Failed my WOF on a 3 yr old car

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Failed my WOF on a 3 yr old car

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 8

Networkn
32199 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3037063 15-Feb-2023 14:45

rb99:

Erm, do insurance companies know that. Aren't these (almost) the same insurance companies that refuse to pay out life insurance claims because you forgot to mention you stubbed you big toe 35 years ago and you didn't declare it ?

Just because an insurance company *says* they won't pay out (default first reaction for lots of insurance companies is to rebuff claims), doesn't mean they have a legal leg to stand on if challenged.

I raised this with my insurer a few times over the year. They are clear, it would need to be a related incident.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3037065 15-Feb-2023 14:49

Ask for a loan car from where you purchased it. If they are not happy with that then just tell them that you don't find 6 weeks acceptable and you will have a full refund as it's not fit for purpose (this does work, I did it myself with a holden / kia dealership).

In my holden the main computer went 3 months out of warranty and they wanted over 2k to replace it, I did the trick above and was then given a loan car and did not have to pay for replacement computer or for it to be installed. Once you point out that they 1) should have replacement parts available, 2) a 35k+ car should last more than 3 years without issue etc and if they can't fix it in a reasonable time you will accept a refund for what you paid for it, the dealerships become very understanding and get things sorted.

robjg63

4087 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3037068 15-Feb-2023 14:53

networkn:

For the insurance company not to pay out they would need to prove the failure was directly related to the failure. If you drove into a tree drunk, they would not be able to use WOF failure on handbrake to refuse coverage.

I wouldn't like to test that theory, though this site does say:

It’s usually a condition of your insurance that your car must have a valid WoF. However, if it wasn’t a contributing factor and there were no other defects, then it’s unlikely a claim will be denied. If there is no WoF, then the accident will be investigated and that will delay the payout. If a problem was noted the last time you got a warrant, and that problem contributed to the accident, the insurance company could look closely at whether you should be paid.

So at the very least it could delay things for quite some time - not something most people can afford...

I recall when I first started driving in the 80s, I read the small print on the SIMU (yes that long ago), car insurance policy and it actually said that if you consumed any alcohol, you might not be covered for insurance. It didn't mention legal amounts - just said any alcohol.

EDIT: One drink can still mean no insurance it seems

The OP has an warranty issue - Hit the dealer up for a loaner car.

Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself - A. H. Weiler

tripp

3848 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3037073 15-Feb-2023 15:02

All the insurance I have had on my cars did state it has to be up to WOF standards with a valid WOF.

scuwp

3874 posts

Uber Geek

#3037078 15-Feb-2023 15:28

I think the insurance issue has been done to death, so I will attempt to answer your police question.

Yes the Police have discretion they can apply, that's not to say they will, or will apply it evenly. Provided it's been expired less than 30 days (at least that's what it use to be) then you would probably get offered 'compliance', which means get the issue fixed, provide them proof, and the fine would be waived.

There is also risk from local parking enforcement, if your vehicle is on the road, and the WoF expiry date has lapsed, they can also issue you a fine. No personal experience but unlike the police, local councils keep all the $$ from fines, so getting out of a ticket or asking for some kind of leniency is usually unlikely.

TLDR: You might get away with it, you might not depending on where you operate your vehicle.

Shipping and supply issues are affecting everything these days, I expect that car parts are no different.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

scuwp

3874 posts

Uber Geek

#3037080 15-Feb-2023 15:30

Behodar:

Bung: But if the car was parked outside your property you wouldn't be a target for over zealous parking enforcement. They'd still see your current sticker with some time left on it.

One of the neighbours got pinged for an expired WOF on a car he doesn't use.

"It was on private property."

"One of the wheels was touching the footpath. Pay up."

Not buying it, something missing from this story, or lost in translation.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

Behodar

10372 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3037083 15-Feb-2023 15:33

scuwp:

something missing from this story

Quite possibly! People tend to only tell the parts of the story that support their opinion.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3037084 15-Feb-2023 15:37

I had the same fine from Auckland City Council.

Expired car expired everything, parked on what I thought was my lawn grass but apparently it was council land but I don't know I don't have the plans it's the parents' house.

In the same year I was ticketed for dropping off my brother at auckland university. I had no idea that was even illegal.

