Help & FAQs    Search BCF    Members    Groups    Events Calendar
Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


So. Everyone thinks section 59 tickets are crock of shit?

 Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

daemonoid
World Chat Champion



Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Karma :
PostPosted: 22:04 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
stinkwheel wrote:
What do?


Given you can't be done on a public order offence anymore for insulting cops you may try getting pulled over then failing the attitude test and then complain wildly about them giving you a S59 'cos that's what F*** pigs do'.

It'd probably work. Maybe insulting a PCSO whilst having loud cans as they can issue a S59 according to Roger.
____________________
current: ducati monster 750
past: hyosung gt250r, bajaj pulsar 180, hyosung gt 125 comet
@thomasgarrard | www.straitjkt.com | www.racingseven.com
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

U_W v2.0
World Chat Champion



Joined: 07 May 2012
Karma :
PostPosted: 23:16 - 15 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
i think everyone on here is willing to agree that im a public nuisance but the number of cops i've passed either them on foot or in a vehicle im still waiting to receive one of these lol
____________________
BCF's biggest cunt list: Cansa, Pits, Rob
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Ariel Badger
Super Spammer



Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Karma :
PostPosted: 00:41 - 16 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
What is MAG's stance on this issue?
____________________
Bikers make great organ donors, get 115 on your licence today.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :
PostPosted: 06:35 - 16 Aug 2012    Post subject: Re: So. Everyone thinks section 59 tickets are crock of shit Reply with quote
J.M. wrote:
stinkwheel wrote:
Verbosely whinge about it on an internet forum where nobody who can do anything about it will see?

Dibs.

Pfft, amateur.

Must... resist... urge...

Nah, kidding nobody.

Yes, Plastic Plod can issue them and seize vehicles: PRA 2002 Schedule IV Part 1 section 9.

There's nothing in Section 59 that even hints that it can't be used in addition to charging for an actual offence and IMO it should be used (or abused depending on your point of view) as such, rather than as an alternative. If there's insufficient evidence to prosecute the Section 3 or 34 offence, then what's the grounds for the Section 59?

While S59 does (ostensibly) require an RTA 1988 Section 3 or 34 "offence", at a minimum that's just "without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place". That's so broad and ill defined as to be meaningless, as we've seen by the way it's being (mis) applied.

It's primary legislation, there's no Regulation governing it, and it would take an Act of Parliament to strike it off. Even getting the Roads Minister (yay Mike Penning) or the Home Secretary to ask/tell/order Forces to stop abusing it would be meaningless as long as it's still on the books.

The most constructive thing that I can suggest is gathering evidence that it is being abused. Sadly, without challenging them, it's just anecdotal whinging (yay us), and even with clear court verdicts against them, coppers still regularly abuse powers (stop-and-search / stop-and-account, for example), so it'll be an uphill struggle.

On a personal level, educate yourself. The laws are there for everyone to read. Don't be a soft target, assert that Plod is being "unreasonable" as soon as it's clear that you've failed the Attitude Test.

And it doesn't apply in Jockland, so I can't tilt at this particular windmill.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Zen Dog
World Chat Champion



Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 11:12 - 16 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
TheMan wrote:
(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).

Found this a bit weird. You mean if they suspect it has been done at any time in the past? Even if current behaviour is all hugging kittens and helping grandmothers? And what counts as "reasonable"? This is some pretty vague bullshit.

I also liked...
TheMan wrote:
(7) Subsection (3)(c) does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house.

...

• “private dwelling house” does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.


So they aren't allowed to enter a private dwelling house to seize a vehicle, but a garage attached to a property doesn't count as part of the private dwelling house. So your car/bike is only safe if you park it in your lounge?

Zen Dog
____________________
Current - '94 VFR750FR (Dead), '00 VFR800FI, 2011 CBF125 Previous - '10 Street Triple R, '92 MZ ETZ301, '05 TTR250, NSR125R, KMX125, "Honda" Win (chinese copy of an old Honda design with a C90 engine)
My bike trip around S.E. Asia 2010/2011
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

iooi
Super Spammer



Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Karma :
PostPosted: 17:57 - 16 Aug 2012    Post subject: Re: So. Everyone thinks section 59 tickets are crock of shit Reply with quote
stinkwheel wrote:
We seem to have a consensus that it is totally out of order and very open to misuse and abuse, particularly for motorcyclists.

