New WOF rules

Forums › Off topic › New WOF rules

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

2225 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 373

#752330 28-Jan-2013 21:58

My understanding is that if your car fails a wof it is flagged in the system so regardless of where you take it the fault will have to be fixed in order to pass the wof. YEs if the cost was great you have the option to shop around but my question is does the work actually need to be undertaken or not? Perhaps the workshop is having a slow week? Over the years I have heard plenty of stories of required work for wofs on cars you wouldn't expect to require that amount of work every 6 months, I on the other hand go into VTNZ and never need more than a bulb or a tire. I do feel that some workshops may treat some of their customers as the proverbial cash cows regarding wof checks and subsequent work

I should add that on my last wof the guys at VTNZ advised me that my brake pads were getting low, not to the point of problem or needing replacement but something to check in the upcoming months, no hard sell or pressure just good old customer service, maybe that could have become a $800 must do for a warrant somewhere else :P

scuwp

3927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

#752338 28-Jan-2013 22:13

Yes if you fail a WOF that is recorded. You get normally 28 days to get the items fixed and then you can return to the SAME place for a re-check at no charge. The pass will then be recorded.

If you choose to go somewhere else for a second opinion you will have to pay another inspection fee and the process starts again. If that fails then you will have 2 recorded fails and still be up for some repairs.

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

BlueShift

1692 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 969

#752629 29-Jan-2013 13:27

I took my caravan to a VTNZ, who failed it for rust on the chassis. I took it to a mechanics who advised me that they couldn't see any reason for the fail, then got several other members of their staff to double-check, still couldn't see a reason to fail it. Their recommendation was wait out the 28 days, get a new check from them and they passed it. Saved me close to a grand of welding for no reason.

My father has a house-bus, and as he moves around, he gets his WOFs done in different locations. He uses the gypsy grapevine to find the 'good' VTNZs, as opposed to the overly anal ones..

Athlonite

1828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 210
Inactive user

#752902 29-Jan-2013 20:39

the new rules don't affect me any my car will simply carry on passing it's wof every 6 months :) at my local VTNZ which is good for me and my 20yr old Toyota Corolla

qwerty7

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12
Inactive user

#752907 29-Jan-2013 20:46

I have heard and personally experienced too much about vtnz to NOT think that they are stupid and incompetent. They are not mechanics. I know it is tarring them all with one brush but I would never take my car to a vtnz.

On a side note, sorry if it's been mentioned but I'm on my phone. Is the registered after 2000 a roll over date. E.g will a car registered in 2004 still only require annual wofs when it is 18 years old ? If so I think that's stupid. Trying to save motorist money why not decrease rego prices

Athlonite

1828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 210
Inactive user

#752908 29-Jan-2013 20:49

DoggNZ:That's why I always take my car to LTSA a bit earlier as it gives me time to get stuff fixed elsewhere if required without having to drive around with no WOF.

Actually your old WOF expires when you take your car for it's new WOF check and if it fails you would actually be driving around without a current WOF and that's straight out of the mouth of an police officer

just as if you gain a brand new WOF and on the second day after getting it you loose a tail light bulb guess what your car is no longer in WOF condition and therefor your warrant is void until the bulb is replaced

HP

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

Athlonite

1828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 210
Inactive user

#752912 29-Jan-2013 20:59

qwerty7: I have heard and personally experienced too much about vtnz to NOT think that they are stupid and incompetent. They are not mechanics. I know it is tarring them all with one brush but I would never take my car to a vtnz.

On a side note, sorry if it's been mentioned but I'm on my phone. Is the registered after 2000 a roll over date. E.g will a car registered in 2004 still only require annual wofs when it is 18 years old ? If so I think that's stupid. Trying to save motorist money why not decrease rego prices

Actually they are qualified mechanics if you find one that is not then you have the right to ask for another person to check your car

scuwp

3927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

#752937 29-Jan-2013 21:25

Athlonite:
qwerty7: I have heard and personally experienced too much about vtnz to NOT think that they are stupid and incompetent. They are not mechanics. I know it is tarring them all with one brush but I would never take my car to a vtnz.

