I was told by someone that wof inspectors can only do a visual inspection on rust but i had a wof inspector prod and poke areas with a screw driver and eventually pushed a hole through an area,is this allowed?.
franc123,
Jan 29, 4:15pm
No definitely not. If there is evidence of poor repairs to an area or else doubts about the structural integrity of an area which meet the VIRM criteria for a failure it has to be referred to a motor body repairer for assessment along with a separate structural profile sheet outlining the area of concern to both the owner/operator and the organisation doing the further assessment.
gph1961,
Jan 29, 4:37pm
ya want to know its rotten or not?your/mates/family at risk not mine
gazzat22,
Jan 29, 4:57pm
The point being made was that the WOF Inspector did not have the right to poke a hole in the vehicle.He did have the right and obligation to fail the Wof and note the reason(s) on the check sheet.
kazbanz,
Jan 29, 6:06pm
The way I see it is that in the interest of customer service they should poke n prod. If theres solid metal underneath then its a WOF pass. If theres not then its got to be fixed no matter what. so be it the WOF inspector poking the hole or the rust repair guy -its still gotta be prodded.
marte,
Jan 29, 6:10pm
I guess yah gotta bend a brake hose to check if there's cracks in it. So this amount of force is acceptable. Levering or hammering a screwdriver into rust wouldn't.
But, if the going to fail, it's failed, covered up solid rust by paint didn't mean it's passed
sandypheet,
Jan 29, 6:26pm
Easiest thing to do is reject it and ask for a panel beaters report. Panelbeaters probably not keen on giving the ok on suspect rust.
muppet_slayer,
Jan 29, 10:44pm
Reminds me of a wof I did many years ago. The owner put tape over a large rust hole in the front crossmember, and freshly painted it. I spotted it a mile away. I was not happy. Another one failed on a brake master cylinder, the guy went away and cleaned up the old leaking MC and brought it back to me. I smelt a rat, and sure enough the nuts holding the MC on were not marked like they would be had a spanner been on them. I called his bluff and he folded. I was not happy again!
franc123,
Jan 30, 2:06am
You get the odd DIY idiot trying to.do a dodgy on you but it's rare, same with rust or structural problems generally. You may come across impact damage to floors and sills due to carelessness or lowering from time to time but not much else. People aren't bodging up rusty cars like they used to 25+ years ago, you may come across cars with specific problem areas, say A32 Cefiro radiator supports, Ford Ka outer firewalls etc, but even those are rare. Someone operating an older car either restored or original like a 1975 Viva as a hobby or even a daily is doing so because they love it, problems are normally sorted before they end up being WoF failures
mrfxit,
Jan 30, 9:48am
No & very simply NO. It's very clear in the VIRM that it is a "none intrusive visual" test only.
If you can prove he did deliberately damage the vehicle in this way, then theres the potential he could loose his wof licence over it or at least be censored. This is regardless of the evidence of rust etc.
It stems back to the old days with bare steel chassis & the then common undersealing being done & inspectors damaging the seal & causing rust on the chassis from water pooling in the cracked underseal.
Any suspicions must be referred to other repair agencys for testing.
kazbanz,
Jan 30, 9:49am
I guess because we are in different positions in the "food chain" we see different things. For me its pretty well standard practice to assume a car with expired /nearly expired WOF has issues. If its nothing obvious then I immediately think its rust I haven't yet found. Right now Im dealing with a vehicle that I genuinely cannot understand how it got a very recent WOF. The WOF guy must have had blinders on
franc123,
Jan 30, 11:32am
I know what you are saying, you do have to assume the worst when stuff is being traded in. I've had to deal with a few people in the sales side who were theoretically experienced enough to know better who don't ask themselves the simple question "why does this person want out of this vehicle?" Doing deals with having no knowledge of the true condition of a trade, unless its of course a clunker that you're not going to retail anyway, is risky in the extreme. Those new WoF stickers can get real dear real quick, no matter how good something looks from a cursory walk around check on the yard.
