Thread: Victorian Roadworthies

Originally Posted by DoubleChevron

Apparently its really typical of this place. I think my brothers so ****ed off about it all ... he's gong to just sell it .... Like I said this thing is a really good machine. He will easily get $15->20K for it as is.

Don't get me worng they did pick some stuff you shrug and say "fair enough at" ... But demanding structural integrity engineers certificates for stuff that has obviously been exactly "as is" for probably a decade,... and would have breezed thorugh many roadworthies in that time .... ?? Absolutely bizzare.

The body repair shop he took it took pointed to an old toyota corolla in the corner "go and have a look at that.... it's an immaculate old car and drives perfectly".... "its now a parts car, that roadworthy tester flagged the chassis as having damage .... and to repair it will cost multiples of what it is worth ... so now a perfectly fine car thats been on the roads for years like that ... is junk.

That another bit I don't understand, why is this written out on a sheet of A4 paper rather than being written up on a proper roadworthy form ?? Is that say they don't have to go to the effort of entering this through any vicroads system and can just bank the staggeringly expensive cost of the roadworthy without any paperwork ?

seeya
Shane L.

You may have nailed it there Shane. Regardless of if he keeps it or not, I'd still report them to Vicroads - if you only have a sheet of A4 paper, that's reason enough right there, they aren't following procedure for a start, as well as other things.

Originally Posted by Homestar

Yep, always go in armed with the knowledge of what is and isn't required. I always carry a copy of this - https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/~/me..._web.pdf?la=en - and have successfully argued many points. If I think they are wrong, I just drop this on the table and ask them to show me in this document where it says what they are claiming.

Section G clearly shows the only times a windscreen can be failed - it's very specifically worded as are all sections. If it's not in VSI26 they can't fail it. If they claim they can, simply tell them you'll report them to Vicroads - I've done this before as well, and it changes their minds very quickly. 😉

Good info there Gav.
Lol!...I should've had a copy with me!
Pickles.

Originally Posted by DoubleChevron

That another bit I don't understand, why is this written out on a sheet of A4 paper rather than being written up on a proper roadworthy form ?? Is that say they don't have to go to the effort of entering this through any vicroads system and can just bank the staggeringly expensive cost of the roadworthy without any paperwork ?

seeya
Shane L.

Actually he's doing you a favour here, once an 'official' inspection is done it's logged, photos are taken and also logged, and the full roadworthy fee, typically $250-$350, is payable which includes re inspection if reqd. There is also a defined time, about 2 weeks I think, before the RWC 'runs out' and the whole process needs to be started again. The 'thoroughness' of RWC inspection is different for a vehicle which passes first time round and one which requires re inspection.

It's common practice to do it this way as it saves time and paperwork/bureaucracy for the inspector and good for the vehicle owner as he's typically not paying the full RWC fee and isn't locked in time wise to bring an unroadworthy vehicle up to standard. It also makes reinspection easier/simpler if the reqd work is done as this is now the official 1st inspection. With a vehicle that has a number of potential faults this system of 'pre inspection' favours both the RWC inspector as his time isn't being wasted doing a full inspection on a vehicle that needs to be re inspected anyway and for the owner who isn't locked in time wise to bring the vehicle up to standard.

I've found that it helps if you put the time and effort into presenting a vehicle for inspection in the best condition possible ie. all obvious faults rectified, vehicle cleaned inside and out and rubbish removed, cleaned underneath with all excess oil and grease removed (also hides slow leaks) and allows better identification/repair of oil leak sources (very important for Landrovers). Show the inspector that you care, rocking up with a dirty vehicle with obvious faults just wastes every ones time. It also puts the inspector on notice that the vehicle may be on sold to anyone so the inspector needs to be harsh to cover his arse in case of potential come back. It is not uncommon to set up an inspector to deliver a favourable/lenient inspection that a buyer in collusion with the RWC provider (seller) can use as a comeback to have rectification work done free of charge. ie having a vehicle rebuilt for free. It is important to let the inspector know if you are buying a vehicle as this may allow the cards to fall your way on a line ball call.

Deano

I bet they still charged full whack for the first test. It’s 7 days from first inspection to second test.

Not commenting on this case, as the OP seems to have struck an over zealous inspector...but what Deano says is correct. I used to have to take my trucks over the pits every six months, the inspector was an ex-army mechanic who had quite a reputation as a tough one. I used to hop down into the pit with him and ask his advice, take in every thing he said, ooh and ahh etc, and I would quite often get my roadworthy, and be told to just have certain things fixed by next time. On the flipside, guys who went in there and took no interest or showed the wrong attitude, didn't pass inspection.

There’s still plenty of dodgy RWC places out there.
I bought a Focus last year that sailed through a RWC only needing tyres, but ended up costing me about a grand to fix broken engine mounts, under size brake disks amongst other stuff. And no comeback as it’s my word against there’s “it was fine when we looked at it, all that must have happened in the 1 month since we looked at it”.......😡

Sounds like a place in Delacombe Shane

Originally Posted by whlump

Sounds like a place in Delacombe Shane

good guess .....