My Views: “Hands Off The WOF” Government Considering Changes To The WOF And COF System

October 9, 2012 William 14 Comments

UntitledJust a quick update from me about the proposed changes to the WOF (warrant of fitness) and COF (certificate of fitness) that the government is now considering. I’ve already had my say and you can too and I strongly advise you do if you’re a vehicle owner.

My reason for making this post is not necessarily because of the changes, it’s more to do with the campaign “Hands Off The WOF” which is funded by MTA Assured and featuring Greg Murphy.

You may have seen the recent TV ads or heard the radio ads about how the changes could be dangerous and that the “government has underestimated the contribution that vehicle defects make to crashes” that said, I’m beginning to wonder actually how much the MTA are worried about road safety with this campaign and more about money…

Now before you start screaming at me I’m sure they do care about safety but I just want to point out a few interesting facts.

VTNZ for example does a WOF as well as a whole raft of other things, but focusing on the WOF aspect, if the government’s proposed changes go through a vehicle will be subject to less frequent WOF inspections and therefore obviously less visits to VTNZ equalling a loss in money for them in this case.

Now you may be wondering what this has to do with MTA and their new campaign? Well guess who owns Vehicle Testing New Zealand Limited (VTNZ)?…

Vehicle Testing Group Limited which is owned by none other then MTA Group Investments Ltd.

So it’s up to you as the public to decide whether you think it’s safer to keep the current system or change it to a new alternative, the changes will affect not just VTNZ and other major testing stations but also your little corner garage – So think wisely and don’t be swayed by a company who makes money from warrant of fitness etc.

Update 29/08/13: DEKRA purchases a 60% stake in VTNZ

14 People reacted on this

  1. Your all WRONG!

    The WOF Protects against bad road conditions and bad drivers, 6 months IS NOT ENOUGH, there are still too many deaths, the WOF should be every 3 months, scratch that you should have a WOF everytime you fill up with petrol only then will NZ be safe.


    1. Boz – 97.5% of the accidents are down to drivers; 2.5% to vehicles. Maybe a WOF inspector in every car every time it moves off the driveway is the answer – or mayhap just better driving and better enforcement??

  2. I have to agree with all the above. Too often it seems the inspectors are seeking to justify their inspections by finding the most trivial of faults. I had one WOF rejected because one of the four windscreen washer jets was aimed at the very bottom of the windscreen. However having to wait an hour (not at all uncommon here) for their “service” is just a complete waste of time. For the record almost all my WOFs (3 vehicles) go through without issue, apart from time wasted.

  3. I finally got MTA to answer this question on their blog……

    MTA. A lot of people on this forum seem to be agreeing that if we cut out a second WOF every year we’d save $123 million. If some of this money was put behind the real problem of road safety, i.e those 99.6% of accidents that are caused by reasons other than vehicle failure, we’d be tackling the real issue. Why does the MTA think they have some special right to hog the available $123 million that could be freed up? The AA says only 0.4% of accidents are caused entirely by vehicle failure and nothing else. Even if it was 10% the principle is no different. Why are you so focused on a tiny part of the problem when there’s far more lives could be saved tackling the big issue? Safety after all is your pimary concern. As you have spent so much money telling us.

    … it, it beggars belief, they think a 6 month wof mitigates against poor road conditions, bad driving and average law enfiorcement standards. [You’ll have to look in the second forum from top ‘Skys Limit’ as they closed the discussion down soon as they’s put up their moronic reply].

  4. This Campaign has nothing to do with safety. The MTA and its members which include VTNZ Stand to loose a huge proportion of their income
    The MTA would not spend their money if this was a saftey issue they would leave it to more appropriate road safety organisations

  5. The is probably the most self-serving political campaign with the great level of non-disclosed self-interest that I have ever seen. Further, the lack of analysis of the supposed safety advantages and of comparable international regimes beggars belief.

