Obscuring number plates

[cozmo1589]

Ok if you have never been subject to cloning you may not appreciate the hassle it will cause the actual owner of cloned vehicle. I had a car cloned and he racked up fines galore and often took off at petrol stations without paying. Now I had nothing to worry about you may think being the legal owner of the car and reg number but you can only imagine the amount of times I got pull over by police vehicles equiped with ANR system. It was sometimes 3 to 4 times a week. Each time I was let on my way but only after proving who I was first. Major inconvenience I can tell you. If someone wants to clone any of my vehicles then theres bugger all I can do about it however I'll be dammed if I'm going to give them a helping hand and put all my vehicle details up on tinterweb for their convenience. So it's personal choice, you can or choose not to but beware, s**t can happen.

[Richard Simpson]

I thought it was to stop 'antis' (who trawl the internet looking for this stuff) from making spurious complaints about your riding, so the police can confiscate your bike.

Section 59 of the Police Reform Act.

You don't actually have to have done anything wrong. There's no trial, and no appeal.

After you've had a S59 warning (which can just be recorded against your reg no, you don't have to be told about it) the next time the police see your bike or car they can confiscate it if they want to.

You can't get

Beats me why more people don't complain about this.

Trust me, it's a lot more involved than that.…

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate...

[Mike54]

Well, it's not just a case of someone with a grudge calls the police, tells them you've been doing wheelies down the high street and you get a section 59 with no questions asked. How could it? There would be no evidence etc. Below it says "reasonable grounds" with the key word being "reasonable". Its not reasonable for johnny public to say you were doing wheelies without any kind of evidence and for the police to act upon that.

Mostly they're used for people driving/riding off the track on green lanes, many have been issued in the peak district for example under operation black brook.

Here:

Section 59 Police Reform Act 2002 states that -

Where an officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used in a manner which contravenes Road Traffic Act Section 3 (Careless Driving) OR Section 34 (Driving elsewhere than on a road) AND also the manner of use of the vehicle is causing or has been causing or is likely to cause, alarm distress or annoyance to members of the public, Section 59 can be used to:-

Initially give a written warning (valid for twelve months)
(commonly called a Section 59 Notice)

and on a subsequent occasion to seize the vehicle.
(it will probably end up in the crusher, or may be ransomed back to the owner)

A constable in uniform has the power to order the person driving to stop the vehicle, to seize and remove the vehicle, to enter any premises on which the officer has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be and to use reasonable force. Seizure can made only if a warning has been given, or believed to have been given, or if a warning is clearly being ignored.

So, usually it's a two-stage process - a warning or notice first, seizure if you persist or repeat.

Full text of Police Reform Act section 59 here.
Section 3 Road Traffic Act –

3. If a person drives a motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, he is guilty of an offence.

(Examples are wheel spinning, skidding, revving engine excessivly, handbrake turns etc)
Section 34 Road Traffic Act (extract)

34.(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if without lawful authority a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle
(a) on to or upon any common land, moorland or land of any other description, not being land forming part of a road, or
(b) on any road being a Footpath, Bridleway or restricted byway,
he is guilty of an offence.

(So you may only drive on a 'road' - including BOATs. Note that using a Private road without permission is NOT a s.34 offence, it is a trespass, unless it happens to also be a Public Footpath etc.)

(2) It is not an offence under this section to drive a motor vehicle on any land within fifteen yards of a road, being a road on which a motor vehicle may lawfully be driven, for the purpose only of parking the vehicle on that land.

(For younger readers that's about 15m, but ONLY for parking)
Enforcement Issues:

This legislation includes mechanically propelled vehicles, not intended or adapted for use on the road (minimotos etc.), as well as road-legal motors.

Section 3 RTA will include car parks that are open to the public and other areas where the public would be expected to have access.

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. Nor is someone driving sensibly on a Footpath - though of course they are still liable to 'ordinary' prosecution under s.34 RTA.

Note that the officer at the time of the warning only has to have reasonable grounds for believing that one of the offences has been committed, e.g. a believable report. It may transpire later that this is or was not the case, hence the guidelines below.

The warning is given to both the driver and the vehicle. This means that if either are subsequently stopped then a seizure may take place even if another driver is in the original vehicle, or the original driver is another vehicle.. be warned! The warning may be verbal, with paperwork to follow, or forms filled in on the spot. In either case the constable must make it clear what is happening.
Recommended Actions:
At the scene:

Firstly remain calm and polite. Getting hot under the collar may only lead to further offences (Public Order Act or Obstruction ).

