Demerit points hiked for unlicensed vehicles

[Voltaire]

Mr Dath, my only real objection is paying for multiple vehicles. If people don't want to contribute and ride/drive around on unwarranted unregistered vehicles good on the Govt for hitting them hard in the wallet and or demerit points.
That could easily be determined at WOF time....

If I was Mr Joyce I'd introduce compulsory third party insurance too.
Motoring here is way cheaper than other countries I've lived in. I was paying $350 AU on my bike in Sydney 20 years ago....it was probably about $100 here....

[davereid]

The devil will be in the detail, personally for me, it will be a win.

(a) Handing in the plates.
Waste of time as the same legislation allows you to get duplicate plates.
Yes, as many with the same number on as you want. Thats going to be very handy.

(b) Demerits.
May affect some. But not me, I don't have any and never have had.

On average I get tickets for no vehicle licence from a policeman never. Unless that is massively improved with improved enforcement, I don't anticipate getting any more than the current total of zero.

And even if I do, I can cope with 4 in two years before it even looks like being a problem.

(c) Effectiveness of enforcement by others.
The effectiveness of enforcement of licensing by meter maids etc has been reduced. It rules out enforcement of demerits by camera or meter maid and reduces the fines.
EDIT - not entirely correct. It rules out demerits from metermaid or cameras. But fine sent by meter-maid same as current

(d) Its muddled. Demerits are applied to a driver. But tickets for licensing are the responsibility of the owner. That makes the foolish assumption that they are one and the same. Which in my case I ensure they are not.

(e) There is a Prohibition on repeat offenders getting any more exemptions. Once again relies on the offender, and vehicles licensed owner being one and the same. This is going to be a real mess, if Fred borrows Joe's car and gets a ticket.

(f) Effective bit may be the ability for Baycorp to chase up fees, as the licence exemption is canceled if you are caught, and provision allows for the debt to be collected.

Once again if the vehicle owner is different to the offender this will be messy.

I don't know, but I would be interested in finding out how effective Baycorp are at collecting fees.

For example, I know lots of people who have got the shitty letters, bad credit rating etc. But I know of no-one who has actually been taken to court, or had a balif arrive.

Can anyone advise if Baycorp take the debt collection that seriously ?

I think they just take the NZTAs collection fee, write a letter or two, and adjust their system to show a poor credit score. But I'd be interested if others have a different experience.

A little bit of devils advocate being played here...

[MSTRS:Me]

My point is that currently in legislation they must mention the levy for each particular fuel. I'm simply pointing out the potential of a loophole.

We all know that legislation is 'easy' to change...
And I'm talking a flat rate on fuel/s. Currently, 9.9c/l is imposed on petroil at the pump. How hard is it to change that to, say, 20c/l and add the same to lpg and diesel, and bio-diesel?

[awa355]

Thie reminds me of the stink raised when the govt changed the law about re-registering vehicles.

Remember when you could re register a vehicle, and the rego date started from the date you paid? Many people ( me included ), would let the rego lapse untill they could afford to pay the new fee. Quite handy at xmas time. Car trailer regos still work this way, I think?

The govt said then that they were missing out on $30 million a year in unpaid rego fees, so made backdating your rego,into law.

Was it at that time, rego stickers went from the different coloured square sticker ( yearly change) in the centre of the windscreen to the white sticker we have now?

[StoneY]

Can anyone advise if Baycorp take the debt collection that seriously ?

I think they just take the NZTAs collection fee, write a letter or two, and adjust their system to show a poor credit score. But I'd be interested if others have a different experience.

Yes baycorp will zealously persue thier commision, and will list it as a default if not paid

They do with expired reg fee's over a year old, and this can affect your credit history

[davereid]

Yes baycorp will zealously persue thier commision, and will list it as a default if not paid

They do with expired reg fee's over a year old, and this can affect your credit history

Yes, thats all I thought they did.

It appears they give up without taking it to court, so if your credit rating is not a problem the Baycorp thing is not a problem.

[Str8 Jacket]

Yes baycorp will zealously persue thier commision, and will list it as a default if not paid

They do with expired reg fee's over a year old, and this can affect your credit history

Exactly! When I worked at Justice we had people ringing us all the time having a waaaah about the debt being lodged with Baycorp cause they couldn't tick that PS2 up with bad credit debt. We always had to direct them back to Baycorp. Unless NZTA withdraw the debt from Baycorp it will effect anyone's credit rating.

**The thing you have to think about next is that once your vehicle has not been registered for 12 months then you have to go through costly re-rego processes!

**I am not sure if this is still the case nowdays.

[MSTRS:Me]

**The thing you have to think about next is that once your vehicle has not been registered for 12 months then you have to go through costly re-rego processes!

**I am not sure if this is still the case nowdays.

Yes it is. Plus, if your rego is on hold, when the anniversary of the original due date rolls around, you have to renew the hold.

[CookMySock]

I don't know, but I would be interested in finding out how effective Baycorp are at collecting fees.

