'Illegal' Exhaust
08 June 2005 | 09:38 AM
#152
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Kinross
Not yet, sorry. I did ask my dad a few days ago what was happening, but all he said was he'd had to sort out insurance for the on-loan Legacy as his 10-day standard cover had expired...
I'll chib him again
(some time later)
I chibbed him...no news
No court date yet either <grin>
I'll chib him again
(some time later)
I chibbed him...no news
No court date yet either <grin>
Originally Posted by cheeky_chops
any update Iain??
Last edited by Iain McLaren; 10 June 2005 at 12:22 PM. Reason: Follow-up
11 June 2005 | 11:26 AM
#153
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Kinross
Right, a bit of news...
My dad got a letter from Subaru this morning basically saying that the deadline for paying the fixed penalty was fast-approaching and the cost of fighting it in court would far exceed the cost of paying the FP.
They've included a cheque for £30 and said his car will come back in such a way that a repeat incident will not occur.
This is a bit disappointing as a) the police win, and b) Subaru are not taking the matter to court so that a precident is set (if they win) so that nobody else has the trouble.
Maybe they believe they won't win....?
He's going to phone the guy who sent the letter on Monday to see what's what.
Iain
My dad got a letter from Subaru this morning basically saying that the deadline for paying the fixed penalty was fast-approaching and the cost of fighting it in court would far exceed the cost of paying the FP.
They've included a cheque for £30 and said his car will come back in such a way that a repeat incident will not occur.
This is a bit disappointing as a) the police win, and b) Subaru are not taking the matter to court so that a precident is set (if they win) so that nobody else has the trouble.
Maybe they believe they won't win....?
He's going to phone the guy who sent the letter on Monday to see what's what.
Iain
11 June 2005 | 11:52 AM
#155
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 1999
Posts: 986
Likes: 2
From: aberdeen
Iain, that is very surprising news that Subaru are not taking this up? 
Will be interesting to hear what their explaination is, maybe you had a faulty part in the exhaust and they replaced it, if not this might be a right can of worms!
Keep us posted.
Will be interesting to hear what their explaination is, maybe you had a faulty part in the exhaust and they replaced it, if not this might be a right can of worms!
Keep us posted.
11 June 2005 | 12:07 PM
#156
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
From: Spec C - 12.5 @ 110(340/350)
I think you need to get the motoring press involved in this one(if you haven't already done so). I noticed EVO magazine had a little snippet last month about this case, I'm sure they'd love to hear about Subaru's attitude to it.
11 June 2005 | 12:39 PM
#157
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 32,398
Likes: 1
From: Old Codgers Home
Does this mean that anyone with a louder than standard exhaust will get a £30 fine??
There are dozens of cars around here, Novas, Corsas, etc. with REALLY loud exhausts and they seem immune to prosecution??
Pete
There are dozens of cars around here, Novas, Corsas, etc. with REALLY loud exhausts and they seem immune to prosecution??
Pete
11 June 2005 | 12:43 PM
#158
Originally Posted by Iain McLaren
They've included a cheque for £30 and said his car will come back in such a way that a repeat incident will not occur.
Iain
Iain
This could be a little embarassing - Subaru selling illegal goods?
Even worse as they have a big push on PPPs at the moment - will it come with a £30 voucher if you get pulled?
Is there more info to your Dad's letter or just a brief response?
Nick
11 June 2005 | 01:01 PM
#159
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 0
From: a very nice man :-) with one Fairy Token
Originally Posted by Iain McLaren
They've included a cheque for £30 and said his car will come back in such a way that a repeat incident will not occur.
11 June 2005 | 07:12 PM
#160
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Kinross
Well, that's certainly one possibility - the PPP back box was faulty from day one. You'd have thought it would have been picked up at a service though...
In fact, the dealer said it was a-ok when it was taken in for a check following the original stop and police test.
In fact, the dealer said it was a-ok when it was taken in for a check following the original stop and police test.
Originally Posted by Rob D
Iain, that is very surprising news that Subaru are not taking this up?
Will be interesting to hear what their explaination is, maybe you had a faulty part in the exhaust and they replaced it, if not this might be a right can of worms!
Keep us posted.
Will be interesting to hear what their explaination is, maybe you had a faulty part in the exhaust and they replaced it, if not this might be a right can of worms!
Keep us posted.
11 June 2005 | 07:13 PM
#161
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Kinross
Hmmm...at various times I've emailed Top Gear, 5th Gear and AutoExpress but none have replied. I don't know how Evo got hold of the story...
Originally Posted by bluenose172
I think you need to get the motoring press involved in this one(if you haven't already done so). I noticed EVO magazine had a little snippet last month about this case, I'm sure they'd love to hear about Subaru's attitude to it.
11 June 2005 | 07:18 PM
#162
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Kinross
There's a potential for getting multiple £30 FPNs if you don't do anything about it... It would be annoying to have paid £X for the PPP and then get a standard exhaust put back on it as well.
Just received a scan of the letter... It says Subaru believe that the police's action is unjustified and could be defeated in court, but the cost of doing so would be far greater than the FPN.
Not good. How many other FPNs would it take them to pay before it would be worth their while???
The letter goes on to say that Prodrive are continuing to investigate the matter, with "the objective of ensuring that you are completely free of any risk of a recurrence of this problem". So he'll get it back with either a) a PPP exhaust that's OK, b) a WRX exhaust or c) a new PPP exhaust that's quieter than the original.
Subaru will write again as soon as there's more news.
Just received a scan of the letter... It says Subaru believe that the police's action is unjustified and could be defeated in court, but the cost of doing so would be far greater than the FPN.
Not good. How many other FPNs would it take them to pay before it would be worth their while???
The letter goes on to say that Prodrive are continuing to investigate the matter, with "the objective of ensuring that you are completely free of any risk of a recurrence of this problem". So he'll get it back with either a) a PPP exhaust that's OK, b) a WRX exhaust or c) a new PPP exhaust that's quieter than the original.
Subaru will write again as soon as there's more news.
Originally Posted by Butty
Put back a WRX back box instead?
This could be a little embarassing - Subaru selling illegal goods?
Even worse as they have a big push on PPPs at the moment - will it come with a £30 voucher if you get pulled?
Is there more info to your Dad's letter or just a brief response?
Nick
This could be a little embarassing - Subaru selling illegal goods?
Even worse as they have a big push on PPPs at the moment - will it come with a £30 voucher if you get pulled?
Is there more info to your Dad's letter or just a brief response?
Nick
Last edited by Iain McLaren; 11 June 2005 at 07:27 PM.
11 June 2005 | 07:23 PM
#163
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Kinross
If manufacturers aren't willing to stand up and set a precident in court, the police can get away with it / apply a law passed by government as the case may be. Until someone challenges the law and/or the way police are testing vehicles it will surely continue.
According to the reply from the Asst. Chief Constable, many more non-Subaru drivers have been stopped and issued with FPNs in Highland Region than Subarus.
According to the reply from the Asst. Chief Constable, many more non-Subaru drivers have been stopped and issued with FPNs in Highland Region than Subarus.
Originally Posted by pslewis
Does this mean that anyone with a louder than standard exhaust will get a £30 fine??
There are dozens of cars around here, Novas, Corsas, etc. with REALLY loud exhausts and they seem immune to prosecution??
Pete
There are dozens of cars around here, Novas, Corsas, etc. with REALLY loud exhausts and they seem immune to prosecution??
Pete
11 June 2005 | 07:43 PM
#164
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
From: Spec C - 12.5 @ 110(340/350)
Originally Posted by Iain McLaren
Hmmm...at various times I've emailed Top Gear, 5th Gear and AutoExpress but none have replied. I don't know how Evo got hold of the story...
Try emailing them at - eds@evo.co.uk, I'd be surprised if they ignored you.
11 June 2005 | 07:51 PM
#165
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,314
Likes: 0
From: Spec C - 12.5 @ 110(340/350)
EVO Magazine - July 2005
Readers living in Scotland may have to watch their backs as local police are targeting non-standard exhausts. Even though a system might well meet all emissions regulations, FPN's have been served if an increase in noise is registered. One understandably angry Subaru owner has even had his PPP exhaust declaired 'illegal'. We'll keep you posted.
11 June 2005 | 11:06 PM
#166
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,274
Likes: 0
What a shabby and unprofessional response to a customers problem.
Iain,
I think that Subaru UK and Prodrive have taken the easy option for THEM, and that is a truly appaling attitude towards their customers, many of whom are at this moment taking delivery of their 'illegal?' PPP specced cars.
