All of our cars' require relicencing in July (funny, that) and I have just received the bills. My 45 year old Triumph 2000 will cost: Licence $19-50 + ACC $37-42 , total $74-74. A virtually identical 38 year old Triumph 2000 will cost: Licence $43-50 + ACC $158-46, total $241-54. The younger one, which does less mileage than the older car, must be one hell of an accident/injury risk, roll on its 40th birthday!
(And don't get me started on the year 2000 for the 6 month to 1 year WoF requirements: our fastidiously maintained, low km 1999 car needs a WoF every 6 months; an identical high km, neglected 2000 example I saw only once a year. )
mike1345,
Jun 7, 4:26pm
Only the stupidity of a National Government could have such f*8ked logic.
franc123,
Jun 7, 4:38pm
Yep, its been discussed before in other threads, its a complete botch up and grossly unfair to some vehicle owners. I ask any defenders of these policies who say don't moan you're getting a discount (never mind the years of overcharging) to REALLY examine the logic behind them and how they have applied them. Time to get scribbling to your local MP folks, and the ACC minister too. Its long overdue that poor drivers who are causing the crashes get walloped financially or put off the road completely, not the vehicles they are driving.
laspaz,
Jun 7, 4:40pm
But surely there needs to be a cut off point? How would you guys do it different?
clark20,
Jun 7, 4:41pm
Get over it, you cannot please everyone, had to draw a line somewhere or would you rather have the old system?
trade1gain2,
Jun 7, 4:43pm
I'm pretty sure any vehicle over 40 years is considered as a classic so it gets cheaper rego anyway, what were last year's rego cost?
intrade,
Jun 7, 5:21pm
we can not have ever everyone pleased , i have most of my vehicles actuarly below 2000 year and my 96 renault van was on hold because i was sick of paying 600$ per year , the exemption expires after these changes and i got a invoice for the new ammount payable in my mail. expire 8 july 12 month total 274.08$ so that is actuarly a huge lowering for that van and yes it will be more save then a toyota van in a crash renault always have had priority set on crash improfments. No airbag no abs on that however and 6 month wofs at least it has not got takata airbags lol mazda 6 recall all over again now i fully agree with post *3 but your talking to a wall if you think the morons will actuarly do something , this was only changed because a ex-minister him self got shafted on his van rego.
ambo11,
Jun 7, 5:38pm
I was surprised that my old 1996 Nissan Vanette with no safety features whatsoever, and a killer in a crash, drops to $170 a year. Same vehicle as an Econovan and Bongo of the same era. Yet my Odyssey with 10 airbags is $135 a year. the wife's Galant with airbags is still $200.
edangus,
Jun 7, 5:41pm
94 Courier $179.00 sweet! I think our 2014 car is around $80.00. Mean!
pebbles61,
Jun 7, 5:58pm
I believed they should have made vehicles over 50 years old exempt from WOFs.
edangus,
Jun 7, 6:00pm
nah. Annual ones on anything over 40 would have been thoughtful though
pebbles61,
Jun 7, 6:04pm
At the very least, they should have given them yearly WOFs, but none would have been better. Seems silly to make someone get a WOF for a vehicle that gets rarely. UK has MOT exemption for all pre-1960 cars, can't see any reason why we can't do the same.
gunhand,
Jun 7, 6:19pm
Silly that a 40 plus yo vehicle needs only checked once a year, just because it doesn't get driven much? Well having seen many many vehicles older and newer than that pulled to bits and stripped back to metal IMO a 3 month WOF, or better a complete COF should be done. Unless you have proper photographic evidence of a recent full resto then maybe a 6 monthly would be fine. What lurks behind shiny paint shouldn't make you feel safe at all. People grizzle and moan and laugh about a bit of rust in a newer type car but I reckon they would still 100 times safer than some of the really old stuff, rust and all in a decent crash.
don1751,
Jun 7, 11:13pm
2008 mazda 6 $135,
morrisjvan,
Jun 8, 3:25am
I agree that's insane logic , but be thankful that at least the financially abused motorist is finally getting a break !
likit,
Jun 8, 2:55pm
2004 Mazda 3 $138, 2001 Skyline GTR34 $240
sw20,
Jun 8, 4:19pm
Were you also at the protest calling the government scum for giving beneficiaries more money? This is what this sounds like.