How do they "collect" anything? Knock on the door and ask? Hard to do that when they are trespassed to the eyeballs.

While you are at it, trespass the issuing officer, his agent, and his representative ; I think that should cover it nicely. Once everyone is fully trespassed and warned in writing, and a few people removed by the scruff of their neck I'd say there should be no more issues.

If some rather persuasive person DOES turn up, call the police and tell them you have a 'trespassed person' on your property and you are concerned there might be a breach of the peace. Watch the po po turn up quick-smart, and then stand your ground and insist no person touch any property of yours without your consent, and that there be no breach of the peace - exactly what the officer swore to the queen and country to uphold the day he began work.

Also might pay to send a few registered letters to various agencies revoking all implied consent to act for you in any fashion whatsoever, and specifically forbidding a few other things as well.

I don't owe any bitch anything nor do I want to, so they can go sing for it.

[p.dath]

put it this way, i have one bike i use daily, and pay $500pa, i then buy another cos i like a bit of change which i use on alternate days. Now with two bikes I am at the same level of 'risk' and i get the same level of cover. If i pay an extra $500 for the second, who's share does it go on?

Once again, your trying to argue why it is not fair for you. Once again, I'll point out that if $700m needs to be collected than $700m needs to be collected - and when you choose not to pay what you are really asking is for everyone else to pay your share instead.

There will also be someone who considers that it is not fair. Always.

For someone to pay less, someone else has to pay more. So I put it to you, who would you like to ask to pay more so that you can pay less. Who? Get ready for a frosty response from that person.

Who says he is using a vehicle whilst it is unrego'd?
If a vehicle is not being used, how is it fair to charge a levy on it, a levy which is designed to cover the risk it poses whilst being used?

Same argument as above. It fails to consider everyone else.

Once again, if your not happy with the share you are paying then you need to work on changing the system - but it might simply be that the majority of the users on the ACC scheme may not want to have their average fee increased so that the much smaller number of multi-vehicle users can have a lower bill to pay.


Personally, I think it would be fairest to put 100% of the motor vehicle account ACC levy on fuel. But it is not going to happen. Obviously what I think is fairest, from my point of view, is not what a lot of other people consider fair.
On the flip side, because I don't consider the current scheme to be fair does not mean I should stop paying the fee - effectively asking everyone else to pay my share.

If everyone took the view that they should only have to pay for things in life that are fair then society would quickly break down - which is what will happen to ACC if a lot of people choose not to contribute. And I think those that think ACC fees are unfair now will be really unhappy without ACC.

If I was Mr Joyce I'd introduce compulsory third party insurance too.

This has already been looked at, many times, and found to have no benefit in our environment. Basically just about every vehicle that can be insured is. Those that have no insurance are usually because they can't (e,g. disqualified driver, vehicle not safe) - and a new law telling them they have to have insurance will just add to the list of laws they are already ignoring.

So in essence, they found the cost to catch the tiny percentage of vehicles not insured that can be is far less than the cost of the system to administer and act on them.

[nodrog:Me]

....blah blah....... call the police and tell them you have a 'trespassed person' on your property and you are concerned there might be a breach of the peace. Watch the po po turn up quick-smart.....blah more shit blah.

How are you going to get the police to turn up, after you have tried to tresspass them the first time for turning up with the debt collector?

P.S. is this you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg_kO_9H2Bs

[MSTRS:Me]

Same argument as above. It fails to consider everyone else.

Once again, if your not happy with the share you are paying then you need to work on changing the system - but it might simply be that the majority of the users on the ACC scheme may not want to have their average fee increased so that the much smaller number of multi-vehicle users can have a lower bill to pay.

Fuck me. Are you thick?
How is it fair to charge a rego/ACC levy on a vehicle that is not being used?
And how is it 'ripping off other motorists' if I own a vehicle that is not registered - because it's not being used?

[StoneY]

Problem is the world is not a fair place and NZ under this govt is getting worse............

[cold comfort]

Was only a matter of time before they plugged that loophole. Would be interested in the second set of plates as if i want to re-register an "on hold" bike at short notice, for a short time, having to go cap-in-hand to LTSA pleading for my plates back by a certain date is ridiculous and a blatant move to discourage people from putting their rego on hold! No surprise there either.

[steve_t]

This has already been looked at, many times, and found to have no benefit in our environment. Basically just about every vehicle that can be insured is. Those that have no insurance are usually because they can't (e,g. disqualified driver, vehicle not safe) - and a new law telling them they have to have insurance will just add to the list of laws they are already ignoring.

So in essence, they found the cost to catch the tiny percentage of vehicles not insured that can be is far less than the cost of the system to administer and act on them.

So if someone can't afford 3rd party insurance in an environment where it is compulsory, they can't afford a car fullstop. If they are caught driving without insurance, or without a current licence, or with an unsafe vehicle, they should crush the car. Easy. If you can't afford to own a car, don't own one. Take the bus or get a bike or walk. Law abiding citizens do it. Hmmm...Is this where someone suggests impounding and crushing these cars would just lead to more car thefts?