WOF grace period? [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

Patrick

2nd October 2009, 10:17

It is "usually" within one month of expiry.

Shouldn't really be using it, but... If you are stopped, explain you are booked in at xxx place for xxx day. Confirmable with a phone call? Should be sweet, but hey..... it's all about revenue collecting, isn't it?:Pokey:

If you did get ticketed, get the WOF, as explained, and write in. You would fined that they will probably waive it...

OR,

Ask the cop to check in a week or two and if not WOFed, post you the ticket.....;)

NDORFN

2nd October 2009, 10:26

Depends if you get pulled over by a cop or a pig.

vifferman

2nd October 2009, 10:34

Just don't get pulled up.

I somehow overlooked the WOF in the wife's car. :pinch:
When I borrowed it one day, I happened to notice it was a few... months... overdue. :Oops:

Chooky

2nd October 2009, 10:36

Just realized my WOF ran out on the 25th of last month, can't get it into the shop for a new one until late next week. Is there a WOF grace period, if I get pulled over?

What is the fine for not having a current WoF or registration?

If a vehicle is stopped and checked by a police officer and is found not to be up to WoF standards, the owner can incur a significant fine. The fine is $200 for not displaying a current WoF and $200 for not displaying a current registration label.

CookMySock

2nd October 2009, 11:05

I get widely varying responses. Once a WOF was ten days over and they took a "no excuses" approach.. fucking pissed me off.

Next one, was RUC was 5,000km over, and he said "better sort that out ay.." :blink:

5,000km over on your RUC is a beeeeeeg fine and he just glossed over it.. Another time I was 1,200km over and it was $400 - I wrote in and asked for it to be waived (RUC was updated within the hour) but nooooooo.

So ya pays ya money and ya rolls ya dice.

Steve

Patrick

2nd October 2009, 11:46

I get widely varying responses. Once a WOF was ten days over and they took a "no excuses" approach.. fucking pissed me off.

Perhaps the attitude test was failed? :whistle:;)

In any event, it is up to the bureau, not the cop on the roadside. There is a compliance policy for some things, and the WOF and rego out within a month is one of em....

Next one, was RUC was 5,000km over, and he said "better sort that out ay.." :blink:

You get that a lot... plenty don't know how to deal with these. Aint a biggie in my book, but did get a guy who was 198,000kms over once....

5,000km over on your RUC is a beeeeeeg fine and he just glossed over it.. Another time I was 1,200km over and it was $400 - I wrote in and asked for it to be waived (RUC was updated within the hour) but nooooooo.

So ya pays ya money and ya rolls ya dice.

Steve

Win some, lose some....

steve_t

2nd October 2009, 11:59

If you are stopped, explain you are booked in at xxx place for xxx day. Confirmable with a phone call? Should be sweet, but hey..... it's all about revenue collecting, isn't it?:Pokey:

I believe this is correct. If you are booked in to get the WOF somewhere within a reasonable time of the WOF expiring, you're OK. If you fail, you've got 28 days to sort it out so I'd imagine a 'reasonable' period is going to be no more than that

MarkH

2nd October 2009, 12:43

Once a WOF was ten days over and they took a "no excuses" approach.. fucking pissed me off.

Why were you operating a vehicle that didn't have a current WoF?

OK, I admit that I am never happy to get fined for breaking the law, even though it is my own fault. But I don't bitch about it on public forums. Sympathy can be found in any dictionary - it is near the end of the 'S' section.

paddy

2nd October 2009, 12:55

I believe this is correct. If you are booked in to get the WOF somewhere within a reasonable time of the WOF expiring, you're OK. If you fail, you've got 28 days to sort it out so I'd imagine a 'reasonable' period is going to be no more than that

You've got 28 days to sort it out before you have to pay for a whole new inspection. You still can't use the vehicle on the road though as it doesn't have a valid WoF.

AllanB

2nd October 2009, 14:15

Expired is expired - it's like the really old condom that you keep in your wallet just in case you ever get lucky - your risk if you use it.

