Vehicle Standards Compliance Rule 2002. 9.12Inspection and certification for in-service fitness at change of ownership 9.12(1)Subject to 9.12(4), a person who sells a vehicle that may not be operated on a road without a current certificate of fitness must ensure that it has a current certificate of fitness or current in-service conditional permit at the time of the sale. 9.12(2)Subject to 9.12(4), a person who sells a heavy vehicle that may not be operated on a road without a current warrant of fitness must ensure that it has a current warrant of fitness at the time of the sale. 9.12(3)Subject to 9.12(4), a person who sells a vehicle, other than one in 9.12(2), that may not be operated on a road without a current warrant of fitness must ensure that it has been certified for in-service fitness within one month before the date of delivery of the vehicle to the purchaser. 9.12(4)Subclauses 9.12(1), 9.12(2) and 9.12(3) do not apply if the purchaser undertakes to the seller in writing at the time of delivery of the vehicle that: (a) for a vehicle in 9.12(1), 9.12(2) and 9.12(3) whose certificate of fitness or warrant of fitness is not current, they will not, except for the purpose of obtaining in-service certification, operate the vehicle until it has been inspected and certified for in-service fitness; or (b) for a vehicle in 9.12(3) that has a current warrant of fitness, but was certified one month or more before the date of delivery of the vehicle, they accept that the vehicle has been certified one month or more previously.
This implies the seller is responsible for WOF repairs if they don't get a written waiver from the purchaser.when there's no WOF or it's more than one month old! Therefore, if the WOF is less than one month old, the WOF issuer would be responsible for any repairs needed, as they were missed at the WOF inspection!
smac,
Jul 26, 6:40am
Nope. That may well happen, as part of rectifying the issue, but just because the law says the car has to have a WoF, it is not automatic that they then have to fix any repairs needed to get a WoF. It just means they are subject to whatever sanction is applicable to selling a car with no WoF. If a trader is involved, it's a little more messy.
The reality is, the buyer should be pointing out at the time of sale that they want a new WoF. Anything that happens after that might not be their fault, but it's certainly avoidable.
chebry,
Jul 26, 7:43am
Yep thats the one been a law since Adam was a little fella and yet we have bombs and rockets dealers like tigra argueing the point
tgray,
Jul 26, 7:49am
Probably 75% of cars sold privately in NZ, would not have a WOF under 28 days old. Just look on trademe or the car fairs. What good is a 'law' that is completely unenforced!
splinter67,
Jul 26, 7:54am
Ha you guys where wr wr wr still cant type that word tgray it dosent matter if it was unenforced its still a law
chebry,
Jul 26, 7:56am
Its like the speed limit it can be enforced if neccessary and should be a requirement to transfer registration like some states in OZ
tgray,
Jul 26, 8:01am
It's also a law that trading in cars is illegal unless your a registered motor vehicle trader, but that doesn't stop hundreds of unregistered dealers doing it, because no one enforces it. If all laws were enforced, half the population would have convictions by now.
chebry,
Jul 26, 8:04am
A private individual is allowed to trade cars within limits it used to be 7 per anum
tgray,
Jul 26, 8:08am
INCORRECT! That is the common misconception of the general public. A private individual is not allowed to trade even one car, if the intention is to make a profit under the motor vehicle sale act. However, 6 sales in a given year is considered the maximum amount a non trader would sell, before you get a please explain letter sent to you. It is not a green light to sell up to this amount.
clck2,
Jul 26, 8:30am
So what you are saying is if anyone sells a car with say only 3 months wof left and if in 3 months it fails a wof . The seller is liable! Wtf
nzfatie,
Jul 26, 9:32am
In theory yes, as the vehicle may have developed that fault since its last WOF and before it was sold. So the purchaser bought a faulty vehicle, even though the WOF was current. That's why selling a vehicle with a new WOF less than one month old protects the seller.
clck2,
Jul 26, 9:46am
Does it only apply to dealers or private sales as well!
chebry,
Jul 26, 9:56am
Both unless sold as is where is.
kazbanz,
Jul 26, 10:46pm
Unless the seller specifies that the car is sold as is where is. at which point the law is null and void.??? ??? you are going off half cocked--why not go away and find out???ALL the facts !
nzfatie,
Jul 26, 11:03pm
Auction 497162005 for a 1960 Velox could get messy. It's selling with a new WOF, but needs $1000 of rust repairs in the floor. The seller can avoid paying for repairs by getting the buyer to sign a waiver (advertising it 'as is where is' is not enough) but the buyer would have a claim on the WOF issuer for missing the rust.
zab054,
Jul 27, 12:04am
I got a letter from the Economic Development office telling me i had to obtain a licence to sell cars as i had owned and sold more than 6 in a 12 month period.
rossy,
Jul 27, 12:06am
Section 9.12 of the 2002 Rule clearly states that the sellers' vehicle needs a WOF less than one month old, unless the buyer has agreed in writing to buy the vehicle (as is where is) with an older WOF or no WOF. Otherwise the buyer can take the seller to the Disputes Tribunal for the cost of repairs and will likely win, if they can show the WOF faults existed when they bought the vehicle. For example, in the case of existing rust in the Velox up for auction at the moment.
smac,
Jul 27, 12:13am
It's a subtle point, one one people aren't understanding.
Yes the law says the sold vehicle must be WoF'd, but that does NOT mean the seller must automatically pay for repairs.
Let's say I steal your camera. If I am convicted for the theft, I'll get a fine and maybe some community work or something. I MAY be ordered to pay reparation, or I may not. I certainly won't be ordered to buy you a new camera.
kazbanz,
Jul 27, 12:44am
I think herein lies the issue-some of us are talking from actual real world experience whereas others are getting info from???the internet
kazbanz,
Jul 27, 12:53am
so if they carried on they might get a slap over the hand with a wet bus ticket.
kazbanz,
Jul 27, 12:56am
but back to the actual thread. Simple fact is easybuy is right on the skinny edge of the law.I strongly suspect its traders like them that the law change is aimed at. IMO its JUST legal but is a long long way from???ethical
tgray,
Jul 27, 1:10am
I respect your opinion immensely Kaz, but do you think someone walking off the street and making an offer on a car and then a consultant ringing the owner and agreeing to the price, you then pay for it on the spot and driving it away, is a tender process with no CGA comeback!
kazbanz,
Jul 27, 1:23am
Like I saidmate --right on the skinny edge of legal. as long as someone else has the opertunity to tender .-yea I know and feel no its not legal but I guess as long as most people dont take em to court over it they are winning.A public outcry is likely needed. but then what about the CGA fromthose other crooks-the urner people
elect70,
Jul 27, 3:25am
I have always soldmy cars with a Wofbut never worried about how old it was . On saleagrreement I get buyers signature that it was purchased as inspect ed
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.