What do we do about it?

Write to our MP?

Write to the transport minister?

An e-petition?

Verbosely whinge about it on an internet forum where nobody who can do anything about it will see?


Clearly the last option Wink

Anything else requires a bit more work Rolling Eyes
____________________
Just because my bike was A DIVVY, does not mean i am......
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Zen Dog
World Chat Champion



Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 07:15 - 17 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
E-petition available here (for a couple of the objections anyway) -

https://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34148

Zen Dog
____________________
Current - '94 VFR750FR (Dead), '00 VFR800FI, 2011 CBF125 Previous - '10 Street Triple R, '92 MZ ETZ301, '05 TTR250, NSR125R, KMX125, "Honda" Win (chinese copy of an old Honda design with a C90 engine)
My bike trip around S.E. Asia 2010/2011
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :
PostPosted: 08:49 - 17 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
100,000 signatures before it's even eligible for consideration for debate. Sad

I'm sorry, I appreciate you (or whomever) putting it up, but I think that site is set up deliberately as a lightning rod for diverting grumbling away from MPs, a place for issues to die a sad, lonely death.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike

Last edited by Rogerborg on 09:01 - 17 Aug 2012; edited 1 time in total
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

mentalboy
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 May 2012
Karma :
PostPosted: 09:01 - 17 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rogerborg wrote:
100,000 signatures before it's even eligible for consideration for debate. Sad


For my sins - I've signed up. Despite this the number of signatures has not moved from a heady 4 to 5. Yes it is probably the worst piece of petitioning I have ever read and would probably be far more successful if it were a little more eloquent.
So a challenge to all those who've expressed an anti-opinion to the S59. You have the opportunity to get this debated in parliament, with the numbers that peruse this forum on a daily basis I'd expect that number to be in the high twenties tonight!

EDIT - Of course we could make a list of the things that bug us about it on here and enter a new readable petition.
____________________
Make mine a Corona.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

mentalboy
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 May 2012
Karma :
PostPosted: 10:03 - 17 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
How's this for starters? Adjust as you see fit and maybe we can get the ball rolling with an epetition/lobby your local MP

Quote:
Amendment to Section 59 requested

Department of Transport

The current issuing of Section59 to users of vehicles currently involves the issuing officer to make a personal judgement call. It is my belief that this system is open to misuse or abuse, either an offence is committed or it is not. The system currently allows the seizure of a vehicle purely upon the grounds that a vehicle may cause distress, alarm or annoyance to members of the public or is being used in such a manner as to contravene sections 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act.

Contravention of the above said sections of the RTA should surely result in the issuing of the relevant ticket as defined by legislative process.

If the Section59 is issued for loud exhausts that have been passed as compliant during an MOT surely the matter should be taken up with the MOT station that passed the item or the manufacturers who made it compliant to EU law.

If driving without due care or attention is the fault why is the relevant ticket not issued?

An S59 issued because no defined laws are broken can lead to the confiscation of a vehicle, a much harsher punishment than drunk driving, driving without due care and attention, speeding to name but a few.
It would appear that an Officer or PCSO could feasibly issue an S59 because they find the colour of a vehicle offensive (a matter of personal opinion) and this has no obvious method of appeal or right to challenge.

Sometimes it causes me distress when a large vehicle passes me whilst I’m walking on the pavement – should it be right that a uniformed officer could issue an S59 for every bus or lorry going about their rightful business just because it makes me a little uncomfortable?

____________________
Make mine a Corona.

Last edited by mentalboy on 10:33 - 17 Aug 2012; edited 2 times in total
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

map
Mr Calendar



Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 10:11 - 17 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
mentalboy wrote:
How's this for starters? Adjust as you see fit and maybe we can get the ball rolling with an epetition/lobby your local MP

Quote:
Amendment to Section 59 requested

Department of Transport

The current issuing of Section59 to users of vehicles currently involves the issuing officer to make a personal judgement call. It is my belief that this system is open to misuse, either an offence is committed or it is not. The system currently allows the seizure of a vehicle purely upon the grounds that a vehicle may cause distress, alarm or annoyance to members of the public or is being used in such a manner as to contravene sections 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act.

