WoF - Liability

[The Stranger]

I took my son's car to the testing station for a WoF. Now it had some issues (quite a few actually as it turns out), but it went through the WoF without a hitch.
Being somewhat amazed at the situation I mentioned it to someone and they maintained the the testing station would be liable.

How say you, is the testing station liable?

Personally I think not, as he would have had to replace the collapsed engine mount (and other stuff) regardless, thus the testing station hasn't caused him to incurr additional cost.
I do plan on taking the matters up with the testing station however this is more to settle the argument as I don't propose to seek compensation regardless given my view stated above.

[p.dath]

The first question I would ask is what you think they are liable for? Engine failure? Someone dieing?

Pretty must they are determining if the vehicle meets the WOF standard, and that's it. No more, no less.

I guess if you suffered a consequential loss purely because of an error they made, they they have not contract out of it (which would surprise me), then there may be some liability.
BUT lets say you experience an engine failure, and they incorrectly decided you could have a WOF, that doesn't mean the engine failed because of that decision.

[dogsnbikes]

the way I undaerstand it...they are liable if what they have inspected and passed in a Wof inspection is a contributing factor to a accident

they would'nt have picked up an engine mount as its not on the cheak list for a WOF

[Subike]

You can take your car to a teasting station and pay to have 4 different inspectors look at the car.
They will all find differing things wrong, but if they all fail the car on the same item, then the standard has been broken and the 1st inspection that issued the WOF is at fault for issuing a WOF on an unroad worthy car.
IIFC the only thing that can happen is the WOF issuing person loses their issuing licence for x number of days.
Im sure someone can expand upon this

[YellowDog]

the way I undaerstand it...they are liable if what they have inspected and passed in a Wof inspection is a contributing factor to a accident

they would'nt have picked up an engine mount as its not on the cheak list for a WOF
This is quite right.

The garage should not pass an unfit car. If an accident occurs and it can be proved that a failing component has contributed towards the accident, then the garage will get strung up for not picking up the obvious defect.

In reality unless someone is badly hurt or killed, noone will be interested.

[vifferman]

When #2Son had his car in for the last WOF, the tester pointed out that an engine mount needed repairing or replacing. I don't know if that was as part of the WOF check, or just that he noticed it when looking under the car.

[The Stranger]

they would'nt have picked up an engine mount as its not on the cheak list for a WOF

Hmm, other son failed a WoF for a stuffed engine mount. Must look at that one further.

[Subike]

Iam sure that engine mounts count as a structual part of the chassis.
in the pre FWD cars, real cars like falcons, holdens, valiants vauxhalls, the in line engines were known to literally fall out of the car if the engine mounts broke.
Thus a WOF item

[The Stranger]

the way I undaerstand it...they are liable if what they have inspected and passed in a Wof inspection is a contributing factor to a accident

they would'nt have picked up an engine mount as its not on the cheak list for a WOF

Isn't it covered here (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/certifiers/virm-in-service/general-13-v3.pdf), top of page 3?

[NighthawkNZ]

I took my son's car to the testing station for a WoF. Now it had some issues (quite a few actually as it turns out), but it went through the WoF without a hitch.
Being somewhat amazed at the situation I mentioned it to someone and they maintained the the testing station would be liable.

How say you, is the testing station liable?

Personally I think not, as he would have had to replace the collapsed engine mount (and other stuff) regardless, thus the testing station hasn't caused him to incurr additional cost.
I do plan on taking the matters up with the testing station however this is more to settle the argument as I don't propose to seek compensation regardless given my view stated above.

When my other half went for her full a week before hand she said fark the wof is over due... she took the bike down to the to the testing station and it past its WOF no problem...

Week later we are selling the bike and noticed how much better her cornering is on a bike she was testing... the guys down at the shop went over the bike and said the Steering Head bearings a farked... I said that should have been picked up in the WOF last week shouldn't it... he said yes... am slightly pissed off that it wasn't picked up by the testing station.



but it goes to show

[Owl]

I would say yes, they can and are made liable.

I traded a bike once that ended up with a faily major issue. I had offered to get a new WOF, but was told not to worry, they'd sort it.

After the issue was discovered, I got a phone call from the dealer asking who had done the previous WOF's. There position was that the bike had been crashed, needed a new frame and should have never had a WOF.

He then told me he was pissed off that I hadn't got the new WOF, because then the testing station would be liable and they (bike shop) wouldn't be up for the cost of repair.

[lostinflyz]

as a counter argument i went to get a car wof the other day and got pulled up saying that i dont have enough suspension travel. its been through a wof 3 times prior (its got eibach springs and koni shocks - very normal bits) but suddenly its a failure.

just about eveything on a WOF sheet is completly subjective. one man sees it as ok and another only knows the book and another just doesn't care and the last will be a prick and fail everything.

to make me more angry i see 2 car at one set of lights today with plenty of suspension travel while stationary and then completly on the stops the second they accelerate. idiotic.

[Jerms]

A year ago I took my old 250 for a WOF.

I knew the rear tyre needed to be replaced (was almost getting bald but a lot of cracks due to age) but I had ordered a new tyre and was waiting for it to arrive. In the mean time I also needed a WOF...surely they'd pick it up and I'd have to get a new tyre to pass the WOF...

Nah, they didn't even check the rear tyre but ticked if off the list and happily gave me a WOF...I often wondered if they would be liable if I had a crash due to a worn tyre...? :confused:

[StoneY]

I was in a car that rolled due to the cross member under the engine falling apart, from corrosion.

It had a brand new testing station wof- testing station was audited by Tranzit/Land Transport as part of the Police investigation

My mate (the owner and at time driver) was venerated of blame, the inspector at the testing station was dismissed (apparently not first lazy pass he let through) and a massive finne went to someone but cant recall if was the employer or inspector

Yes, they ARE held liable if they pass unsafe vehicles:shit:

[dogsnbikes]

Isn't it covered here (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/certifiers/virm-in-service/general-13-v3.pdf), top of page 3?

thats good too know saved that linked,honestly I have never seen anyone at a testing station cheak engine mounts...but does support your argument

on what OWL and NighthawkNZ have said about bikes

I test rode a bike from a bike shop in the capital just too discover that out of the 4 bolts that held the frame together 3 were missing

[Squiggles]

I often wondered if they would be liable if I had a crash due to a worn tyre...? :confused:

Passing the blame?

[Jerms]

Passing the blame?

No, just surprised they didn't pick it up...if I could spot it, surely anyone could...! :laugh:

[Max Preload]

they would'nt have picked up an engine mount as its not on the cheak list for a WOF

A damaged or broken engine mount is most definately a fail.