The costs have gone down. If you don't think they have gone down enough, start your own protest saying you want more more more!
dublo,
Jun 8, 4:44pm
No, sw20, I am not complaining (anything to save a bit of money), but it will be interesting to see how our twin-airbag, abs, 1999, car fares, particularly compared with very late models with multiple airbags, traction control and all the other devices they have to try to keep dozy non-drivers from injuring themselves and everyone else on the road! As morrisjvan and others say, there is some insane logic present!
richardmayes,
Jun 8, 7:23pm
There is a method to the madness (or "f*8ked logic" if you prefer. )
Key & English & Co have rebuild the ACC fund back up to a level where the [interest/dividends/whatever] that it pays is enough to pay anticipated ACC claims.
Whereas the previous govt had drained the fund down to just about zero (in order to avoid unpopular levy increases). as a result the entire ACC scheme was an unfunded liability on the Govt's books, and ACC claims were being subsidised more and more by general taxation.
(That was your wonderful Labour Government, who managed to tax and spend the country out of a boom time and into recession, a YEAR before the whole rest of the world crashed.)
Now that the ACC fund is back to the right level, they have given across-the-board levy cuts.
chito,
Jun 8, 7:32pm
Paying ACC on all your vehicles is the biggest con. You can only drive one at a time. Perhaps of you own more than one vehicle in a personal name you should only pay ACC on the most accident prone one, or up the ACC component in fuel with a minimal contribution from relicencing.
richardmayes,
Jun 8, 7:51pm
The trouble is if you want a scheme where people pay a premium in advance, based on risk, you have to do SOMETHING to estimate peoples' risk and apportion the fees.
The way they set the ACC levy for any given type of car is from a mixture of two factors:
1. The vaguely scientific part - how old is it, what safety features is it KNOWN to have, or what is a car of that age likely to have, has it got an NCAP crash test score, and
2. The other part of it is just pure stereotyping (but with a basis in statistics.) I saw Triumph 2000s mentioned above; We hardly see any Triumph 2000s on the road any more, therefore in any given year few of them will be involved in serious injury crashes generating ACC claims anymore, therefore Triumph 2000s deserve a nice low ACC levy! Conversely quite a fair few riders of high-powered motorbikes were having crashes with high clean-up costs, this is why ALL riders of high-powered motorbikes were being charged in the order of $600 for rego.
For VERY old cars there is very little weight given to point (1) ??
directorylist,
Jun 8, 7:57pm
Its always been like that. at fourty years old the old rego dropped to like 120
directorylist,
Jun 8, 8:08pm
The strength in a Herald comes from the chassis, the petrol tank is in the boot like the 2000 and they had collapsable steering columns since the mid 1960's
They're remarkably strong cars (i've had a decent crash in one)
The logic behind the cheap rego for old cars is the same as it was prior with cars over 40 years.
If a car makes it that old and is still on the road in a warrantable state, someone loves it and GENERALLY is looking after it well.
jason_247,
Jun 8, 9:05pm
to OP. the reason a +40 year old car is cheaper is on average they are used much less as a second car. yes not all but its all statistics.
your 38 year old car isnt there. you could argue but its within 2 years. but then 36 would be within 2 years etc etc. they had to draw a line somewhere, they could have made it 60 years old so stop complaining.
Ive heard lots of people complaining about the new small cars getting a cheap rego and old tanks not. despite the old tank being safer etc etc.
Its all not true, soooo much engineering has gone into new cars that you really cant comprehend.
Is that the BS they tell you at the National party meetings,still i suppose it suits you to believe it not the truth "the truth according to Nick" and what a remarkable turn around zero to nearly$30 billion , amazing!
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.