And oddly enough you'll go though a similar certificate of fitness inspection before being allowed to use the condom ........

Insanity_rules

2nd October 2009, 14:59

Grace period :laugh: No if the constabulary request a little roaside chat and its out at all they will :buggerd: you not :hug: you.

Nasty

2nd October 2009, 15:40

Just realized my WOF ran out on the 25th of last month, can't get it into the shop for a new one until late next week. Is there a WOF grace period, if I get pulled over?

If you don't have a WOF you are almost certain to not be covered by insurance. :(

You are in Welly .. go to a VTNZ and get one.

yachtie10

2nd October 2009, 16:13

If you don't have a WOF you are almost certain to not be covered by insurance.

Is this true?
I would have thought that the bike (vehicle) would have to have to not comply with a WOF standard for insurance to deny a claim. Certainly been my experience. In fact I think they would have to show it contributed to the accident.
Note I am not saying they wont try it on but if you call them on it I think you would win

nodrog

2nd October 2009, 16:18

road king

2nd October 2009, 16:19

i got a ticket once for not being up to wof standard, even tho i had a current wof. it was $150

yachtie10

2nd October 2009, 16:27

how will the insurance company determine the bike was road worthy before the crash after they unwrap it from around a tree and put all the pieces in boxes?

Huh?
what is your point (if they cant prove it what is the reason for denying the claim)
lets take an extreme example
you car is parked on the road and has no warrant. somebody then hits it. should the insurance company be able to deny the claim.?

BMWST?

2nd October 2009, 16:41

Huh?
what is your point (if they cant prove it what is the reason for denying the claim)
lets take an extreme example
you car is parked on the road and has no warrant. somebody then hits it. should the insurance company be able to deny the claim.?

damage while parked is different than an accident when not having a current WOF.There is no grace period for not having a Wof.The only reason for being on the raod without a wof is for the purpose of getting a wof....thats what the 28 days is for.I think the idea is you are on the way to the repairer or on the way to the wof station...

steve_t

2nd October 2009, 16:53

You can get ticketed if your car is sitting on the roadside without a current WOF or Rego :girlfight:
My mate had a crash and his WOF was 4 days expired. Insurance claim was denied :mad::angry2:

mossy1200

2nd October 2009, 16:54

Just talked to meter guy today as he was walking down our street.I asked him about warrents and they allow 28days expiry outside a private dwelling on warrent not rego but if you have it in town it is concluded that you have driven it(logic).Not sure if this is Wellington only though.

StoneY

2nd October 2009, 16:57

Is this true?
I would have thought that the bike (vehicle) would have to have to not comply with a WOF standard for insurance to deny a claim. Certainly been my experience. In fact I think they would have to show it contributed to the accident.
Note I am not saying they wont try it on but if you call them on it I think you would win
:eek5:
Of COURSE its true mate, and call them on it all you like youll lose, even in court
Try process a claim on a vehicle that had no WOF or Reg- your immediately deemed in the wrong for either factor regardless of the crash circumstances

I been there, I tail ended a guy when I wasnt looking, sadly for him he had no Reg....I never paid a cent and he had to repair MY car even though I hit him from behind, and he was wof'd but 2 weeks out of reg!

Its a condition of using a vehicle on the road- WOF and Rego. (unless your a bicycle or a horse buggy)
Only exception is driving TO the WOF issuing authority, and if you fail your covered to drive HOME from said test and I aimnt even sure thats a legal standing, but is accepted widely as the understanding by cops and garages at least

As it is they tightened it down by making it impossible to get Rego with no current WOF because so many Kiwi's bullshited the cop that "im on way to garage for WOF, see its got a reg officer" (did it myself for a while lol)

Drew

2nd October 2009, 17:06

I believe this is correct. If you are booked in to get the WOF somewhere within a reasonable time of the WOF expiring, you're OK. If you fail, you've got 28 days to sort it out so I'd imagine a 'reasonable' period is going to be no more than that
You are not allowed to operate a vehicle without a current WOF, except for the purpose of work to be carried out for, or getting said WOF.

