Fine already $1000 for no rego?

[pc79]

Hi,

From Transport (Vehicle and Driver Registration and Licensing) Act 1986 No 6 (as at 01 August 2008), Public Act.

See 2 below...does this mean the fine can already be a grand?

(1) Motor vehicles to be registered and licensed(1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person shall use any motor vehicle on any road unless—

(a) The motor vehicle is registered in accordance with this Part of this Act; and

(b) The registration plates and a current licence issued for that vehicle are affixed and displayed on the vehicle in the manner prescribed in any notice made under section 14 of this Act; and

(c) the full amount of the appropriate levies payable under section 214 of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001 in respect of the period for which the licence is issued has been paid.

(1A) Once a motor vehicle is registered in accordance with this Part then, except as otherwise provided in this Act or in regulations made under section 35A(1)(a),—

(a) The owner of the vehicle must keep the vehicle licensed at all times under this Part; and

(b) The fees payable in respect of such licensing are payable as if the vehicle is at all times required to be licensed (whether or not it is actually licensed).

(2) Every person who uses any motor vehicle or permits any motor vehicle to be used in contravention of subsection (1) of this section commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.

[sidecar bob]

No surprises there, the fine needs to be more than the rego for the system to work.

[one fast tl1ooo]

well there goes that plan out the window... ( of no rego ):angry:

guna have to out run them now!!!!:sweatdrop:sweatdrop

[Pixie]

well there goes that plan out the window... ( of no rego ):angry:

guna have to out run them now!!!!:sweatdrop:sweatdrop

Ok.
Plan B
Envelopes of white powder delivered to all the ACC offices:lol:

[one fast tl1ooo]

Ok.
Plan B
Envelopes of white powder delivered to all the ACC offices:lol:

Plan C :woohoo: **** NOS **** :woohoo:

[Taz]

I've got three bikes so it's still cheaper provided I dont get caught twice.

[bogan]

....not exceeding $1,000.

not exceeding, so it could be less? guess thatll mean the tin-tops get fined same as before and bikers have to bend over and take the higher fines.

[Corse1]

http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/factsheets/49.html

Still $200 As far as I can see

[Devil]

That is just the provision in law to have a fine up to $1000 if they wish to raise it.
What that means is that if they feel like raising it, they can pretty much do it any time they feel like (up to $1000)

[Reido]

That is just the provision in law to have a fine up to $1000 if they wish to raise it.
What that means is that if they feel like raising it, they can pretty much do it any time they feel like (up to $1000)

but whats stopping them from just raising the $1000 limit once they hit that?

[Winston001]

but whats stopping them from just raising the $1000 limit once they hit that?

Er...well, nothing. Parliament can amend this at any time and increase the maximum fine level. However you'd expect $1000 to be enough in the meantime. What will happen in the meantime is the police will start to impose infringement fines of say $600 instead of $200. Thats assuming we are reading this correctly and it looks pretty clear.

It was never going to be cheaper to be unregistered and cop the fine. Politicians, ACC, and the police ain't silly. :innocent:

[Pixie]

That is just the provision in law to have a fine up to $1000 if they wish to raise it.
What that means is that if they feel like raising it, they can pretty much do it any time they feel like (up to $1000)

The only thing that would give them pause to think,is that the fine has to apply to cars as well.I don't think $1000 will go down well with the AA.
Lordy!people might forgo the AA subscription to pay the fine

[Ixion]

" liable on summary conviction " is the explanation.

Normally , non-rego , the cop gives you a ticket (an infringement notice). He *could* do it the hard way, apply for a summons , and take you to court

$200 for a ticket (the almost universal way) , which is "summary conviction'

$1000 max (but at judges discretion) if they go through the cumbersome process of taking you to court.

Almost all traffic offences have this double process arrangement.

You' be surprised how many traffic offences can, in theory , cop a prision term.

Never heard of anyone being taken through the court process for a non-rego.

Of course, parliament COULD at any time amend the Act and make the penalty for non-rego 50 years gaol and aa million dolalr fine. But, as someone noted, since car drivers would cop it too, that might not be an electorally sound move.

[k2w3]

Is it the same fine for being caught with a lapsed rego, as it is for being caught with a bike/car that's been formally declared "off road"?