On a side note, sorry if it's been mentioned but I'm on my phone. Is the registered after 2000 a roll over date. E.g will a car registered in 2004 still only require annual wofs when it is 18 years old ? If so I think that's stupid. Trying to save motorist money why not decrease rego prices

Actually they are qualified mechanics if you find one that is not then you have the right to ask for another person to check your car

You don't need to be a mechanic to become a vehicle testing officer, and many of them aren't (most?). I think it is just a 1 or 2 week course and away you go. I have never heard of anyone asking for another inspector, but guess it could be done if another is available.

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

scuwp

3927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

#752938 29-Jan-2013 21:27

qwerty7: I have heard and personally experienced too much about vtnz to NOT think that they are stupid and incompetent. They are not mechanics. I know it is tarring them all with one brush but I would never take my car to a vtnz.

On a side note, sorry if it's been mentioned but I'm on my phone. Is the registered after 2000 a roll over date. E.g will a car registered in 2004 still only require annual wofs when it is 18 years old ? If so I think that's stupid. Trying to save motorist money why not decrease rego prices

The 1 January 2000 date is just a line in the sand based on statistics for older vehicles (the reasoning is on the MoT website if you want to read). It is allowing a long transition period, eventually just about everything will be on a 1 yr warrant expect for maybe a few collectors cars.

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

Bung

6733 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2926

Subscriber

#752965 29-Jan-2013 22:41

Athlonite:
Actually your old WOF expires when you take your car for it's new WOF check and if it fails you would actually be driving around without a current WOF and that's straight out of the mouth of an police officer

Even police make mistakes

"A WoF, CoF or temporary permit ceases to be current:

a) after its expiry date, or

b) if the vehicle has been green or pink stickered and a new WoF or CoF is required, or

c) if the WoF, CoF or temporary permit has been revoked by a person authorised by the NZTA."

Athlonite

1828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 210
Inactive user

#752971 29-Jan-2013 23:04

@ Bung

c) if the WoF, CoF or temporary permit has been revoked by a person authorised by the NZTA."

hence whaen I said if you go and get it checked befor it's due and it gets a fail your wof is revoked

HP

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

Bung

6733 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2926

Subscriber

#752984 29-Jan-2013 23:33

The "C" revoking is typically done by NZTA when they find that someone has been supplying dodgy warrants it is not something done by the warrant inspectors. You don't get your old warrant removed let alone cancelled until the new one is being put on.

You are encouraged to get your testing done early and the new warrant can be dated up to 14 days ahead if your old warrant hasn't expired. There would be no point in this if testing revoked the existing warrant.
This is not the same as a fault meaning your vehicle is no longer up to warrant standard.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#752994 30-Jan-2013 00:03

That's why you have geek opinion, police opinion, and court of law opinion

qwerty7

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12
Inactive user

#752999 30-Jan-2013 01:20

Ok so year 2000 is a line in the sand and eventually everything will have yearly wofs.
Does that not contradict itself? Cars 12 years old or less are considered safe although when they are 17 years old they will be checked once a year, which is fine in the eyes of the ltnz because of airbags and other safety features on cars registered after 2000?

I worry about annual wofs considering some people cannot be trusted to even keep their tyres inflated properly and I know for a fact if tyres pass on minimum tread, they are staying on for a year.

And why.. For the rest of eternity do cars registered before 2000 have to have 6 month wofs? Simply because they are seen as old and unsafe? The people in the lawmakers office certainly seem to hate older cars don't they.

qwerty7

434 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 12
Inactive user

#753000 30-Jan-2013 01:45

I just read vehicle factors are rarely stated as the cause of the crash. Nz has one of the most frequent vehicle inspection intervals in the OECD. And vehicle factors are stated as the sole cause in 0.5% of fatal and injury crashes

I have an idea lets change something which obviously works and save a collective of $245 million. 284 people were killed on the roads in 2011. 0.5% of 284 is 14. Therefore a life is worth ($245 mill / 14 = 17.5 mill)

I wonder if when hardly any crashes are caused by speeding they will stop enforcing it as much to 'save people money'

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