PDA

View Full Version : General LTSA Stupidity



sAsLEX
29th April 2006, 22:17
Well half time in the rugby tonight so off to the chippy for tea, while there i got reading some nz motoring magazine, and an article caught my eye (after they mistakenly thought the Veryon had a 1001 Kmhr speedo)

Anyways the story followed Jerry Clayton and his attempts to bring a 99 Modena Ferrari in to the country. LTSA said no you cant it doesn't meet our frontal impact standards, so Jerry went thats crap and took them to court and won, also had his considerable court costs paid for by LTSA.

LTSA then went thats not nice and went to appeals court, where again they lost and again had to waste our taxpayers money on theirs and Jerry's court costs.

The Judge also ripped the LTSA apart over how a 360 could possibly not be upto NZ standards, when the 355 which was met and exceeded the European, Australian and other standards, and also when the Modena was built that it also met these standards but not the smorgasboard of standards here.

So in summing up the LTSA wasted two court battles over a car that obviously was up to standard all cause they didnt like someone else being right.

onearmedbandit
29th April 2006, 22:24
Are CCS issueing statement of compliances for Ferraris now, or was this his attempt at getting past that?

Nicksta
29th April 2006, 22:24
that is just utter stupidity on the LTSA's part.....
and we had to pay for it.... argh....
grrr that also reminded me my rego is due in a few weeks :(

sAsLEX
29th April 2006, 22:27
Are CCS issueing statement of compliances for Ferraris now, or was this his attempt at getting past that?

Didn't mention that in the article. He was privatly importing the modena and LTSA tried to stop him.

onearmedbandit
29th April 2006, 22:34
For a lot of Euro cars you have to have a statemeent of compliance issued for that particular vehicle from the importer of that vehicle. IE you have to go to Land Rover NZ to get a statement if you bring a Range Rover in. To protect their market CCS were refusing to issue any for imported Ferraris. I remember Jerry bringing that Modena in and being refused a statement to comply it. He tried taking them to court over it, not 100% sure if he was successful but I think the court was leaning in his direction.

We've looked at some from Japan but knew it was pointless due to this problem. 'Twas a couple years back now, might've changed.

nadroj
30th April 2006, 09:38
The other option especially if it is a first of type is to go thru the Low Volume Vehicle Certification process. Many including mass produced GT40, McLaren F1 etc have done it this way. Tony Johnson at LVVTA is the man to speak to in Auckland - the guy you see on TV now & then looking over 'Boy Racer' cars.

WINJA
30th April 2006, 10:01
for being such pig headed idiots the people at ltsa responsible should be fired

onearmedbandit
30th April 2006, 11:11
The other option especially if it is a first of type is to go thru the Low Volume Vehicle Certification process. Many including mass produced GT40, McLaren F1 etc have done it this way. Tony Johnson at LVVTA is the man to speak to in Auckland - the guy you see on TV now & then looking over 'Boy Racer' cars.


I think you'll find 'certification' is different to compliance. I'll check with our neighbour tomorrow, one of ch-ch's most sought after certifiers.

Ixion
30th April 2006, 11:22
Yes, certification and compliance are different.

All vehicles on NZ roads must EITHER comply with a bunch of of design standards (Euro standards, Aust Design rules blah blah ) These are fiendishly complex waffle that covers all aspects of vehicle design - crash testing, emissions you name it. Normally this is all done by the manufacturers, who then get sign off from the various governments. So that's where the Ferrari agent came in, the guy importing the car wanted the agent to provide the compliance info from Ferrari.So he could go alonmg to LTSA, say, See, it complies with all the crap, now rego it .

Compliance is just showing that the vehicle is the same substantially as when the manufacturer built it. Then it , by definition, complies with all those standards

Other option, if you've bult a car yourself, or some reason can't get compliance info (maybe manufacturer has gone out of business etc) is Low Volume Certification. which basically is some expert dude, who's approved by the NZ gubbermint looks it over and (hopefully) says, yeah, it's all good shit.

EDIT This is of course horrendously simplified.

nadroj
30th April 2006, 11:30
I think you'll find 'certification' is different to compliance. I'll check with our neighbour tomorrow, one of ch-ch's most sought after certifiers. Who Don? I did Low Volume Vehicle Certification for 10 years & helped with it's setup so unless things have changed drastically ... I see Aussie are basing their new system on our original Code of Construction Manual written in 89-90 (see NZ hot rod magazine last month)
Certification comes in for Modified Vehicles andLow volume vehicles (built in NZ or imported)

onearmedbandit
30th April 2006, 12:06
I thought you knew your shit when it came to this subject. Not Don, but Wayne Martin. Can LVVC issue MR2A's?

k14
30th April 2006, 12:40
For a lot of Euro cars you have to have a statemeent of compliance issued for that particular vehicle from the importer of that vehicle. IE you have to go to Land Rover NZ to get a statement if you bring a Range Rover in. To protect their market CCS were refusing to issue any for imported Ferraris. I remember Jerry bringing that Modena in and being refused a statement to comply it. He tried taking them to court over it, not 100% sure if he was successful but I think the court was leaning in his direction.