  6. Hear hear. At the time that MMP was first proposed a campaign of this scale was mounted against it.
    From Murray Ball came Footrot Flats Wal with a laconic rejoinder:
    “Want a reason to support MMP? Look at the people telling you not to”.
    I find this campaign has a similar reeverse effect on me

  7. You can be sure the MTA will fight this tooth and nail as this is a huge part of their members business.Those that oppose any change are at liberty to have their vehicles checked as often as they like. Maybe the MTA could come up with some voluntary scheme for discretionary safety checks.
    Remember statistics can be used to back any messaage and police data on crash sheets etc has been found to be not all that accurate and sometimes subjective.
    The government is right to review this to bring us into align with other countries. It costs to public a lot in lost productivity and inconvenience.
    Some of my own vehicles only do a few hundred K’s between checks yet it has to be rechecked so there goes another fee as well as another 2 hours away from work.

    1. Absolutely agree. 6 month Wof are a complete waste of time and money. Most modern cars have warranties > 3 years anyway and so the WOF requirement is superfluous. The whole campaign is completely one sided

  8. To change from 6 months to 12 makes perfect sense. Go to any shopping car park and look around you and notice the general age of nz’s rolling stock. Gone are the days we had rows and rows of clapped out cars on our roads.By all means keepup the policeing of 12 month wof. Gary.

  9. It is a poor show when they get someone like Greg Murphy heading up a campaign to try to stop the government saving motorist a little bit of money. But no doubt the government they will take it somewhere else. I totally agree that the government should change the rules because we are being ripped off by the vehicle inspection people. There is not much consistency in the way they inspect cars. Took my car for a warrant mechanic said the seat belt was worn and needed to be replaced. Took it to a seat belt installer who stood to make money and he told me there was nothing much wrong with it. Took my car six months ago for a warrant of fitness mechanic said front tyres were borderline. Six months later took the car back for the next warrant no mention of the front tyres this time, but the wiper blades were worn. The main problem in New Zealand as our wages are too low we cannot afford to buy new cars and some people cannot afford to maintain the old ones properly, and they cannot afford a warrant of fitness every six months. Is not the cost of a warrant of fitness that hurts it is all the work that mechanic seems to find that needs to be done. If the government was really serious about improving road safety they would make it so that everyone in New Zealand could afford to buy a good-quality new car. If the government was really serious they would stop some public servants being paid over $500,000 per year each and some that are paid a lot more. And give the low paid workers a decent pay rise. I beat Greg Murphy and his mates would not be able to live on $13.50 per hour. The New Zealand lifestyle is based around personal vehicles. Public transport is basically a waste of time never there when you need it never goes where you want to.

  10. One of the things to remember is, that although most drivers are aware a WOF is not a service. usually those who service or have their vehicles serviced on a regular basis. There are many owners who don’t service or repair their cars. if the government really want to improve safety then they should be introducing a law where cars without a WOF and the driver/owner does not have insurance should be impounded and crushed.

    People will stay not warranting or insuring their vehicles and are clearly a danger to other road users. extending the time between WOF’s is only going to allow people with cars that are not road worthy to get away with it longer.

    That being said, when I take my vehicles in for a WOF. I get them checked and repaired to ensure they pass their WOF. yes it costs a bit more but at least I know if my wife children and friends using my vehicles are safe and driving vehicles that are of the required standard.

  11. You are right on mate, as an “a”grade mechanic who used to do WOF and one who also now travels the world alot, NZ has the most regulated industry in the world with the worst results. This is because the MTA and NZTA have got motorists now thinking a WOF is a service. It is not!!!!. I am sick of having to sort out bogus claims that work needs doing because most WOF inspectors aren’t even mechanics. Aust now has no annual checks at all in 4 states, UK has an annual inspection but only after 3 yrs old, America has none either.Our vehicle fleet is similar to Aust and other in age. This is a cash cow that hes been used by the NZTA to rape motorists for years and good on Jerry Brownlee for bringing it to a halt. Look at ststs, virtually no accident caused by WOF failures, bald tyres etc are everyday owners responsibility. I get to see a number of vehicles that do less than 1000k between WOF and to see the check sheets would have one think that they were different vehicles.

Comments are closed.