Rego crack down in Canterbury

[Asher]

Just noticed this post on facebook by one of my friends:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-mail/6693125/Car-rego-crack-down

"Drivers will be given 24 hours to correct registration details or lose their cars in a tough new Government crackdown in Christchurch.

Errant motorists will be blue- stickered and given until midnight the following day to comply or, if in default, have their cars seized and impounded.

Canterbury is the first region to target transgressors under the tightened 2011 Land Transport Act. Road policing officer, Senior Sergeant Glenn Nalder said if a driver failed to comply and was caught driving, the vehicle would be impounded immediately.

They would then be given 20 work days to comply, or ownership would pass to the tow operator who could sell the car to recover storage and towage costs.

The new blue sticker joins the pink and green stickers issued for unroadworthy and non-compliant vehicles. "

Although it states cars not bikes, this will probably affect us more than cagers.

20 day to get a new rego or the tow operator can sell it is fucking ridiculous, why give the scum of the earth that sort of power? - i hate tow truck drivers

[The Singing Chef]

Fook me! That is a little OTT, I am surprised that it is even legal to do that. :brick:

[sil3nt]

The article is vague and gives no info. This is the info I have found from looking around.
This isn't for unpaid regos or regos on hold. This is for incorrect registration. Like registering as an Ambo to get cheaper fees.

[willytheekid]

The article is vague and gives no info. This is the info I have found from looking around.
This isn't for unpaid regos or regos on hold. This is for incorrect registration. Like registering as an Ambo to get cheaper fees.

+1
Right on the money as usual mate ;)

...same rules as usual for not paying your "tax" :laugh:

Have a great easter sil3nt :love:

[Asher]

So its just another piece of incomplete, misleading reporting by NZ's media?

[oneofsix]

The article is vague and gives no info. This is the info I have found from looking around.
This isn't for unpaid regos or regos on hold. This is for incorrect registration. Like registering as an Ambo to get cheaper fees.

So don't take your farm rego'd bike more than 50ks from your veggie patch/chicken run even if it is in the CBD ;)

[Haggis2]

How many :tugger: actually do this anyway? Very low percentage I would have thought.

[ducatilover]

So its just another piece of incomplete, misleading reporting by NZ's media?

I bet someone from KB wrote it :D

[Usarka]

I'm gutted, I put my crack down and some one nicked it.

[Big Dave]

I'm gutted, I put my crack down and some one nicked it.

Usark-ing of the Plumber's Smile.

[Zedder]

So its just another piece of incomplete, misleading reporting by NZ's media?

And not checking it out by you before posting.

[SMOKEU]

Don't forget that registration and vehicle licensing are 2 very different things.

[Bassmatt]

Don't forget that registration and vehicle licensing are 2 very different things.

Which one do you think they are looking for?

[SMOKEU]

Which one do you think they are looking for?

The rather poorly written article points more to registration rather than licensing. Although I'm sure the cops are doing a blitz on vehicle licensing, too.

[davereid]

The rather poorly written article points more to registration rather than licensing. Although I'm sure the cops are doing a blitz on vehicle licensing, too.

Yeah, There is no provision in law to impound an unlicenced vehicle. One that is completely unregistered or is not registered to anyone would be a different story.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1998/0110/latest/whole.html?search=sw_096be8ed80822388_vehicle+impo undment&p=1#DLM435033

[red mermaid]

I suggest you read Sections 248 & 249 of the Land Transport Act 1998.

Prohibition against use of motor vehicle

(1) This section applies if an enforcement officer or a parking warden believes on reasonable grounds that—

(a) a person driving a motor vehicle on a road has committed an offence in relation to which an officer or warden has enforcement powers under this Act or another enactment; and

(b) the motor vehicle is not registered under this Part in the name of the current owner of the motor vehicle or with the current address of that person.

(2) The enforcement officer or parking warden may give to the driver or owner of the motor vehicle, if present, or affix or cause to be affixed to the motor vehicle, a notice in the form approved by the Registrar for the purpose directing that the motor vehicle—

(a) be removed from the road immediately; and

(b) not be driven on a road for as long as the notice is in force in accordance with subsection (3).

(3) A notice given under subsection (2)—

(a) comes into effect at 11.59 pm on the working day after the day when the notice is issued (unless the name and current address of the owner are registered before that time); and

(b) remains in force until the motor vehicle has been registered in the name and current address of the owner.

