WOFs. Did you know...

[scumdog]

The law is pedantic... got to fight fire with fire



But still just an opinion, nonetheless. If I were to base my opinion solely on personal experience I could wrongly claim that every ION you bother to contest you will get off.





The only opinion the counts is that of the Judge or JP when presented with the evidence. An ION is not the end of the matter - not by a long shot. Unless you're weak an just rolll over to the whim of an enforcement officer.

I'll let you know the first time somebody I issued an ION for no WOF comes up with a good valid reason why they shouldn't get it.
Or the first time somebody defends one.

[scumdog]

The law is pedantic... got to fight fire with fire



But still just an opinion, nonetheless. If I were to base my opinion solely on personal experience I could wrongly claim that every ION you bother to contest you will get off.





The only opinion the counts is that of the Judge or JP when presented with the evidence. An ION is not the end of the matter - not by a long shot. Unless you're weak an just rolll over to the whim of an enforcement officer.

I'll let you know the first time somebody I issued an ION for no WOF comes up with a good valid reason why they shouldn't get it.
Or the first time somebody defends one.

[Ixion]

One is inclined to suspect that if a cop were to stake out the local VTNZ and check WoF and rego of vehicles going OUT, he might make a lot of quota.

Oddly the old law (the "only drive to a place of repair" one) allowed you to drive BACK to the WOF shop with your failed WoF, but didn't allow you to drive home after the failure! Wee oversight there.

Not sure if the new one does or not - can one argue that driving home after the fail is "bringing into compliance."?

[kwaka_crasher]

I'll let you know the first time somebody I issued an ION for no WOF comes up with a good valid reason why they shouldn't get it.
Or the first time somebody defends one.

All that proves is that they're a little bit slow down there... which I've always suspected anyway.

[Patrick]

I believe KCrasher is correct...pedantic but correct.

My husband was a mobile mech. He and I took Fleet cars to get warrants. When they failed, we were able to drive them from the testing station to somewhere, fix them, then drive them back to the testing station to get a WOF.

Simple really

Apparently not. Thats what I said, in other words... and according to one, it is wrong...???

But it isn't.....

Oh well......

[Ratti]

pedantry can be a sod

[kwaka_crasher]

I'm not going to bother arguing this any more except to again state that the legislation states that you may operate a non-compliant vehicle on the road provided it is being operated solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance and that it is safe to be operated for that purpose. It is deliberately open ended. Nowhere is it specifically defined exactly what "operated for that purpose" is or isn't.

[Patrick]

....... is being operated solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance ...[/CENTER]

I will attempt to interpret for you...

"You can only take it to a place of repair or to a testing station to obtain a warrant..." ie: being operated solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance....

Echo.... echo.... echo......

[Coldrider]

I'm not going to bother arguing this any more except to again state that the legislation states that you may operate a non-compliant vehicle on the road provided it is being operated solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance and that it is safe to be operated for that purpose. It is deliberately open ended. Nowhere is it specifically defined exactly what "operated for that purpose" is or isn't.

Surely the district courts will be full successfully defended prosecutions if that was the case.

[kwaka_crasher]

I will attempt to interpret for you...

"You can only take it to a place of repair or to a testing station to obtain a warrant..." ie: being operated solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance....

Echo.... echo.... echo......

That's just your narrow interpretation. Fortunately even idiot JPs can see that's not the only scenario where you might be operating it solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance.

Surely the district courts will be full successfully defended prosecutions if that was the case.

Only if they were actually prepared to defend it, as I am, and were operating it solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance. But most get caught doing something else entirely, admit to that fact, and thus have no defence.

[scumdog]

Only if they were actually prepared to defend it, as I am, and were operating it solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance. But most get caught doing something else entirely, admit to that fact, and thus have no defence.

And frequently are 100's of k from where they live, intent on heading even further away and it's 10pm on a Saturday....or have been seen driving said car for a fornight prior to being stopped - and WOF is 5 months out. (Effectively that means it's been 9 months since the vehicle/bike was ever checked for being up to WOF standard)

[scumdog]

Only if they were actually prepared to defend it, as I am, and were operating it solely for the purpose of bringing it into compliance. But most get caught doing something else entirely, admit to that fact, and thus have no defence.

And frequently are 100's of k from where they live, intent on heading even further away and it's 10pm on a Saturday....or have been seen driving said car for a fornight prior to being stopped - and WOF is 5 months out. (Effectively that means it's been 9 months since the vehicle/bike was ever checked for being up to WOF standard)

[kwaka_crasher]

And freqwuently are 100's of k from where they live, intent on heading even further away and it's 10pm on a Saturday....or have been seen driving said car for a fornight prior to being stopped - and WOF is 5 months out. (Effectively that means it's been 9 months since the vehicle/bike as ever checked for being up to WOF standard)

Exactly. Hard to argue in that case... although the period it's been out of compliance is hardly relevant since it probably can't be proven that they were using it all that time and it may have sat for that period for any number of reasons.

It could also have been 17 months since the last inspection too if the vehicle is less than 7 years 5 months old since first registered because a vehicle gets a 1 year WoF for any time prior to the 6th anniversary of first registration, so the last 12 month one would expire on the 7th anniversary if done in time and then 5 months out... that's potentially a lot kms without any 'safety' check, especially for the mechanically ignorant NZers that tend to buy newer cars!

[pritch]

I thought 14 days before was the maximum allowed? (to keep the same due date for the WOF).

Yes. That's what the guy that tested my bikes told me. You have to ask too, otherwise it'll most likely just be dated to expire on the anniversary of the test.

[kwaka_crasher]

Yes. That's what the guy that tested my bikes told me. You have to ask too, otherwise it'll most likely just be dated to expire on the anniversary of the test.

It can be advanced up to 14-days. You don't have to ask - they should do it automatically but it might pay to remind them... once the check is over...