Anti social use of motor vehicles

Report: 4
Date: 19 September 2003
By: Commissioner

Summary

On 1 January 2003 the Police Reform Act 2002 gave police new powers to deal with the anti-social use of motor vehicles on or off public roads. Drivers committing offences contrary to Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988 (Careless and Inconsiderate driving) or Section 34 Road Traffic Act 1988 (Prohibition of driving motor vehicles elsewhere than on roads) and causing annoyance to the public can have their vehicles seized by police. Vehicles may be retained by police pending payment of a prescribed fee by the vehicle owner.

Use of the new powers will directly contribute to MPS objectives of reducing road casualties and anti-social behaviour and will increase public safety within London. MPS policy on the legislation was published on 25 June 2003.

A. Recommendation

That the report be noted.

B. Supporting information

1. Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 became effective on 1 January 2003 introducing new powers for police to deal with anti social behaviour by drivers/riders. The provisions apply to any mechanically propelled vehicle, whether or not it is intended or adapted for use on roads.

2. The Act gives a police constable in uniform certain powers in respect of a motor vehicle they have reasonable grounds to believe is being used or has been used in such a way as to cause or be likely to cause alarm, distress, or annoyance to members of the public. The powers can be summarised as follows:

• if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;
• seize and remove the motor vehicle;
• to enter premises, where there are reasonable grounds to believe the vehicle is. There is no authority to enter a private dwelling house.
• use reasonable force if necessary to exercise the preceding powers;

3. The powers can only be used where the vehicle is being driven in contravention of Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, (careless and inconsiderate driving) or Section 34 Road Traffic Act 1988 (Prohibition of driving motor vehicles elsewhere than on roads).

4. A constable may not seize a motor vehicle unless they have first warned the person using the vehicle that he/she will seize it, if that use continues or is repeated; and it appears to them that the use has continued or been repeated after the warning.

5. Although a warning may be given orally and there is no legal obligation for police to provide this in a written format, the MPS has identified as good practice an undertaking to provide a written copy of the warning.

6. All warnings within the MPS are to be recorded locally on the CRIMINT intelligence system and are valid for a period of 12 months.

7. Section 60 of the Act brought into effect the Police (Retention and Disposal of Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2002. The Regulations provide the power for the retention, safekeeping, release and, in certain circumstances, disposal of seized motor vehicles.

8. The Regulations specify that once a vehicle is seized and removed a Notice of Seizure must be served on the vehicle owner or apparent owner as soon as possible. The Notice must inform the owner where the vehicle was seized, where it is being kept, that it must be claimed within 21 days and that before it is released the owner will have to pay a prescribed charge (currently £105 and £12 per day storage) to meet the cost of its removal and retention.

9. The Seizure Notice must state that the charges will be waived if the owner can demonstrate that when the vehicle was seized the owner was not the person using it, they had not consented to its use in that way and they could not by taking reasonable steps have prevented its use in that way.

10. The Regulations allow the vehicle to be disposed of subject to certain conditions if it is not claimed and removed. The vehicle cannot be disposed of in the three months following a seizure nor during the 21 days period specified in the Notice. Before disposal police must have been unable to deliver a Seizure Notice, or if it was delivered the owner must have failed to remove the vehicle.

11. The vehicle can be disposed of by sale or otherwise, e.g. destruction. Where a vehicle is disposed of by way of sale, the net proceeds of the sale have to be paid to the person who owned the vehicle at the time of the sale, if the person makes a claim within a year. The net proceeds are the proceeds of the sale less any charges the owner would have had to pay had they reclaimed the vehicle.

12. The powers granted under the Act, where used in respect of vehicles on the roads, will support our primary objective of reducing the number of road casualties and reduce anti social behaviour in the Metropolitan Police Area. We will also utilize the powers off-road where nuisance is caused to users of parkland/common land.

13. On 12 June 2003 the MPS undertook phase 2 of ‘Operation Resolve’ utilizing the power to seize motor vehicles under the Act. This was a pilot operation, conducted jointly with Surrey Police. The operation took place in the London Borough of Sutton and the adjoining town of Esher in Surrey. The area had been subject to a high level of public inconvenience, whereby motorists congregated, particularly on a Thursday evening. The event was well publicised and people with high-powered cars and motorcycles once congregated, used the highways as a racetrack.

14. The MPS provided 70% and Surrey 30% of the resources (about 100 officers in total). The operation was the consequence of intelligence gathering, which had commenced back in February 2003. Phase 1 operations (Official Warning of Offenders) took place during April and May. During this time, 56 drivers received the warning notice as set out in the Act.

15. The operation on 12 June included a removal capability. The operation resulted in the seizure of three vehicles that were removed to the MPS vehicle pound at Charlton. Two owners have paid the charges due (£105 each plus £12 for each day the vehicle was stored). The other vehicle was a 5-year-old lost or stolen motorcycle. In this case, the owner will be appearing at Court. At this time, it is not MPS policy to charge for the recovery of lost/stolen, although this is likely to change under the Safer Vehicle Strategy.

16. A further large-scale operation is now in the early planning stages. If the intelligence is forthcoming, a similar operation may be mounted in the London Borough of Brent. The intelligence gathering and warning process does take some time to complete before moving to the seizure operation.

17. Since publication of MPS policy, Southwark and Havering Police have contacted the MPS Vehicle Recovery Unit and are keen to set up an operation. The unit is also liasing with the Association of Local Government (ALG) who have been briefed both in terms of the new powers and of Operation Resolve. This may well bring about partnership activities as they too seek a solution to incidences of anti social driver behaviour.

C. Equality and diversity implications

There are no equalities implications.

D. Financial implications

The removal costs in relation to the three seized vehicles exceeded income, but the operation was nevertheless done on a cost effective basis. It was known that 56 people had been warned and were liable to have their vehicle seized. The fact that there was no previous operation to analyse demand meant the MPS had to estimate the required resources.

Where an owner does not collect the vehicle, the MPS has the power to dispose of it after 21 days (all checks having been done). If it is sent for scrap, this will result in a charge against the MPS (£25 per vehicle). Alternatively, if marketable, the MPS will send to auction, any income recovered will be offset against costs incurred.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Graham Webb, Roads Policing Policy Unit, MPS.

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback