top of page
Call Us +447340767675
Legal Amendment - Vehicle Seizure
July 2026 - A rider's YAMAHA TMAX has recently been seized by Police in Mickleham.
The Police are evidently using their new powers to seemingly good effect to combat anti-social behaviour seen (and heard) from some local Bikers.
Section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 gives police the power to tackle vehicles being used in a manner that causes, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to the public, where the driving also amounts to careless or inconsiderate driving or unlawful off-road use. The power is commonly used to address anti-social driving such as street racing, excessive revving, wheel-spinning, off-road motorcycles and nuisance use of vehicles. Since 29 June 2026, following amendments made by the Crime and Policing Act 2026, police no longer have to issue a prior Section 59 warning before seizing a vehicle. Officers may now seize qualifying vehicles immediately where the statutory conditions are met, providing a faster and more effective response to persistent vehicle-related antisocial behaviour and reducing opportunities for repeat offending.
Legal precedence
Looking at the History of Deceptive Bends —the iconic warning sign once synonymous with the winding A24 through the Mole Valley—one is reminded of the importance of respecting both the environment and the communities that live within it. The evolution of environmental and nuisance law (as reflected in cases such as Rylands v Fletcher & Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan) demonstrates that excessive noise is not simply the responsibility of the individual creating it. Responsibility may also extend to those who organise, encourage or knowingly permit activities that result in an ongoing noise nuisance. The underlying principle is one of environmental responsibility and respect for the reasonable expectation of local residents to the peaceful enjoyment of their homes balanced with the rights of others to pursue lawful activities in a manner that does not create unreasonable nuisance.
Rylands v Fletcher 1868 - knowingly permitting the Nuisance
The principle underlying Rylands v Fletcher is that those who control or benefit from an activity may bear responsibility for the consequences it causes. In the wider law of nuisance, this has evolved into the concept that liability may extend not only to those who directly create a nuisance but also to those who knowingly permit it to continue when they have the ability to prevent or control it.
Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan 1940 - Adopting the Nuisance
Interestingly, the case concerned a drainage pipe and culvert installed by a local authority on the defendants' land without their request. The defendants became aware of it, used it, but failed to maintain it properly. When it became blocked, flooding damaged the claimant's property. The House of Lords held that, although the defendants had not created the hazard, they had adopted and continued the nuisance by knowingly allowing it to remain after becoming aware of it and having a reasonable opportunity to remedy it.
As reflected in Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan, the law of nuisance recognises that responsibility may attach not only to those who create a nuisance, but also to those who, having knowledge of it and the means to address it, knowingly permit it to continue. The case embodies the principle that those who organise, facilitate or tolerate an ongoing nuisance may share responsibility for its effects on neighbouring communities.
In short from a legal standpoint, Sedleigh-Denfield provides one of the strongest authorities for the proposition that knowledge plus the ability to control or abate a nuisance can give rise to liability.
Enjoy the Ride. Respect the Valley
bottom of page