Contravention of the above said sections of the RTA should surely result in the issuing of the relevant ticket as defined by legislative process.

If the Section59 is issued for loud exhausts that have been passed as compliant during an MOT surely the matter should be taken up with the MOT station that passed the item or the manufacturers who made it compliant to EU law.

If driving without due care or attention is the fault why is the relevant ticket not issued?

An S59 issued because no defined laws are broken can lead to the confiscation of a vehicle, a much harsher punishment than drunk driving, driving without due care and attention, speeding to name but a few.

Sometimes it causes me distress when a large vehicle passes me whilst I’m walking on the pavement – should it be right that a uniformed officer could issue an S59 for every bus or lorry going about their rightful business just because it makes me a little uncomfortable?

There was an e-petition mentioned above although I think the wording of yours is better...
Zen Dog wrote:
E-petition available here (for a couple of the objections anyway) -
https://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/34148

Too many on the same subject will surely dilute the effectiveness.

On the wording I'd put something like "open to misuse or abuse". Plus I'd add something like "the reasons for a section 59 appear arbitrary and may in practice be issued by a police officer or PCSO who does not like the colour of a vehicle. The reasons for issuing a section 59 appear to be unable to be challenged or queried".

Something like that would help illustrate how arbitrary and silly the rules are.

Thumbs Up
____________________
...and the whirlwind is in the thorn trees, it's hard for thee to kick against the pricks...
Gibbs, what did Duckie look like when he was younger? Very Happy
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

mentalboy
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 May 2012
Karma :
PostPosted: 10:24 - 17 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
Map - As mentioned above, that's why I've rewritten it. People are probably not going to sign up something that reads like it was written by a disgrunted cruiser. Adjustment included.
____________________
Make mine a Corona.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Zen Dog
World Chat Champion



Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 11:06 - 17 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
mentalboy wrote:
Map - As mentioned above, that's why I've rewritten it. People are probably not going to sign up something that reads like it was written by a disgrunted cruiser. Adjustment included.


I didnt start the petition i listed, i just google'd it. You're right, it is pretty badly worded.

And though i suspect you're right about the lightning rod effect Roger, if you put it up Mr. Boy, i'll vote for it.

Zen Dog
____________________
Current - '94 VFR750FR (Dead), '00 VFR800FI, 2011 CBF125 Previous - '10 Street Triple R, '92 MZ ETZ301, '05 TTR250, NSR125R, KMX125, "Honda" Win (chinese copy of an old Honda design with a C90 engine)
My bike trip around S.E. Asia 2010/2011
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

mentalboy
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 May 2012
Karma :
PostPosted: 11:14 - 17 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
I didn't assume it was your petition Zen dog. I'll see how much abuse etc it gets today (wothy of yet another new thread?) and then stick it to HMG
____________________
Make mine a Corona.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

map
Mr Calendar



Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 11:29 - 17 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rogerborg wrote:
...I think that site is set up deliberately as a lightning rod for diverting grumbling away from MPs...
mentalboy wrote:
...I'll see how much abuse etc it gets today (wothy of yet another new thread?) and then stick it to HMG
Zen Dog wrote:
... i suspect you're right about the lightning rod effect Roger, if you put it up Mr. Boy, i'll vote for it....

Based on the comments can the petition wording be used as a draft for a letter to peoples local MP? I'm saying that for the sick, lame and lazy who would just copy and paste into an email!

Contact your MP via Write To Them

The current Home Secretary is Theresa May - she can be contacted via
Quote:
Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Home Secretary
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF

public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk


Thumbs Up
____________________
...and the whirlwind is in the thorn trees, it's hard for thee to kick against the pricks...
Gibbs, what did Duckie look like when he was younger? Very Happy
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

Rogerborg
nimbA



Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :
PostPosted: 11:45 - 17 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
To be honest, the only realistic ways of challenging it are:
Arrow Judical Review (got £50K or so lying around?)
Arrow A civil case against a Force that loses in County and then wins in the Court of Appeal, in order to set a citable precedent.
Arrow Get the AA, RAC, MAG, BCF, IAM, Uncle Tom Cobley and All onboard, mount a noisy campaign based on some silver haired granny with some cute grandkids on board being done for being "inconsiderate" and "annoying" by driving too carefully[*].
Arrow Find a Cabinet minister's son, complain to plod about him chavving around, get his dad's car impounded. That should get it sorted in short order.