There is no grace period, and ignorance is no defence for anything in our legal system.

Ya will sometimes get let off, but dont expect it.

sleemanj

2nd October 2009, 19:01

I been there, I tail ended a guy when I wasnt looking, sadly for him he had no Reg....I never paid a cent and he had to repair MY car even though I hit him from behind, and he was wof'd but 2 weeks out of reg!

An insurer does not necessarily refuse your claim simply on the basis "you didn't have a WOF (or reg)" (well they probably will try to do so, as insurers are inclined to do, but it's not generally a good enough reason).

If there was something wrong with the vehicle in front, which prevented it getting a WOF, and it was a contributing factor (eg, brake lights), then they could have refused him cover and he could have been liable. Otherwise, he got screwed and should have refused to pay a cent to you/your insurers without a court order.

Surprisingly it's a bit hard to find a written reference to put it in black and white for you, in fact Google isn't showing much case of refusal either, but here is a
document from the Citizens Advice Bureau (http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cab.org.nz%2Finformation%2F8% 2520Motor%2520Vehicle%2520Accidents%2520and%2520In surance.pdf&ei=xaPFSsiqIIqQtgO8iqmiBQ&usg=AFQjCNFgJ82N9Y58V0egXNXOI1JlXN_ZCQ&sig2=LxGJAZybo0FTE4c2ezjkPA)
which states

Having an unsafe vehicle
If your vehicle is unsafe or doesn’t have a current Warrant of Fitness, you will probably lose your
insurance cover. But again, the test is whether the particular defect caused or contributed to the
accident. Also, if your vehicle is in warrantable condition but you simply forgot to renew your
warrant, you may still be covered if you have an accident.

Naturally, the wording of your policy should form the basis of any individual case, and it's best to avoid the problem in the first place (do as I say, not as I do).

sleemanj

2nd October 2009, 19:08

Also here's an except from an AA insurance policy document, my emphasis

We may reduce a benefit or provide no benefit at all if, at the time
of the loss or damage, the vehicle was:
unsafe or did not have a current Warrant of Fitness, or would not
have passed a Warrant of Fitness check immediately prior to the
loss or damage, or an attached trailer or caravan was unsafe or
did not have a current Warrant of Fitness and you or a person
using the vehicle knew or should have known this

So it's fairly clear that the intention there is that if the claim is the result of a warrant-voiding issue, even if warranted, that it could be declined, and the inference there is that simply not-having-a-warrant is an insufficient issue to cause a total voiding of your insurance if your vehicle is/was actually warrantable at the time.

Naturally. PLEAD IGNORANCE. "No Mr Insurance person, I didn't realise it had run out of warrant.", this would be the natural thing for most people, because most people do get a warrant as soon as they realise it's run out, while lots of people do miss that it has run out for a month or so, it's easy done. Hence why insurers have to cut you some leeway there or there would be an almighty uproar.

Pedrostt500

2nd October 2009, 20:01

Ok havn't read all the responces, WOF exspired is WOF exspired. A WOF is only to say that, that vechicle was up to a standard at the time of testing, you can be prosecuted for having a vechicle not up to WOF standard, even though you have a current sticker on the vechicle, ie bald tyres, lights not working etc. What cofuses alot of people is that the WOF Inspection Sheet, has a 28 day lee way for the vechicle to be retested on those items that it has faild it inspection on, this is not an extention on the WOF it's self, once the 28 day inspection period has run out you have to pay for a new inspection and are required to go through a full WOF inspection again.

Pedrostt500

2nd October 2009, 20:05

how will the insurance company determine the bike was road worthy before the crash after they unwrap it from around a tree and put all the pieces in boxes?

If they can peice a 747 back together to figure out what went wrong, then it aint hard to do the same to a bike.

nodrog

2nd October 2009, 20:51

If they can peice a 747 back together to figure out what went wrong, then it aint hard to do the same to a bike.

yeah because they will go to to all that trouble and expense for a motorcycle claim
:lol:

nothingflash

2nd October 2009, 21:06

My take on it is insurance premiums are partly gathered to contribute to pay outs and partly to employ staff to investigate reasons not to pay out... Premiums gathered - payouts = profit.

