section 59 - outrageous highway robbery?

Paradigm

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

Yes, Wig is now of the opinion the police now have too much power to take uninsured cars now.

So I see...

Paradigm

liam8282 wrote: »

Starting to go round in circles a bit here, the appeals process seems clear to me.

Yes we are but only because you cling to the belief that there is an "appeals" process, there clearly isn't! You can ask the Officer concerned to review his decision &, failing that, write to his superior officer... that's it! It's hardly an appeal process.

liam8282 wrote: »

if that fails you then have the option of making a formal complaint about the police to the IPCC, as you are calling into question the professional behaviour of the police involved.

No, the IPCC will not overturn a S59! At best a complaint to the IPCC will result in the Officer in question getting a slap on the wrist. Read the quote I posted from the IPCC website... they don't revoke FPN's, cautions etc!

liam8282 wrote: »

At the end of the day, I don't think anybody has gone this far, because either 1. they admit they have committed an offence,

That's the whole issue, you don't need to have commited an offence to recieve a S59, you just need to have "annoyed" someone! A copper can issue one 'cos he's bored if he likes (in theory) & there's diddly you can do about it.

In fact, get two of these within a 12 month period & it will cost you a £150 "fine" to get your car back but with no offence recorded, or proved in a court of law, against you.. no points on your licence, nothing!
Where else does that happen?

We will have to agree to disagree but you're barking up the wrong tree if you think the IPCC is the solution.... it's not!

Wig

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

And if you were crippled by an uninsured drive would you still hold the view it works?

Of course I would, why would that affect the price of cod loin?

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

Yes, Wig is now of the opinion the police now have too much power to take uninsured cars now.

Cars that they arbitrarily think are uninsured, there is an important difference.

Paradigm wrote: »

So I see...

I'm not sure you do.

Paradigm

Wig wrote: »

I'm not sure you do.

Believe me I do... just not getting involved

Wig

Paradigm wrote: »

Believe me I do... just not getting involved

Fair enuff

liam8282

Paradigm wrote: »

Yes we are but only because you cling to the belief that there is an "appeals" process, there clearly isn't! You can ask the Officer concerned to review his decision &, failing that, write to his superior officer... that's it! It's hardly an appeal process.

It is still an appeals process, just because it isn't one that you like doesn't mean to say that it isn't an appeals process. :wall:

As I have said before the S59 is clearly being used to try speed up the system a bit for the police.

If every petty driving offence that resulted in a S59, was instead dealt with under the RTA and every individual taken to court, could you just imagine the cost, time and everything else involved?

If the police are issuing the S59 instead of charging for the same offences under the RTA, surely the driver is getting a more lenient punishment?

If you are actually arguing that the police are wrongly issuing the S59, what is to say that the same police wouldn't give you a fixed penalty for any other thing they so happened to feel like? What recourse would you have then? (IPCC?)

I think people on this thread are forgetting that in the majority of cases an offence has been committed.

Paradigm

liam8282 wrote: »

It is still an appeals process, just because it isn't one that you like doesn't mean to say that it isn't an appeals process. :wall:

As I have said before the S59 is clearly being used to try speed up the system a bit for the police.

If every petty driving offence that resulted in a S59, was instead dealt with under the RTA and every individual taken to court, could you just imagine the cost, time and everything else involved?

If the police are issuing the S59 instead of charging for the same offences under the RTA, surely the driver is getting a more lenient punishment?

If you are actually arguing that the police are wrongly issuing the S59, what is to say that the same police wouldn't give you a fixed penalty for any other thing they so happened to feel like? What recourse would you have then? (IPCC?)

I think people on this thread are forgetting that in the majority of cases an offence has been committed.

As I have said, we'll have to agree to disagree! If you believe all is well with S59 then good for you... contrary to popular opinion they are not only issued to 18-25 year olds with modified cars!

Hope you never get one

HOWMUCH

A friends son got a S59 warning whilst he wasn't in the car, he was in a supermarket at the time a passenger turned his stereo on too loud whilst a police car was passing and they served a S59 warning which lasts for a year. It is issued against the car and not the driver. If for any reason another S59 is served during the 12months then they seize the car and you have to pay £150 for it's return.

Paradigm

HOWMUCH wrote: »

A friends son got a S59 warning whilst he wasn't in the car, he was in a supermarket at the time a passenger turned his stereo on too loud whilst a police car was passing and they served a S59 warning which lasts for a year. It is issued against the car and not the driver. If for any reason another S59 is served during the 12months then they seize the car and you have to pay £150 for it's return.

Shhhhh... it's speeding up the process

Like I said, they're issued on a whim but never mind you can always go to the IPCC

thickbuilder

they wont give you an s59 if you have done nothing wrong
i got an s59 for riding my road legal motorcross bike where i should not have been
the first one is a warning do it again and you loose the vehicle
if you arent clever enough to learn from the first s59 you get dont moan when they take the vehicle off you