(4) Where more than 1 person owns a motor vehicle, reference in this section to the owner is to any 1 of those persons.

Circumstances when motor vehicle may be seized and impounded

(1) An enforcement officer may seize and impound, or seize and authorise the impoundment of, a motor vehicle if the enforcement officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person has driven the motor vehicle on a road while a notice given under section 248(2) was in force.

(2) If a motor vehicle is seized and impounded under subsection (1), the enforcement officer must issue to the driver of the motor vehicle, if present, and to the storage provider, copies of a notice in the form approved by the Registrar for the purpose that—

(a) acknowledges that the specified motor vehicle has been seized and impounded; and

(b) sets out the following matters (if the particulars are reasonably ascertainable):

(i) the name and address of the driver; and

(ii) the year and make of the motor vehicle, and the details of its registration plates or vehicle identification number; and

(iii) the date and time of the seizure; and

(iv) the place where the motor vehicle is, or is to be, impounded; and

(v) an outline of the driver's rights of appeal under section 267.

[Ocean1]

I wonder if the original intent of the law was aimed at criminal registration of vehicles under an alias / random address, and which has been subverted to also apply to naughty motorcyclists who deliberately fail to register their death machines in flagrant disregard etc etc.

Sounds dodgy anyway.

[scumdog]

So its just another piece of incomplete, misleading reporting by NZ's media?

Didn't first come out on April 1st by any chance??:crazy:

[davereid]

I suggest you read Sections 248 & 249 of the Land Transport Act 1998...

Yes, I can see how it applies to a vehicle not registered, or not registered to any person in particular, (like if the seller has done the MR13A, but the buyer has not done the MR13B,) or even where its registered to an incorrect address, (not that I can see how the police could ever be sure of that.)

But I can't see how it applies to a vehicle that is merely un-licenced.

Being un-licenced is not the same as being unregistered.

[sleemanj]

I suggest you read Sections 248 & 249 of the Land Transport Act 1998.

Registration is your number plate, your vehicle's record in the system.

Licencing is the bit of glossy paper affixed to your vehicle somewhere.

Two separate things, this crack down, and the law giving the power to impound etc, appears to be about registration (looking for vehicles with dead plates, swapped plates, no plates, registered as farm, hearse, moped, etc... when they are not).

[rastuscat]

Yeah, but KB is all about misquoting legislation, providing us with a place to whinge for bugger all reason.

So the OP as on the money. (Not)

[schrodingers cat]

Yeah, but KB is all about misquoting legislation, POURING HATE ON THE POLICE, providing us with a place to whinge for bugger all reason.

So the OP as on the money. (Not)

Fixed that fo you.

As if shouting FTP makes you more manly or something:brick:

[SMOKEU]

Fixed that fo you.

As if shouting FTP makes you more manly or something:brick:

Yeah it does - File Transfer Protocol is pretty damn awesome.

[Katman]

How many :tugger: actually do this anyway? Very low percentage I would have thought.

You'd be surprised.

[FJRider]

... and the law giving the power to impound etc, appears to be about registration (looking for vehicles with dead plates, swapped plates, no plates, registered as farm, hearse, moped, etc... when they are not).

You should be able to register your bike as a Hearse ... because there's a good chance we'll die on it ... :innocent: :facepalm:

[spanner spinner]

How many :tugger: actually do this anyway? Very low percentage I would have thought.

use to do WOF and would get 1-2 bikes a week that where registed in the wrong class rather than a normal motorcycle rego. it's more common than you think, best one was a big sport bike registed as a hearse to get the cheap rego. At least the funeral procession would not hold up traffic, could be quite a problem to mount the coffin on the pilion seat of a modern sport bike. most where registed as farm bikes.

[scumdog]

use to do WOF and would get 1-2 bikes a week that where registed in the wrong class rather than a normal motorcycle rego. it's more common than you think, best one was a big sport bike registed as a hearse to get the cheap rego. At least the funeral procession would not hold up traffic, could be quite a problem to mount the coffin on the pilion seat of a modern sport bike. most where registed as farm bikes.

Our area had more vehicles registered as private ambulances and hearses than the greater Auckland area. :blink:

Until the owners of said heareses and ambos got 'the letter':pinch:

Hoo-boy, did they run to sort things out then...didn't like the thought of having a de-registered vehicle, surprise surprise...