I strongly believe that if your dads car comes back in any other guise than full PPP spec ie with a std WRX exhaust fitted, he would be within his rights to instigate legal proceedings against Subaru UK/Prodrive for originally supplying him with an illegal vehicle, and for compensation for inconvenience and distress caused by their actions.
I would be intersted in doing the same myself as I own a PPP specced MY02 'Prodrive'.
Sometimes in life we have to deal with 'professional?' (read unprofessional) incompetents.
I wonder if your dad feels that this is his time to do that.
It initially seemed that a profesional approach was being taken by the parties involved.
That profesionalism seems to be evaporating.
Heres £30, now be on your way.
The Sales of Goods Act 1979, states that goods must be of merchantable quality.
An illegal car is NOT merchantable, and a FULL refund of the purchase price could be DEMANDED in a court action.
This is even better than my insurance postings, which were met with, 'We are doing something about it' honest, it just takes time.
I won't hold my breath.
Cheers
MTR
I think that Subaru UK and Prodrive have taken the easy option for THEM, and that is a truly appaling attitude towards their customers, many of whom are at this moment taking delivery of their 'illegal?' PPP specced cars.
I strongly believe that if your dads car comes back in any other guise than full PPP spec ie with a std WRX exhaust fitted, he would be within his rights to instigate legal proceedings against Subaru UK/Prodrive for originally supplying him with an illegal vehicle, and for compensation for inconvenience and distress caused by their actions.
I would be intersted in doing the same myself as I own a PPP specced MY02 'Prodrive'.
Sometimes in life we have to deal with 'professional?' (read unprofessional) incompetents.
I wonder if your dad feels that this is his time to do that.
It initially seemed that a profesional approach was being taken by the parties involved.
That profesionalism seems to be evaporating.
Heres £30, now be on your way.
The Sales of Goods Act 1979, states that goods must be of merchantable quality.
An illegal car is NOT merchantable, and a FULL refund of the purchase price could be DEMANDED in a court action.
This is even better than my insurance postings, which were met with, 'We are doing something about it' honest, it just takes time.
I won't hold my breath.
Cheers
MTR
11 June 2005 | 11:12 PM
#167
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,274
Likes: 0
I have remebered a little ditty
On a totally unrelated note, does anyone remeber the little ditty, one line of which that went,
'your not fit to shovel sh*t from once place to another'
Chorus:
frigging in the rigging, frigging in the rigging, frigging in the rigging cause there nothing else to do.
I can't think why that just popped into my head.
Strange eh.
Cheers
MTR
'your not fit to shovel sh*t from once place to another'
Chorus:
frigging in the rigging, frigging in the rigging, frigging in the rigging cause there nothing else to do.
I can't think why that just popped into my head.
Strange eh.
Cheers
MTR
11 June 2005 | 11:27 PM
#168
Scooby Regular
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
From: St Helens, Merseyside
MMmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Originally Posted by MTR
On a totally unrelated note, does anyone remeber the little ditty, one line of which that went,
'your not fit to shovel sh*t from once place to another'
Chorus:
frigging in the rigging, frigging in the rigging, frigging in the rigging cause there nothing else to do.
I can't think why that just popped into my head.
Strange eh.
Cheers
MTR
'your not fit to shovel sh*t from once place to another'
Chorus:
frigging in the rigging, frigging in the rigging, frigging in the rigging cause there nothing else to do.
I can't think why that just popped into my head.
Strange eh.
Cheers
MTR
11 June 2005 | 11:29 PM
#169
I think Subaru have dropped the ball on this one. Its not the cost of fighting it thats the problem...its needs to be sorted.
After all, if you win, you should be able to claim costs??
After all, if you win, you should be able to claim costs??
11 June 2005 | 11:36 PM
#170
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,274
Likes: 0
Depenadnt on the outcome of this fiasco, IF Subaru revert the car to a NON PPP specification, ie some other exhaust silencer/system then perhaps the following action might be beneficial.
*********************************
'IF' your dads car is NOT returned in full PPP trim perhaps the owners of ALL
owners of PPP'd specced WRX or STi Impreza copied and pasted this letter, and sent a copy to Prodrive and Subaru UK they might take some notice?
Either that or they could be left with an awful lot of secondhand 'illegal?' ie unsaleable cars.
It will only cost you the price of two stamps/letters, and a couple of sheets of A4 paper.
Prodrives address is:
Mr D. Richards
Prodrive
Banbury
Oxfordshire
OX16 3ER
England
Mr Peter Kinnaird
Subaru UK Ltd.
