally Posted by jumjum_0214

Widepants.

My 2p worth......

1)You won't get anywhere by complaining, but if you genuinely feel this is a mistake o and speak to the local Police but...........BE POLITE.

2)If you do speak to them they wont be waiting for you to mess up later on. They have bigger fish to fry.

3)The S59 Warning under the Police reform act will be recorded on PNC for 12 months, if you get pulled again for being naughty in the next 12 months on bike or in car you will more than likely have your car/bike seized there and then as it is being used in an anti-social manner.

4) Im NOT having a dig at you here.

Exactly the reason to go and speak to them....be polite, but ask for specifics as you are not aware that you have been doing anything wrong and the letter you have recieved is extremely vague.

Wideboy....if you're worried, just call a few solicitors and you'll find a legal aid one that will go with you and help you if you feel you need it and probably not a bad idea. The police HAVE to disclose any evidence that they have against you, so it is better to know what it is and if needed, amend your driving/riding to suit.

From what you say, the letter doesn't specify that it's your car, so it could be that you have been spotted on the bike doing things that someone has taken a dislike to. It's not unheard of for people to exaggerate complaints to get something done and if the police have no evidence to support the complainant........you can contest it I am sure.

Legal advice is the way to go though.

[Bluepete]

I'd like to see the full transcript of the letter. Is it on the local Constabulary headed paper?

Oh, and as to why traffic offences are dealt with quickly; most traffic cops are experienced, time served lads and lasses. We know how to do the job properly. Also, (Very quick Googling, please feel free to pick and quote a different set of stats.) The total number of murders reported in one year, 2007, was around 760. Fatalities on the road accounted for more than 3000 lives in the same period. Now, what's more important, road safety or Mrs Miggins prize hanging basket going missing? Most Cops who respond to burglaries, thefts etc are new, inexperienced and drastically overworked with supervisors ragging them at the station and people complaining that they had to wait for someone to come and see them.

I've done both jobs, so I feel able to comment.

Pete

Clears it up for me then Pete. Cheers

[the_lone_wolf]

Without wanting to start a daily mail thread, is non-response to a letter like this considered to be an admission of guilt?

I know someone down here (sensible middle aged rider) who was given a S.59 for accelerating away from a set of traffic lights faster than the cars behind him, not full throttle, perfectly safe, standard exhausts, well within the speed limit, front wheel firmly on the ground - it was claimed that it was likely to cause alarm to members of the public

If the person I know had been on the receiving end of a malicious complaint previously he could have lost his bike (KTM Adventure, not some tarted up race rep or chavvy supermoto) all because of a lie and a jobsworth copper having a bad day

Don't get me wrong, having police able to deal with chav scum burning rubber in the McDonalds car park at 2am is great, but isn't a situation like this getting dangerously close to guilty until proven innocent? What kind of procedures are set up to prevent someone completely innocent ending up in a world of stupidity simply because the old fart knocker across the road doesn't like bikes

[gruntygiggles]

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

Without wanting to start a daily mail thread, is non-response to a letter like this considered to be an admission of guilt?

I know someone down here (sensible middle aged rider) who was given a S.59 for accelerating away from a set of traffic lights faster than the cars behind him, not full throttle, perfectly safe, standard exhausts, well within the speed limit, front wheel firmly on the ground - it was claimed that it was likely to cause alarm to members of the public

If the person I know had been on the receiving end of a malicious complaint previously he could have lost his bike (KTM Adventure, not some tarted up race rep or chavvy supermoto) all because of a lie and a jobsworth copper having a bad day

Don't get me wrong, having police able to deal with chav scum burning rubber in the McDonalds car park at 2am is great, but isn't a situation like this getting dangerously close to guilty until proven innocent? What kind of procedures are set up to prevent someone completely innocent ending up in a world of stupidity simply because the old fart knocker across the road doesn't like bikes

+1...hence my advice to get any evidence, find out what the complaint was and guard against being made a victim of someone elses grudge!

[Bluepete]

Section 59 Police Reform Act; 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).
(2) A constable in uniform shall also have the powers set out in subsection (3) where he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle has been used on any occasion in a manner falling within subsection (1).
(3) Those powers are—
(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;
(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).
(4) A constable shall not seize a motor vehicle in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section unless—
(a) he has warned the person appearing to him to be the person whose use falls within subsection (1) that he will seize it, if that use continues or is repeated; and
(b) it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the the warning.
(5) Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if—
(a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning;
(b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person;
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him; or
(d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
(6) A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3)(a) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(7) Subsection (3)(c) does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house.
( The powers conferred on a constable by this section shall be exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 60 are in force.
(9) In this section—

• “driving” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52);
• “motor vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle, whether or not it is intended or adapted for use on roads; and
• “private dwelling house” does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.

60 Retention etc. of vehicles seized under section 59
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to—
(a) the removal and retention of motor vehicles seized under section 59; and
(b) the release or disposal of such motor vehicles.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision—
(a) for the giving of notice of the seizure of a motor vehicle under section 59 to a person who is the owner of that vehicle or who, in accordance with the regulations, appears to be its owner;
(b) for the procedure by which a person who claims to be the owner of a motor vehicle seized under section 59 may seek to have it released;
(c) for requiring the payment of fees, charges or costs in relation to the removal and retention of such a motor vehicle and to any application for its release;
(d) as to the circumstances in which a motor vehicle seized under section 59 may be disposed of;
(e) as to the destination—
(i) of any fees or charges payable in accordance with the regulations; and
(ii) of the proceeds (if any) arising from the disposal of a motor vehicle seized under section 59;
(f) for the delivery to a local authority, in circumstances prescribed by or determined in accordance with the regulations, of any motor vehicle seized under section 59.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that a person who would otherwise be liable to pay any fee or charge under the regulations shall not be liable to pay it if—
(a) the use by reference to which the motor vehicle in question was seized was not a use by him; and
(b) he did not know of the use of the vehicle in the manner which led to its seizure, had not consented to its use in that manner and could not, by the taking of reasonable steps, have prevented its use in that manner.
(4) In this section—

• “local authority”—
  (a)
  in relation to England, means the council of a county, metropolitan district or London borough, the Common Council of the City of London or Transport for London; and
  
  (b)
  in relation to Wales, means the council of a county or county borough;
  
  
  
• “motor vehicle” has the same meaning as in section 59.

If your vehicle is seized, you get it back by paying the fee and producing valid driving docs. Off-road bikes are rarely insured, I think a few companies have started doing third party liability policies. That's why most are crushed after being seized, 'cos the rider can rarely, if ever, produce insurance.

Think off top of my head it was £105 to release it one the first day. Can't remember though.

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by BluePete

If your vehicle is seized, you get it back by paying the fee and producing valid driving docs. Off-road bikes are rarely insured, I think a few companies have started doing third party liability policies. That's why most are crushed after being seized, 'cos the rider can rarely, if ever, produce insurance.

so it's basically a fine **cough** tax **cough** and inconvenience?

if so then surely there'd be little point seizing a vehicle that's insured where the rider is legit? if the rider is going to spend money insuring it the costs of releasing it are pretty small compared to the price of a bike like ours