Taxi Driver Online

There can't be that many drivers that have had their licenced vehicles seized by the police for Section 59

https://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/crime/uber-driver-has-car-seized-after-ignoring-warning-from-police-officers-5434292

Uber driver has car seized after ignoring warning from police officers in Fleetwood

Police seized an Uber after its driver was accused of ‘anti-social driving’ around Fleetwood.

It was the second time the driver of the private hire vehicle, licensed by Blackpool Council, had been warned about his driving around the town.

Posting on Facebook, Fleetwood Area Police said: “This vehicle, having been already warned about Anti Social Driving, continued to drive in an anti-social manner in the Fleetwood area last night. This vehicle has now been seized under Section 59.”

What is section 59?

The police have the power under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 to seize vehicles.

The seizure power does not depend on prosecution for, or proof of, this behaviour, only on reasonable belief by a constable as to it occurring.

The power is designed to enable the police to put a stop to this dangerous and antisocial behaviour.

That's interesting - and would be good to know more precisely what the driver was up to, because the section 59 thing is very vague, as indeed outlined by Fleetwood Area Police in the source post (below).

Also the photos posted on Facebook below...

Interesting, though, that there's no way of telling from either the Fleetwood Police post or the two photos that the car is an Uber, although plenty of comments stating so.

In fact, if the photos weren't included then it wouldn't even be obvious from the post that it's a plated vehicle/badged driver involved

All the Blackpool firms, Premier, C Cabs, BlackTax, Whitesides (Blackpool) have the company name/logo on the front doors.

Some Uber have have Uber signage, some don't.

I suppose it could be an owner/operator who does airport runs, but again you would expect them to have the brand\name etc showing for advertising purposes.

Probably sitting outside someones house or a hotel with engine running and radio blaring waiting for bookings

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

So a company front door sticker isn't required under the Blackpool PHV rules, Cerberus?

I was guessing it probably was, and that maybe the sticker had been removed to anyonymise the vehicle (maybe I'd better stop using the word 'car' ), but from what you say stickers are presumably optional apart from the council one on the back doors.

Very rare for a section 59 order to be enforced.

There must be a good reason; maybe he was illegally plying for hire, maybe he was driving like a fruitcake.

I think he can get the vehicle back if he pays the recovery and storage fees.

_________________
IDFIMH

Not sure whether Edders is being sarcastic or not, but it was presumably for something a bit more serious than he suggests

I must admit I always thought they were required, but after looking at the Taxi and Private Hire Policy on the council website it only says about the rear council sign as on the car in the picture and that the only other signage allowed is company details on the front door, but nothing about the company signage being compulsory. I also checked the 2016 version I have as a PDF and it is the same.

Appendix E - Vehicle Specification section 6.3 Private hire vehicle

https://www.blackpool.gov.uk/Business/Licensing-and-permits/Licensing-policies/Hackney-Carriage-and-Private-Hire-Licensing-Policy.aspx

Yes, thanks Cerberus - that seems a compelling explanation.


And I think the word 'permitted' at the start there means the condition is what the lawyers call permissive, as opposed to compulsory/mandatory/obligatory, or whatever

Actually no we have had similar situation locally where police threatened to do exactly that following complaints by a local hotelier

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

Maybe the operative word there is *threatened*, Edders. The scenario you describe doesn't sound uncommon, but it would be interesting to know of one actual case anywhere in the UK of police following through in terms of seizure for that kind of thing. I suspect that, if informal warnings didn't work, then something less draconian would be done, like the council getting involved and suspending