2sheddies,
Jan 30, 1:00pm
That's why the push to get older vehicles off the roads is yet another dopey idea from this government. Older cars (say 30+ and older) are generally owned and operated by enthusiasts who enjoy them and are handy with the tools, and are very often in a better state of health than a disposable appliance manufactured in the last ten years.
franc123,
Jan 30, 1:50pm
Studies conducted in the UK concluded that, it's why compulsory periodic inspections got scrapped on the over 40yo's that have not had significant (ie certifiable) mods. Vintage car owners felt their vehicles were being treated unfairly by inspection centers due to those exclusively working on modern cars not being familiar with them and not applying fair failure reasons. and the Govt agreed with them. The numbers as a percentage of all cars on the road and the accident and fatality rates on such cars are negligible, so the onus of keeping them roadworthy is left up to the owners who are dragging out the Haynes book and the cantilever tool box and maintaining/restoring their gear themselves. Of course such reasoning is lost on politicians here, they think all old car owners are completely stupid and need 6 month scrutiny.
gunna-1,
Jan 30, 2:20pm
They have to ask before proceeding with that, otherwise it isnt allowed, "dangerous" in my books is when the floorpan starts flexing and creaking around corners and cracks and stress fractions start showing, the whole lot is nonsense, a good / bad chassis is all that needs clarifying, not bloody pin holes and stuff the size of your small finger.
kazbanz,
Jan 30, 3:03pm
Anywhere ELSE in the world I totally 100% agree with you. But because we are a pimple on the backside of the world 1991 motor cars are still just regular transport. yea I know hasn't 30 years gone by fast. seems yesterday I was selling Pulsars and Primeras like hotcakes.
franc123,
Jan 30, 3:46pm
Oh come on now you've got to love those private car ads for 1989 Corollas with 357k on them that are clearly pretty tired but are 'ideal first cars' and imply that there is much motoring still in front of it. yours for a mere $1700. I agree that 30 is still a bit young for the above example of law changes.
2sheddies,
Jan 30, 3:48pm
Oh to have such sensibility prevail here. fancy a Tui? There are many in the classic car fraternity who's concourse condition vehicle might only travel a few hundred or so k's between inspections, yet this moronic system demands they roll it back in every 6 months for another check. Yet as I understand it, a new vehicle can go three years without a check, during which time it could conceivably rack up tens of thousands, if not a hundred thousand hard kilometres, depending on usage (sales reps or couriers or similar high mileage applications). Hell if I were their mechanic, I'd just put the label on and send them on their way. Waste of valuable time for both owner and inspector.
2sheddies,
Jan 30, 3:57pm
Yeah maybe 30 is a bit of a stretch still, although my preferred daily driver is 31 this year and as fit as a fiddle and kept in very good health. Damn sight more reliable than a lot of more modern vehicles too I might add, due to it's simplicity. Angers me to think some do gooder sandal wearer could come along and say you can't have that anymore because it's too old.
Well they can try anyway lol.
kazbanz,
Jan 30, 4:12pm
Mate Honest injun--sitting no more than 10 feet from me is a 1987 Toyota Masterace surf (townace 8 seater) One owner for the last 28 years and it is MINT --138000km on the clock. Its been a lotta years since Ive seen one so clean
2sheddies,
Jan 30, 4:41pm
You traded it? Love to know his secret to keeping the rust out. No matter what you do, you can almost see them rusting in front of your eyes. I had one years ago and it was all gone in the front floorplan, behind the headlights, pillars, you name it. Now I've gone and got into an old mid 80's Hiace. Bet I'll be making a career out of chasing rust in that too.
franc123,
Jan 30, 4:42pm
That is exactly the case. I've seen a sales rep kill the front tyres to bald on his new Mondeo within six months after delivery which was only discovered when the car was presented (overdue) for its first oil service at 23k. He did question of they were claimable under warranty. Sure most brand new cars are dealer serviced for most or all of the warranty period at least annually but not all of them are. Sure the operator is responsible for rectifying any WoF defects ASAP once they are aware of them, but they're not always aware of them.
franc123,
Jan 30, 4:47pm
Both of those van's start rotting around the windscreens then it's all downhill from there.
secca2,
Jan 30, 5:46pm
I give customers the option. Either repair and possibly a repair cert or I can see if any holes etc your choice.
kazbanz,
Jan 30, 6:11pm
The old bloke is in his 90's and there's "wet' brown streaks everywhere. Either gallons of cavity wax or fisholine. Literally gallons I suspect.
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.