[*] Concrete examples of abuse, with names and dates, would carry much more weight than speculation. But facts won't really come into it, not at the level where it needs to be changed, so feel free to make some up. It happens all the time in politics, it's called "theoretical case studies".

Bear in mind that S59 doesn't extend North of the border, so I'm all right, Jack.
____________________
Biking is 1/20th as dangerous as horse riding.
GONE: HN125-8, LF-250B, GPz 305, GPZ 500S, Burgman 400 // RIDING: F650GS (800 twin), Royal Enfield Bullet Electra 500 AVL, Ninja 250R because racebike
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

mentalboy
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 May 2012
Karma :
PostPosted: 12:21 - 17 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rogerborg wrote:

Bear in mind that S59 doesn't extend North of the border, so I'm all right, Jack.


Deja vu! I think you've just paraphrased the French*

*zis Mr Hitler has just invaded czechoslavakia, haha
____________________
Make mine a Corona.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Fowlersrs
World Chat Champion



Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Karma :
PostPosted: 13:03 - 17 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
Can I just add something..

Ive been told that a S59 applies to a vehicle and not a person, so you could actually in fact buy a bike/car and recieve a s59 (just 1) and have your bike seized because some other unlucky sod who previously owned your bike/car also recieved this one..

im not entirely sure if this is true but I heard it from quite a reliable source.. anyone know if it is?

It doesnt half give the wanker section of the force alot of power to inconvenience u as it where
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

mentalboy
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 May 2012
Karma :
PostPosted: 13:43 - 17 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fowlersrs wrote:
Can I just add something..

Ive been told that a S59 applies to a vehicle and not a person, so you could actually in fact buy a bike/car and recieve a s59 (just 1) and have your bike seized because some other unlucky sod who previously owned your bike/car also recieved this one..

im not entirely sure if this is true but I heard it from quite a reliable source.. anyone know if it is?

It doesnt half give the wanker section of the force alot of power to inconvenience u as it where


I should imagine that Paragraph 4b makes sure that it applies to the offender:
(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;
____________________
Make mine a Corona.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

MarJay
But it's British!



Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Karma :
PostPosted: 07:25 - 19 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
nigger tits wrote:
LOL urope

enjoy your lack of freedoms, enjoy your muslims


LOL at your lack of education and understanding of the world. You can remain a bigotted racist moron redneck.

Isn't it funny how I can tell so much from one post?
____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

dungbug
Could Be A Chat Bot



Joined: 05 Feb 2012
Karma :
PostPosted: 07:47 - 19 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
MarJay wrote:

LOL at your lack of education and understanding of the world. You can remain a bigotted racist moron redneck.

Isn't it funny how I can tell so much from one post?


Thumbs Up
____________________
CBT: Pass 25/06/2011 Theory Test: Pass12/06/2012 Mod 1: Fail 08/07/2012
Mod 1 Retest: Pass 15/0702012 Mod 2: Pass 03/08/2012
Suzuki GN125 (Sold) ~ Current bike: Yamaha YZF 600R Thundercat
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Skudd
Super Spammer



Joined: 01 Oct 2006
Karma :
PostPosted: 09:03 - 19 Aug 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm also under the belief that a S59 is for the person and those vehicles he/she is associated with, so if someone has a S59 and is a passenger in your car at the time of an offence YOUR car can be taken, I have seen this done with off road bike and chavs where one has had a S59 and has ridden his mates bike off road then given it back, but because the S59 person had ridden it the bike was taken.

It also applies with groups of riders. If there is a S59 holder in a group of riders that is pulled over then ALL bikes can be taken.

