Jump to content

For Questions Regarding WOFs/CERTs/NUMBER PLATEs


si

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes word had it they presented a very convincing pitch and  appear to have been the obvious choice to  manage the repair certificate process. Full credit to them, (although I've yet to hear the MTA or the CRA's position on this).

I've had no issue with the cert guys I've dealt with, most were car mad good guys like the rest of us.

What does concern me is having a privately owned company not only implementing the certification process but writing the rules and regulations we are legally obliged to adhere to. It's both unprecedented and unchartered territory, I can think of no other privately owned regulatory body in NZ that has this level of autonomy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely better to be run separate from the govt. Nzta should really have even less influence TBH. Would be great if there was competition* in the field too. But we can't beg for too much.

 

*Competition ideally results in better quality, innovation and prices

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, igor said:

Can you get away with still running an old style declaration if you've since fully rebuilt the car?

Yes , if you restore the vehicle and it matches the declaration.

 

But taking another complete registered vehicle, doing similar mods to it and swapping ID tags and plates off a car with a declaration?

 

It would be interesting to see what the correct answer is, as you can legally replace the chassis on a ute for example, if the chassis is beyond repair. 

which then ends up with mismatched  numbers, but that can be legitimate if NZTA is notified and it's recorded on landata as having a replacement chassis 

 

 

I doubt changing the body and chassis and redoing all the mods that were done prior to 92 in 2021, would be classed as "restoring" the original car  

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sr2 said:

Yes word had it they presented a very convincing pitch and  appear to have been the obvious choice to  manage the repair certificate process. Full credit to them, (although I've yet to hear the MTA or the CRA's position on this).

I've had no issue with the cert guys I've dealt with, most were car mad good guys like the rest of us.

What does concern me is having a privately owned company not only implementing the certification process but writing the rules and regulations we are legally obliged to adhere to. It's both unprecedented and unchartered territory, I can think of no other privately owned regulatory body in NZ that has this level of autonomy.

 

It's an incorporate society, not a private company.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As opposed to the trustworthy hands of the government who ignore the public? LVVTA seem to put all of the cert stuff out for consultation so that the public can have their input into the revisions of rules. 

Government is pretty useless at most of the stuff they have full control over so I don't see the problem. Housing and rental markets have gone down the toilets. Imagine if the government had the same control over the car related stuff. You'd be banned from any repairs and forced to buy a Nissan leaf if they had their way.

Change my mind.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Bling said:

LVVTA seem to put all of the cert stuff out for consultation so that the public can have their input into the revisions of rules

A good example of this working is the last update of the wheel and tyre chapter of the CCM 

There was some wording around mud flaps that could have been difficult.  I made a submission and encouraged others to do the same

In the final version the wording was changed to something that will be much better for modifiers

I have no idea how many people made submissions on that but LVVTA obviously took it on board and changed it. I think its great that they listen to the public's input

 

The opposite of Auckland transports speed limit public consultation process, where based on what I saw, most people were making submissions saying leave the speed limits as they are

Id bet they will still do what they planned on doing and tell everyone that "the public was overwhelmingly in favour of our action on speed limits"  

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bling said:

As opposed to the trustworthy hands of the government who ignore the public? LVVTA seem to put all of the cert stuff out for consultation so that the public can have their input into the revisions of rules. 

Government is pretty useless at most of the stuff they have full control over so I don't see the problem. Housing and rental markets have gone down the toilets. Imagine if the government had the same control over the car related stuff. You'd be banned from any repairs and forced to buy a Nissan leaf if they had their way.

Change my mind.

I'm not suggesting it be the hands of a government department (shudders at the thought!). What I am suggesting is that allowing the law maker and the law enforcer to be the same private entity is anything but democratic and has resulted in the current system which in the opinion of many of its clients has become user unfriendly self perpetuating law unto itself.

We are up in arms about supermarkets in NZ  being allowed to become a duopoly (at the expense of food prices) and yet we allow the certification of modified vehicles being controlled by one private group only, operating in a totally non competitive market. Bottom line is unless its the LVVTA you cannot have an engineer (no matter how qualified/experienced) cert your car. Surely that's one huge monopoly?

 

Edited to say: enjoying the debate but it probably needs to be in it's own thread. :)

Edited by sr2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get what you mean

"Law maker" = LVVTA

"Law enforcer"= lvv certifiers

Certifiers are not employed by or paid by lvvta, they are all separate businesses.  

When a certification is issued,  the certifier pays a fee to LVVTA. This is about $250 at the moment. The rest of the certification cost is to cover the certifiers time  and business costs 

 

Do you mean there should be several different lvvtas with their own rules? 

Or any "engineer" should be able to certify a vehicle by following lvvta's rules? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if there's an official set maximum number, but there is consideration given to how many there are in an area 

Probably because it's easier to keep on top of training and monitoring 100 certifiers nationwide instead of 1000

 

and to retain good certifiers 

If there was to be a flood of lower level certifiers who can only do the entry level stuff (which is the "bread and butter" work, ie coilovers in Japanese imports)  then the more experienced certifiers would get stuck with dealing with the more difficult jobs all day= would likely lose the experienced certifiers 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cletus said:

I don't get what you mean

"Law maker" = LVVTA

"Law enforcer"= lvv certifiers

Certifiers are not employed by or paid by lvvta, they are all separate businesses.  

When a certification is issued,  the certifier pays a fee to LVVTA. This is about $250 at the moment. The rest of the certification cost is to cover the certifiers time  and business costs 

 

Do you mean there should be several different lvvtas with their own rules? 

Or any "engineer" should be able to certify a vehicle by following lvvta's rules? 

 

 

You might find I'm more on your side than you think.

I think any suitably qualified engineer should be able to judge if a vehicle is safe or not. The LVVTA has cornered the market on what is safe and what isn't. Most likely started with the best of intentions, after nearly 30 years it has morphed into  a monopoly run by a group of private individuals who (if I was a cynical man :blackeye:) one could claim that their primary objective is to justify their own existence. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Transom said:

Like the “engineer” who was certifying heavy truck tow systems that was a muppet and had all his certs recalled 

Modified vehicle is a specialty not for your average engineer 

Having dealt with many engineers over the last 3 decades it's not rocket science compared to what the average mechanical engineer deals with on a daily basis? :blackeye:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...