Establish what offence you have committed for the officer to initiate a Section 59 Warning or Seizure. It may be prudent to carry a print of the above legislation to discuss with the officer many officers give out warnings because they have had a report of Nuisance vehicles but do not understand the legislation in its entirety.

Ask if the officer intends to prosecute for the offence committed (some forces have a local policy to prosecute). Remember s.59 only applies if you may have already committed an offence, which could be prosecuted for anyway.

Ask the officer for his force number/collar number, name, station and name of his area Commander.

Ask for a copy of any paperwork you are asked to sign.

Do not be argumentative! But do know your onions are you on a BOAT, UCR, private road etc and is the officer aware of its status?
Subsequent action:

If you have clearly done something wrong and are being prosecuted get a solicitor.

If you have received a Section 59 warning and are unsure why, or feel that it was unjust or issued inappropriately then you need to establish your position.

Write to the Area Commander at the police station/area that the warning was issued and establish exactly what offence you committed (ie. Section 3 or 34) and what action is being taken. If you know they are prosecuting you then ask for Disclosure (this may be best done through a solicitor). Disclosure will be a pack of documents outlining the Prosecution case and should include witness statements, the officers statement, video copies and such like. This will give you a picture of the case against you in order to fight your corner.

Often at this stage a correctly worded letter or defence statement may negate any summons or court appearance if the warning was issued incorrectly or inappropriately. Keep to the facts and do not rant and rave about your thoughts on the local constabulary.

[Richard Simpson]

Thanks for your prompt reply and hints. Sadly, it's not very reassuring.

See below for your words with my comments in CAPS (sorry for SHOUTING)


Where an officer has reasonable grounds for believing

NOT HARD EVIDENCE THEN

is likely to cause, alarm distress or annoyance to members of the public,

WE KNOW THE ANTIS MAINTAIN THAT EVEN A ROAD-LEGAL TRAIL BIKE, LEGALLY RIDDEN ON A LEGAL CARRIAGEWAY CAUSES THEM ANNOYANCE (SEE THE GLEAM WEBSITE). SO ALL THEY'VE GOT TO DO IS CALL IN WITH A REG NO. MOSTLY, THE POLICE HAVE LITTLE OR NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A VEHICULAR RIGHT OF WAY, MANY OF WHICH ARE WRONGLY SIGNED. CARELESS DRIVING IS PRETTY SUBJECTIVE TO SAY THE LEAST.

Seizure can made only if a warning has been given, or believed to have been given, or if a warning is clearly being ignored.

SO A COP CAN TAKE YOUR BIKE IF HE BELIEVES A WARNING HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN GIVEN…INCREDIBLE. NO EVIDENCE REQURIED.

THANKS FOR CONFIRMING WHAT I THOUGHT. ONCE AGAIN THE MOTORIST IS GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. NO EVIDENCE REQUIRED

[CRAIGREVO]

First off if somebody has a bike that they want to clone they will simply go on bike trader or any classified ad site, find a bike the same or similar, phone the seller and ask for the reg so they can get it HPI checked. That way they know how much tax and MOT the bike has.

Secondly I highly doubt that somebody would just phone the police and report a reg that they found on the internet.
They would have to leave there name and contact details for it to be followed up
If it turned out the rider/bike in question had a cast iron alibi the reporter would be charged with wasting police time.

[magicroundabout]

On cloning if you know someones name and address and have a bike the same as theirs then all you have to do is get a number plate made with their number on it. Traffic cameras will send the bill to the original owner of the number but if stopped by the police the name and address will check out on their computer with the number so they will just give a notice to produce which the crim will tear up

[Micky]

Thanks for your prompt reply and hints. Sadly, it's not very reassuring.

See below for your words with my comments in CAPS (sorry for SHOUTING)


Where an officer has reasonable grounds for believing

NOT HARD EVIDENCE THEN

is likely to cause, alarm distress or annoyance to members of the public,

WE KNOW THE ANTIS MAINTAIN THAT EVEN A ROAD-LEGAL TRAIL BIKE, LEGALLY RIDDEN ON A LEGAL CARRIAGEWAY CAUSES THEM ANNOYANCE (SEE THE GLEAM WEBSITE). SO ALL THEY'VE GOT TO DO IS CALL IN WITH A REG NO. MOSTLY, THE POLICE HAVE LITTLE OR NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A VEHICULAR RIGHT OF WAY, MANY OF WHICH ARE WRONGLY SIGNED. CARELESS DRIVING IS PRETTY SUBJECTIVE TO SAY THE LEAST.