You guessed it. Auckland City Council. I was watching that guy after that, he was just standing at the uni handing out tickets to people getting dropped off.

mudguard

2066 posts

Uber Geek

#3037104 15-Feb-2023 16:22

Behodar:

One of the neighbours got pinged for an expired WOF on a car he doesn't use.

"It was on private property."

"One of the wheels was touching the footpath. Pay up."

To be fair this drive me nuts a bit. On my street there are some caravans and large boats which are parked on verges essentially. Between the footpath the home owner's house. I do wonder what the same home owners would do if I plonked a piano or a shipping container on 'their' bit.

Yes I know it's supposed to be enforced but I think Auckland Council has given up as I think some bylaw suggests that there have to be signs stating it or something.

Back on topic, it's nuts how many spare parts are on back order for all kinds of things.

I'd be pushing for a loan car and leaving the car at the dealership.

kotuku4

482 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3037169 15-Feb-2023 17:51

It's interesting following these types of discussions, with those about the standard of driving. Weather we should have driver licence re testing, compulsory insurance (as we did in the past).
Then consider the high percentage of people on the roads with no license, rego, wof, and forget about the Insurance. I'm sure I've read of 20-30% in some areas, but I can't find references now.
Bear in mind we can make changes in road safety that still don't affect all those un road worthy drivers and vehicles.

RunningMan

8879 posts

Uber Geek

#3037175 15-Feb-2023 18:16

From here https://legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303653.html

An operator of a motor vehicle that is required to have a warrant of fitness or certificate of fitness must at all times when the vehicle is operated on a road keep the vehicle in a condition appropriate to the level required for the issue of that warrant or certificate (as the case may be).

Given the brakes working is part of the level required for the WOF, I'd expect that having part of the braking system not fully working means it is not in an appropriate condition. Basically, it's not whether the WOF is current or not, it's whether the vehicle is in the appropriate condition.

The brakes have a fault, it's not in the appropriate condition so don't drive it.

sir1963

3216 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3037192 15-Feb-2023 18:58

networkn:

For the insurance company not to pay out they would need to prove the failure was directly related to the failure. If you drove into a tree drunk, they would not be able to use WOF failure on handbrake to refuse coverage.

Having said that, I'd be making this Kia's problem.

The argument goes: Without a WOF the vehicle should not have been on the road. If it had not been on the Roa the accident would not have occurred. The law states you must have a current WOF, therefore you were breaking the law. Based on that, we don't pay out.

Handle9

11158 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3037193 15-Feb-2023 19:00

rb99:

networkn:

For the insurance company not to pay out they would need to prove the failure was directly related to the failure. If you drove into a tree drunk, they would not be able to use WOF failure on handbrake to refuse coverage.

Having said that, I'd be making this Kia's problem.

Erm, do insurance companies know that. Aren't these (almost) the same insurance companies that refuse to pay out life insurance claims because you forgot to mention you stubbed you big toe 35 years ago and you didn't declare it ?

They'd give you the runaround and you may have to threaten to take them to the disputes tribunal / court but the law is clear on this sort of thing.

Handle9

11158 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3037194 15-Feb-2023 19:05

sir1963:

networkn:

For the insurance company not to pay out they would need to prove the failure was directly related to the failure. If you drove into a tree drunk, they would not be able to use WOF failure on handbrake to refuse coverage.

Having said that, I'd be making this Kia's problem.

The argument goes: Without a WOF the vehicle should not have been on the road. If it had not been on the Roa the accident would not have occurred. The law states you must have a current WOF, therefore you were breaking the law. Based on that, we don't pay out.

That argument isn't supported by case law. It's garbage.

xlinknz

1126 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3037348 15-Feb-2023 19:58

Our WoF expires approx. 26th March

We'd like to know in advance whether it would pass and if not what may require to be done (and get that cost) since as the car is only worth approx. $4K we may elict to order AND receive a new car (@obraik that could be be a Model Y) before the current car (single car family) cannot be used

I read with interest if I get a WoF inspection done prior to the current WoF and it fails essentially I am at risk of bringing foward how much time we have to replace it

Is there any service available that essentially identifies what a WoF does without failing the WoF prior to the current WoF expiring

I see AA have mobile vehicle inspections but they are $184 unless I can ask for a WoF inspection and if it passes decline the WoF?!

The benefit of VTNZ is that they are independant

Thoughts?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ... | 8