Member log in

NBR readers verdict on WOF changes – poll

The government is right to reduce WOF inspections to once a year for many vehicles, according to NBR ONLINE readers. 

In a poll conducted last week, readers were asked: Should WOF checks be changed from six-monthly to annually, as the government proposes?

Seventy-eight percent said yes, while 22% said no. 

Under the changes, vehicles registered after January 1, 2000, have annual inspections, and new cars will not need inspections until they are three years old. 

callison@nbr.co.nz

Comments and questions
6

Three year WOFs will suit the car companies - WOF checks would pick up mechanical defects covered by the new car warranty, now the owners will be out of luck! More dodgy (newish) cars on the road for a period until the defects are picked up and as a result angry owners to boot, having to pay for repairs as vehicles out of warranty.

If any owner is concerned with a vehicle they still have an option to have their vehicles checked by a Vehicle Testing Station.

If you really think that then get a warrant as often as you like. At one-year compulsory inspection NZ has still got the most stringent requirements in the world. Annual warrants belong to the 1930s. It is simply ridiculous to inspect a modern vehicle every six months. The reforms did not go anywhere near far enough.

If a driver or owner of a car are relying on WOFs to identify defects for warranty claims, they must have been driving with ears and eyes closed.

The same 'let-the-market-regulate' fools applauded the Shipley-Williamson-Dr Dick Smith 'freeing' of the building act which gave us the country's worst ever, ongoing disaster.....the rotting homes/ apartments/ schools and hospitals' scandal with all their hidden medical costs.
With some of the worst roads in the first world and kamakaze drivers as a bonus, watch the road toll rocket.
Dumb as.

This WOF change is long overdue and I concur with the poll. I don't believe the new rules go far enough evidenced by car ownership witnessed in other countries. Setting wof requirements as to age rather than mileage is misleading. An old 1996 low mileage is no more a risk than a 4 year old model flogged as a company car with a very high mileage. I would have preferred a more rigorous wof required at each change of ownership with heavy roadside penalties for operating a demonstrably unsafe vehicle.