[Ixion]

No surprises there, the fine needs to be more than the rego for the system to work.

No. the combination of "fine amount * number of tiems stoppe din a year" needs to be greater than the annual rego.

If you knoew the fine was $10 BUT that you would, guaranteed, be stopped 10 times every time you took the bike out, at $10 a time, it wouldn't be worth it.

If the fine were $1000 (note that is the MAXIMUM - a judge would never normally give the maximum, ho often does anyone get the maximum for anything ), but assuming it was $1000, it wooould still eb worth not regoing, IF you got stopped less often than once every two years (2 years @ $750 = $1500, more than the fine).

All depends on how likely you are to stopped and pinged (even if you do get stopped, cop may ignore it , they're not very enthused by the whole thing. I've had cops ignore overdue rego and/or WoF more than once).

[Big Dave]

Licence and Rego checks on the Western motorway on-ramps operating all yesterday morning too.

[Naki Rat]

I have heard that they have, or about to, bring in a provision to claim the extra amount on RUCs paid for in advance at the time of a RUC increase. If so then this system could also be used to charge for the increase in registration (if/when it happens) from those that pay up their rego for an extended period in advance of a rate rise.

My point is that there is probably supporting legislation in the pipeline already that will gazump any obvious shortcuts or loopholes.

[Ixion]

Possible, but unlikely. Two different ministries, and even if every bikr failed to pay his rego the actual amount lost by the government (as opposed to ACC) would be very small, in the scale of government accounting.

Eventually they'd get round to it, when there was a general review of that bit of law. Can't see them making a special point of it.

Mr Joyce has been very quiet in all this. I guess he has other things to worry about.

[dipshit]

Politicians, ACC, and the police ain't silly.

Same can't be said for the typical motorcyclist though.

[red mermaid]

All traffic offences have a maximum fine, which is the $1000 in this case.

Infringements fees are set by what is called a transport notice, and as said before this is set at $200 in this case.

[The Pastor]

All depends on how likely you are to stopped and pinged (even if you do get stopped, cop may ignore it , they're not very enthused by the whole thing. I've had cops ignore overdue rego and/or WoF more than once).

You luckly little bastard, ive heard of these mystical cops, but ive never seen them, and ive seen a lot of cops!

[JohnC]

but whats stopping them from just raising the $1000 limit once they hit that?

Nothing,,,,an they probably will if the cost of over seas holidays goes up.

[kwaka_crasher]

For anyone who's interested see here (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1999/0099/latest/DLM280158.html).

[p.dath]

Er...well, nothing. Parliament can amend this at any time and increase the maximum fine level. However you'd expect $1000 to be enough in the meantime. What will happen in the meantime is the police will start to impose infringement fines of say $600 instead of $200. Thats assuming we are reading this correctly and it looks pretty clear.

It was never going to be cheaper to be unregistered and cop the fine. Politicians, ACC, and the police ain't silly. :innocent:

Changing acts of parliament is much harder than changing a regulation. It can take a considerable period of time, and they do require a majority vote.

[Coldrider]

Changing acts of parliament is much harder than changing a regulation. It can take a considerable period of time, and they do require a majority vote.And they are getting a majority vote at the mo for almost anything, Hi Peta matey, and/or sorry Rodney ....

[davereid]

I have heard that they have, or about to, bring in a provision to claim the extra amount on RUCs paid for in advance at the time of a RUC increase.

My memory says they have already done that in years gone by...they upped the levy and revoked already issued licences...

[red mermaid]

My memory says they have already done that in years gone by...they upped the levy and revoked already issued licences...

Correct, to a degree.

RUC went up on 1 October.
If your vehicle has a hubodometer then you have to have a RUC licence at the new fees by 1 November.

It does not apply to light diesels, ie; vehicles not fitted with a hubodometer, cars, utes, etc.

[peasea]

Is it the same fine for being caught with a lapsed rego, as it is for being caught with a bike/car that's been formally declared "off road"?

Probably, coz it ain't licensed to be there, right?

Like having a WOF check sheet in your pocket while operating with an expired WOF and saying "I just need to get this one item fixed to get my WOF" is still operating without a current WOF.

However, I believe that having no WOF might void your insurance if things go pear-shaped, having no rego most likely won't. Keeping things safe is far more important.