Seizure can made only if a warning has been given, or believed to have been given, or if a warning is clearly being ignored.

SO A COP CAN TAKE YOUR BIKE IF HE BELIEVES A WARNING HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN GIVEN…INCREDIBLE. NO EVIDENCE REQURIED.

THANKS FOR CONFIRMING WHAT I THOUGHT. ONCE AGAIN THE MOTORIST IS GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. NO EVIDENCE REQUIRED

So when has all this taken place? To you?
Maybe someone you know personally?

Maybe someone has told you they know of someone who has told them ....

[Ali in Austria]

Thanks for your prompt reply and hints. Sadly, it's not very reassuring.

See below for your words with my comments in CAPS (sorry for SHOUTING)


Where an officer has reasonable grounds for believing

NOT HARD EVIDENCE THEN

is likely to cause, alarm distress or annoyance to members of the public,

WE KNOW THE ANTIS MAINTAIN THAT EVEN A ROAD-LEGAL TRAIL BIKE, LEGALLY RIDDEN ON A LEGAL CARRIAGEWAY CAUSES THEM ANNOYANCE (SEE THE GLEAM WEBSITE). SO ALL THEY'VE GOT TO DO IS CALL IN WITH A REG NO. MOSTLY, THE POLICE HAVE LITTLE OR NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A VEHICULAR RIGHT OF WAY, MANY OF WHICH ARE WRONGLY SIGNED. CARELESS DRIVING IS PRETTY SUBJECTIVE TO SAY THE LEAST.

Seizure can made only if a warning has been given, or believed to have been given, or if a warning is clearly being ignored.

SO A COP CAN TAKE YOUR BIKE IF HE BELIEVES A WARNING HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN GIVEN…INCREDIBLE. NO EVIDENCE REQURIED.

THANKS FOR CONFIRMING WHAT I THOUGHT. ONCE AGAIN THE MOTORIST IS GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. NO EVIDENCE REQUIRED

Not quite mate.

Notification of a Section 59 warning has to be given to the Registered Owner of the vehicle, whether that is the rider/driver or not. The warnings are recorded but up until I retired they were not entered on a National data base but at a force area level. The chances of someone in Brighton establishing that a warning had been issued in the MetPol area were slim. That may have changed as I've been gone 3 1/2 years. Because of poor record keeping or cross border lethargy, the most prolific offenders who attracted these warnings could receive several first warning notices before anyone realised that there was already one in force.

There will be a Policy defining Reasonable Grounds and that was usually on the basis of having issued it yourself, a colleague telling you they issued it or a check on the local records. It doesn't exempt an officer from legal or disciplinary action. In fairness, a lot of a constables powers across the board are defined with the words "Reasonable Grounds to Suspect" in them along with a definition of that what it means.

In reality they tend only to be given out when something has been witnessed by the officer or a colleague, where multiple complaints from the public are made about the same vehicle or where a complaint is made by a third party and can be evidenced by something else such as CCTV, Video etc...

A Section 59 warning has to have the evidence to support it.

So you can stop shouting and rest easy now

[Mad Cow]

I seem to recall reading (it might have been on this forum?) A Police Officer stating that they had never heard a case of a bike being cloned, although it obviously does happen with cars. And (I am clutching a large piece of timber as I type this) I've never had a bike stolen after featuring it's number plate on a forum.

I'm sure it must happen but it would be pretty hard to prove it was the reason your bike was targeted... more likely you were seen parking it or followed home?

So I tend not to bother obscuring my plate in photos when it's one of my bikes but do usually with the Land Rover to (hopefully) avoid cloning and help prevent theft as late model Defenders are rather sought after by the criminal elements out there.

Mind you the worst case I heard of recently was the owner of a TDCI Defender 110 who walked out of his house one morning to find his motor was still there but they had stolen four of the five doors, the seats, the bonnet and the front bumper. all without anyone hearing or seeing it and without the alarm going off :woohoo:

Hanging? It's too good for them

[magicroundabout]

There was a time in Northern Ireland not that long ago when you would be stopped by a police checkpoint up to 4 times a night and the cloning of cars and details was quiet previlent, these days you only ever see a police officer in the queue of a fast food outlet.