AllanB

2nd October 2009, 21:12

So it's fairly clear that the intention there is that if the claim is the result of a warrant-voiding issue, even if warranted, that it could be declined.

Yep - say for example you get a WOF - your rear tyre is getting down but measures 2mm, so you are OK. 3 months later after doing a couple of thousand kms it's truly stuffed.
You crash your bike.

Mr/Mrs insurance assessor comes out to inspect the damage and looks at the tyre - you'll not get a penny from them, even with it full warranted. Part of your agreement with them is that you as the insured will keep the vehicle up to WOF standards at all times.

ynot slow

2nd October 2009, 21:24

Obviously depends on drivers attitude.Well when I was in a car it did,the driver admitted he forgot(and we were talking about it getting done next day)to cop.Cop said testing station closed on Saturday,guy said no probs will get it at Stratford which will be open.Officer said ok,you show constable xxx who will be on duty all day tomorrow,and I'll not issue it on Monday.Dutifully done and ticket waived.

Patrick

3rd October 2009, 18:23

You've got 28 days to sort it out before you have to pay for a whole new inspection. You still can't use the vehicle on the road though as it doesn't have a valid WoF.

Sorry dude... you are wrong. It gives you 28 days to go back to get the WOF so you don't have to pay for a check again, that is all.

If you use ya vehicle cruising the streets with ya pissed mates on a Friday night, expect a ticket......

You are not allowed to operate a vehicle without a current WOF, except for the purpose of work to be carried out for, or getting said WOF.

Exactly.

Obviously depends on drivers attitude.Well when I was in a car it did,the driver admitted he forgot(and we were talking about it getting done next day)to cop.Cop said testing station closed on Saturday,guy said no probs will get it at Stratford which will be open.Officer said ok,you show constable xxx who will be on duty all day tomorrow,and I'll not issue it on Monday.Dutifully done and ticket waived.

easy, ay...????:sunny:

paddy

3rd October 2009, 18:32

Sorry dude... you are wrong. It gives you 28 days to go back to get the WOF so you don't have to pay for a check again, that is all.

Which is exactly what I said. I think you possibly read CAN where I wrote CAN'T.

Patrick

3rd October 2009, 18:42

Which is exactly what I said. I think you possibly read CAN where I wrote CAN'T.

:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:

bLARDY bOURBON......

paddy

3rd October 2009, 18:48

:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:

bLARDY bOURBON......

Very good then. :-)

Pedrostt500

4th October 2009, 13:07

yeah because they will go to to all that trouble and expense for a motorcycle claim
:lol:

Maybe not for the motorcycle but what it hit could be worth a bit.

Matt_TG

4th October 2009, 13:19

The official Insurance line on not having a WOF could be covered under Section 11 of the Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 that covers exclusions that cannot be applied... The bold and underlining is mine.

It means that you can have an unwarrantable vehicle, be pissed as a newt, and driving outside the terms of your licence but sitting at traffic lights. Someone hits you, but the above issues don't have relevance to the accident, so your insurers may not refuse your claim if YOU prove that the issues weren't relevant.

Where

a) By the provisions of a contract of insurance the circumstances in which the insurer is bound to indemnify the insured against loss are so defined as to exclude or limit the liability of the insurer to indemnify the insured on the happening of certain events or on the existence of certain circumstances; and

(b) In the view of the Court or arbitrator determining the claim of the insured the liability of the insurer has been so defined because the happening of such events or the existence of such circumstances was in the view of the insurer likely to increase the risk of such loss occurring,—

the insured shall not be disentitled to be indemnified by the insurer by reason only of such provisions of the contract of insurance if the insured proves on the balance of probability that the loss in respect of which the insured seeks to be indemnified was not caused or contributed to by the happening of such events or the existence of such circumstances.

Not what the original question was about though, but perhaps relevant.