Ryder Street
West Bromwhich,
West Midlands,
B70 0EJ
Dear Mr Kinnaird,
I have been extremely please with the ownership of my (type model type) PPP, and the driving pleasure it has given me.
The only potential drawback, apart from its almost impossible to get insurance cover, is I have now discovered that my car is illegal for use in the UK.
In line with The Sales of Goods Act 1979, I am demanding a FULL refund of the purchase price of my vehicle, as it is not of merchantable quality.
Yours faithfully
(insert name)
*********************************
OBVIOUSLY THIS ACTION WOULD ONLY BE VALID IF THE CAR DOES NOT REMAIN IN AS SUPPLIED CONDITION WITH A FULL PPP KIT FITTED.
I will get mine printed out just in case.
Cheers
MTR
*********************************
'IF' your dads car is NOT returned in full PPP trim perhaps the owners of ALL
owners of PPP'd specced WRX or STi Impreza copied and pasted this letter, and sent a copy to Prodrive and Subaru UK they might take some notice?
Either that or they could be left with an awful lot of secondhand 'illegal?' ie unsaleable cars.
It will only cost you the price of two stamps/letters, and a couple of sheets of A4 paper.
Prodrives address is:
Mr D. Richards
Prodrive
Banbury
Oxfordshire
OX16 3ER
England
Mr Peter Kinnaird
Subaru UK Ltd.
Ryder Street
West Bromwhich,
West Midlands,
B70 0EJ
Dear Mr Kinnaird,
I have been extremely please with the ownership of my (type model type) PPP, and the driving pleasure it has given me.
The only potential drawback, apart from its almost impossible to get insurance cover, is I have now discovered that my car is illegal for use in the UK.
In line with The Sales of Goods Act 1979, I am demanding a FULL refund of the purchase price of my vehicle, as it is not of merchantable quality.
Yours faithfully
(insert name)
*********************************
OBVIOUSLY THIS ACTION WOULD ONLY BE VALID IF THE CAR DOES NOT REMAIN IN AS SUPPLIED CONDITION WITH A FULL PPP KIT FITTED.
I will get mine printed out just in case.
Cheers
MTR
11 June 2005 | 11:54 PM
#171
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 1,274
Likes: 0
I have posted this in the insurance section, as many 'new' potential owners of PPP specced Imprezas are browsing the dealers at the moment.
It doesn't hurt to inform, does it.
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthrea...20#post4674920
If any one is concerned over the insurance aspects of getting cover on a PPP specced Impreza be it WRX or STi, by and large it is horrendous.
Please read these posts.
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=415302
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=415477
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=417604
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422600
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423118
THEN READ THIS ONE!!!
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthre...48&page=1&pp=20
The chap concerned is being prosecuted for driving a car with an 'Illegal Exhaust'.
Its a WRX with PPP kit fitted.
Currently Subaru are offering to pay his fine of £30.
I suggest it might be worth keeping a close eye on this, or even ask your dealer, if you are thinking of buying in the near future, What is going on? Will my car be illegal? (get it in writing).
Cheers
MTR
It doesn't hurt to inform, does it.
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthrea...20#post4674920
If any one is concerned over the insurance aspects of getting cover on a PPP specced Impreza be it WRX or STi, by and large it is horrendous.
Please read these posts.
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=415302
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=415477
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=417604
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=422600
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423118
THEN READ THIS ONE!!!
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthre...48&page=1&pp=20
The chap concerned is being prosecuted for driving a car with an 'Illegal Exhaust'.
Its a WRX with PPP kit fitted.
Currently Subaru are offering to pay his fine of £30.
I suggest it might be worth keeping a close eye on this, or even ask your dealer, if you are thinking of buying in the near future, What is going on? Will my car be illegal? (get it in writing).
Cheers
MTR
Last edited by MTR; 11 June 2005 at 11:58 PM.
12 June 2005 | 10:55 AM
#174
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
From: Kinross
I've sent an email. Hopefully it will be of interest to them...
Originally Posted by bluenose172
Try emailing them at - eds@evo.co.uk, I'd be surprised if they ignored you.
12 June 2005 | 11:14 AM
#176
Scooby Newbie
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
From: Farnborough, Hants.
Surely Subaru paying the fine has wider implications than they realise.
Doesn't paying the fine effectively plead guilty to the charge?
If so then Subaru will have also admitted that the Exhaust is illegal.