We've looked at some from Japan but knew it was pointless due to this problem. 'Twas a couple years back now, might've changed.
Yeah I heard it costs around $30k to get one off the nz agent (which iirc is CCS asweel) if you import a bently from japan. Similar for porsche etc. Although I'm assuming that after this court case it will open up people to not having to purchase the statement from the nz agent maybe?

onearmedbandit
30th April 2006, 13:10
Nah, you still have to purchase them. Costs about $500 for a Rangie, $50 for a new shape Mondeo for Ford. Just CCS were not allowing anyone at all to even purchase one. To a degree I can understand, you sell a brand Ferrari for window price, saying that the car will hold a certain value to the customer. Then all of a sudden there are a number of imports knocking the stuffing out of your prices, cue one very upset customer.

Motu
30th April 2006, 13:18
So it's just a minor power play tiff between Jerry Clayton and Continental Cars,and LTNZ proves powerless.Where's Colin Giltrap to complete the triad?

bugjuice
30th April 2006, 15:05
what about kit cars..?? can't import them, yet you can build the same thing within the country..??

so just import a car in bits, then build it, then you can have it..
the laws suck balls anyway. Yet again, people behind desks extracted from the real world, making all the important decisions

Hitcher
30th April 2006, 15:20
Ahem... The Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA) became Land Transport New Zealand (LTNZ) a year ago. Let's make sure we rant about the right thing...

bugjuice
30th April 2006, 15:29
so they're not fussed about safety any more?

sAsLEX
30th April 2006, 22:28
Ahem... The Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA) became Land Transport New Zealand (LTNZ) a year ago. Let's make sure we rant about the right thing...

Nah fuck off, I have given up trying to keep up with bloody management gunnmint types changing their names every few months etc:nya:

One of my bosses/superiors has changed their title about six times in the last year, a waste of fuckin money and time and at least I can still just call him sir, but when someone says do you know where LICTO? another point is do they just try and invent stupid bloody acronyms?

madboy
1st May 2006, 12:27
Ah, this is a funny read. Yep, it's just govt departments doing what govt departments do when they have no accountability. Let's face it - that's what it is. In the private sector you'd get hung drawn and quartered if you ever took a case like this to court, let alone the additional cost of the appeals process. LTNZ clearly have too much funding if they can afford to do this, AND feed gas guzzling revenue collection machines.

Swoop
1st May 2006, 12:36
for being such pig headed idiots the people at ltsa responsible should be fired
Also, public servants who bring these "petty" cases to court and then lose the case - the reparations should be forcibly deducted from their budgets. Once they know that if they fu*k up and have their budget reduced because of it, they might get the idea that playing nicely is in their favour...
The same goes for the police with bringing charges that are unsubstantiated ("let's throw 10 charges at this person and see if any stick").

Hitcher
1st May 2006, 12:45
The same goes for the police with bringing charges that are unsubstantiated ("let's throw 10 charges at this person and see if any stick").
Please define "unsubstantiated" for the benefit of your readers. I presume you are not referring to Police prosecutions where they are unsuccessful in securing a conviction.

All Police prosecutions face rigorous scrutiny before any are taken to Court. There are severe penalties for "wasting the Court's time". And besides, it is not in the Police's interests to lose cases in Court.

scumdog
1st May 2006, 13:17
Please define "unsubstantiated" for the benefit of your readers. I presume you are not referring to Police prosecutions where they are unsuccessful in securing a conviction.

All Police prosecutions face rigorous scrutiny before any are taken to Court. There are severe penalties for "wasting the Court's time". And besides, it is not in the Police's interests to lose cases in Court.

Don't spoil a good yarn...

Anyhow, back on track - I've just imported a classic Yank Tank, need 'vinned' and from what I hear the check is fairly vigourous to see the vehicle is safe for NZ roads.
The rumour mill says that all interior trim is taken off for inspection, that disc pads (new in my case) will be removed and checked if they are listed as up to NZ standards ( they have a listing for a '66 T-Bird?)and replaced if not etc etc. This is just the tip of the iceberg apparently.
Does ANYBODY on this site know the truth of the matter?
I only want to go through the check once as I have to frieght the car a round trip of 160km to be checked.

PM me with any info if you don't want to post here.

kickingzebra
1st May 2006, 13:25
Ahem... The Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA) became Land Transport New Zealand (LTNZ) a year ago. Let's make sure we rant about the right thing...

Apparently they haven't kept up with play.
go to www.ltnz.govt.nz (http://www.ltnz.govt.nz) and see what happens...

www.ltsa.govt.nz (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz) has nice new graphics, but that stinketh IHMO

Hitcher
1st May 2006, 13:30
Apparently they haven't kept up with play.
go to www.ltnz.govt.nz (http://www.ltnz.govt.nz) and see what happens...
You could try going to www.landtransport.govt.nz and see what happens...

kickingzebra
1st May 2006, 13:39
You could try going to www.landtransport.govt.nz (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz) and see what happens...
Fair, but I got the link off the government services website www.govt.nz (http://www.govt.nz)

Standard practice would be to insert a link to say, we have changed name and address, redirection in progress.