Just check who you ride with and if you get pulled make sure you dont stop near them.
____________________
Famous last words of Humpty Dumpty. " Stop pushing me "
Petty Anarchists look at "1984".............. The Visionary looks at "Animal Farm".
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

plugger147
World Chat Champion



Joined: 13 Mar 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 21:25 - 24 Sep 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
JP7 wrote:
For a S59 warning to be issued, there need to be two elements to the offence.

1, there needs to be a Driving without due care and attention offence either on road (S3 RTA) or off-road (S34 RTA).

2, there also needs to be an antisocial element to the offence, so you either need to cause alarm, distress or annoyance, or be likely to.

If it doesn't fit both of those then a S59 isn't appropriate and shouldn't be issued.


I do think there is a lack of understanding among drivers, and I also think among some police officers, about S59s.


Very much so, they even do it in front of the tv camera's. S59 for numberplates and asking if it goes on vehicle or person, then issuing a £60 fine on roadwars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZycJB6oN_g&feature=youtube_gdata_player
____________________
Tristan the wrote: just whipped off my trousers to find a big bruise on my arse, caused by matt rear ending me...
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

LordShaftesbu...
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Sep 2008
Karma :
PostPosted: 06:59 - 25 Sep 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
mentalboy wrote:
Yes it is probably the worst piece of petitioning I have ever read and would probably be far more successful if it were a little more eloquent.

They almost always are illegible, weirdly. The only conclusion I can make is that anyone who can actually read and write English doesn't bother at all with petitions and instead uses their rare and precious skill to write directly to their MP.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Fruit'n'nut
Could Be A Chat Bot



Joined: 11 Feb 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 10:34 - 25 Sep 2012    Post subject: Reply with quote
mentalboy wrote:
How's this for starters? Adjust as you see fit and maybe we can get the ball rolling with an epetition/lobby your local MP

Quote:
Amendment to Section 59 requested

Department of Transport

The current issuing of Section59 to users of vehicles currently involves the issuing officer to make a personal judgement call. It is my belief that this system is open to misuse or abuse, either an offence is committed or it is not. The system currently allows the seizure of a vehicle purely upon the grounds that a vehicle may cause distress, alarm or annoyance to members of the public AND is being used in such a manner as to contravene sections 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act.

Contravention of the above said sections of the RTA should surely result in the issuing of the relevant ticket as defined by legislative process.



If driving without due care or attention is the fault why is the relevant ticket not issued?

An S59 issued because no defined laws are broken can lead to the confiscation of a vehicle, a much harsher punishment than drunk driving, driving without due care and attention, speeding to name but a few.
It would appear that an Officer or PCSO could feasibly issue an S59 because they find the colour of a vehicle offensive (a matter of personal opinion) and this has no obvious method of appeal or right to challenge.



s.59 PRA 2002 was introduced because reporting somebody for summons for "careless" and then waiting for a court date is a lengthy process, and doesn't deal with repetitive occurrences - i.e. regular meets etc, where numerous and regular complaints are received about manner of driving, or repeated off-road driving.

If s.59 were repealed then you'll probably find an equal number of people petitioning for it to be re-instated.

The alternative appears to me to be for FPNs to be introduced for s.3/s.34 and issued in conjunction with s.59 warning/seizure. Potentially you're then looking at a £60-90 eFPN (as Mr Penning seems to be endorsing https://www.dft.gov.uk/news/statements/penning-20120614a/ plus seizure (£150) and storage costs (£20 per day) plus three points on your licence.

The obvious initial method of appeal over an incorrectly issued s.59 is to write to the force concerned, explaining exactly why you want the seizure fees to be reimbursed (i.e. waived.) Legal advice might help and isn't always expensive.

If reimbursement isn't forthcoming, then the next step might well be legal action.




FWIW, I have personally waived fees for seized vehicles (not through s.59) where the vehicle was seized as a suspected stolen motor vehicle, but subsequently found not to have been (and the owner was not traceable at the time of seizure.) All that took was a phone call and some information from the owner.
____________________
Power Ranger Very Happy
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 13 years, 93 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
 You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 
Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.11 Sec - Server Load: 0.97 - MySQL Queries: 13 - Page Size: 150.99 Kb