Everyone with a PPP would then be entitled to a replacement legal exhaust.
How much would that cost?
Possibly more than a court case?
Someone somewhere (SUBARU Executives) needs to look at the bigger picture and not the bottom line.
I hope their decision doesn't bite them on the bum.
Martin
Doesn't paying the fine effectively plead guilty to the charge?
If so then Subaru will have also admitted that the Exhaust is illegal.
Everyone with a PPP would then be entitled to a replacement legal exhaust.
How much would that cost?
Possibly more than a court case?
Someone somewhere (SUBARU Executives) needs to look at the bigger picture and not the bottom line.
I hope their decision doesn't bite them on the bum.
Martin
12 June 2005 | 11:31 AM
#177
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 0
From: a very nice man :-) with one Fairy Token
I agree with a lot of the sentiments above, but hang on a mo guys! The car is STILL at Prodrive and they (Subaru/Prodrive) are saying that it will be returned in a condition that will mean this can not happen again. That as per my earlier post it could be a fault with the exhaust or could have been incorrectly fitted. Until such time as that is established, I think it may be wise to wait before the jury retires!
Does paying the £30 admit liability? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it is a goodwill gesture until the issue is resolved. Let's not forget this is a FPN like a parking ticket - non-endorsable so it would be a nonsense to fight it as the final result is not known - on what basis would Subaru/Prodrive fight it?
Is this actually a "prosecution" ? I understood the FPN process avoided "prosecution" which, if convicted leads to a criminal record. Maybe a small point but if people are going to post this up so as to "inform" it is an important one.
Iain - you may also consider that against the useful advice/knowledge on this thread, there may also be areas which may prejudice your Dad's case with Subaru/Prodrive.
Does paying the £30 admit liability? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it is a goodwill gesture until the issue is resolved. Let's not forget this is a FPN like a parking ticket - non-endorsable so it would be a nonsense to fight it as the final result is not known - on what basis would Subaru/Prodrive fight it?
The chap concerned is being prosecuted for driving a car with an 'Illegal Exhaust'
Iain - you may also consider that against the useful advice/knowledge on this thread, there may also be areas which may prejudice your Dad's case with Subaru/Prodrive.
12 June 2005 | 11:37 AM
#179
Scooby Newbie
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Be thankfull all you got was an FPN.
Section 59 Police Reform Act 2002
Seizure of motor vehicles
59 Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance
(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which-
(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,
he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).
(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).
(3) Those powers are-
(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;
(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).
(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; and
(b) it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the the warning.
(5) Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if-
(a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning;
(b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person;
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him; or
(d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
(6) A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3)(a) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(7) Subsection (3)(c) does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house.
(8 ) The powers conferred on a constable by this section shall be exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 60 are in force.
(9) In this section-
"driving" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52);
"motor vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle, whether or not it is intended or adapted for use on roads; and
"private dwelling house" does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.
Section 59 Police Reform Act 2002
Seizure of motor vehicles
59 Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance
(1) Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which-
(a) contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b) is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,
he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3).
(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).
(3) Those powers are-
(a) power, if the motor vehicle is moving, to order the person driving it to stop the vehicle;
(b) power to seize and remove the motor vehicle;
(c) power, for the purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) or (b), to enter any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor vehicle to be;
(d) power to use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by any of paragraphs to (a) to (c).
(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; and
(b) it appears to him that the use has continued or been repeated after the the warning.
(5) Subsection (4) does not require a warning to be given by a constable on any occasion on which he would otherwise have the power to seize a motor vehicle under this section if-
(a) the circumstances make it impracticable for him to give the warning;
(b) the constable has already on that occasion given a warning under that subsection in respect of any use of that motor vehicle or of another motor vehicle by that person or any other person;
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that such a warning has been given on that occasion otherwise than by him; or
(d) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whose use of that motor vehicle on that occasion would justify the seizure is a person to whom a warning under that subsection has been given (whether or not by that constable or in respect the same vehicle or the same or a similar use) on a previous occasion in the previous twelve months.
(6) A person who fails to comply with an order under subsection (3)(a) is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(7) Subsection (3)(c) does not authorise entry into a private dwelling house.
(8 ) The powers conferred on a constable by this section shall be exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 60 are in force.
(9) In this section-
"driving" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52);
"motor vehicle" means any mechanically propelled vehicle, whether or not it is intended or adapted for use on roads; and
"private dwelling house" does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.