The cost of endless departmental renaming? Very high. The benefits? yet to be seen in a century of parliamental reign in this country, can we still not make a name accurate enough to last for more than one parties term in power?

Swoop
1st May 2006, 15:03
Please define "unsubstantiated" for the benefit of your readers. I presume you are not referring to Police prosecutions where they are unsuccessful in securing a conviction.
Correct, this is not simply referring to an unsuccessful conviction.
Charges of, for example, multiple events of the same thing being laid. Instead of "stepping on the cracks in the pavement x 8" being the charge and this charge being laid, instead we see multiple charges for exactly the same time, date, place, etc, details. (OK - perhaps a bad analogy & explanation here... hopefully the readers will get the idea)
This is basically a shotgun approach ("let's see if we get lucky with one charge getting a conviction") where a jury might think that there are "lots" of charges against the person and hint at a guilty/naughty person. Theft or receiving would be high on the list of suitability in this category.


All Police prosecutions face rigorous scrutiny before any are taken to Court. There are severe penalties for "wasting the Court's time". And besides, it is not in the Police's interests to lose cases in Court.
You are correct here. Luckily the crown prosecutors get to see what the skills are like of the average policeman, and can veto "unwarranted" charges or those that will not, in their eyes, stand up in court or be successful.

Unfortunately the defendants lawyers have to fight to get this nonsense corrected, and the defendant is forking over lots of $$'s in the meantime.

Lou Girardin
1st May 2006, 16:10
You are correct here. Luckily the crown prosecutors get to see what the skills are like of the average policeman, and can veto "unwarranted" charges or those that will not, in their eyes, stand up in court or be successful.

Unfortunately the defendants lawyers have to fight to get this nonsense corrected, and the defendant is forking over lots of $$'s in the meantime.

Except that Crown Prosecutors don'y handle minor offences (traffic), that's over to the Police.

Hitcher
1st May 2006, 16:19
Charges of, for example, multiple events of the same thing being laid.
Sometimes the law itself makes such practice a necessity. For example, an animal welfare case involving the chronic neglect of a herd of 256 dairy cows, requires 256 cases of animal neglect to be filed. Apparently this is the only way the "magnitude" of the alleged crime can be expressed. Such an approach could cause some concerns if learned counsel for the defense were able to prove that Daisy wasn't as badly treated as some of her work mates...

onearmedbandit
1st May 2006, 17:19
Don't spoil a good yarn...

Anyhow, back on track - I've just imported a classic Yank Tank, need 'vinned' and from what I hear the check is fairly vigourous to see the vehicle is safe for NZ roads.
The rumour mill says that all interior trim is taken off for inspection, that disc pads (new in my case) will be removed and checked if they are listed as up to NZ standards ( they have a listing for a '66 T-Bird?)and replaced if not etc etc. This is just the tip of the iceberg apparently.
Does ANYBODY on this site know the truth of the matter?
I only want to go through the check once as I have to frieght the car a round trip of 160km to be checked.

PM me with any info if you don't want to post here.

Yes SD, that is just the tip of the iceberg. Interior being stripped out is a given, they're checking for structual, rust or other damage. Also for dodgy repairs carried out. Disc pads and possibly rotors as well. If any repairs are required you will need to have them checked off as it's done, I know of one guy who spent over $20,000 on an old Merc, got it looking mint and repaired as asked. Only problem was he didn't have the repairs checked out as they were completed, cue one upset owner as he had to take his car to bits again to have it all checked over. PM me if you want more detailed info.

Motu
1st May 2006, 17:25
And the compliance check can be a little suspect too - I've had them rejected on non approved disc pads,when the pads were approved and on their list....ticking of boxes without actualy looking.

Lou Girardin
2nd May 2006, 08:02
Sometimes the law itself makes such practice a necessity. For example, an animal welfare case involving the chronic neglect of a herd of 256 dairy cows, requires 256 cases of animal neglect to be filed.

That's a little different to traffic offences.
MOT policy was to write up the most serious offence and warn the others. They didn't have provision for requiring compliance.
But then they were just ticket hungry snakes.

Blackbird
2nd May 2006, 08:53
The good news is that in a couple of months, we will have a KiwiBiker member join LTNZ in a pretty responsible position so we will have a friend at court as it were. First class honours mech engineering degree and knows both bikes and cars inside out. No names, no pack drill (yet).

scumdog
2nd May 2006, 09:42
That's a little different to traffic offences.
MOT policy was to write up the most serious offence and warn the others. They didn't have provision for requiring compliance.
But then they were just ticket hungry snakes.

Only 'cos each 'ticket' required a Court file to be created!!!

Lou Girardin
2nd May 2006, 15:29
Only 'cos each 'ticket' required a Court file to be created!!!

Rubbish, we had infringment notices then. I'm not THAT old.