Series III SWB Soft Top Rear Seats - Advice Needed

I have now read into the regulations a bit more. I mentioned previously that you can install seats in the back of a UTE, providing a ROPS is fitted. Also WA DoT have issued me with a modification permit requiring that I install a ROPS as a condition of fitting rear seats.

I have now looked again at the relevant National Code of Practice, which is VSB 5B Construction and Installation of Additional Seats by Individuals. It seems that what the man from WA DoT said isn't strictly true (not that I think any of it is, but there we are). What the guideline actually says is that "Additional seats should not be installed in the trays of utilities or trucks unless adequate rollover protection is provided".

I am not quite sure where WA DoT thinks the 'tray' is on my soft top.... I quite clearly have an open rear tub on an open topped car, not a tray-backed truck cab.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cjc_td5

Hi Alistair,
I think that all military vehicles are not registered under the civil laws and so the ADRs are not relevant. I don't think you are going to be able to push the argument that the military used them that way, as they are exempt from the ADRs. Finding one that was civil registered as a 4 (or 6 seater) is where I would focus on.

Another lead may be older Jeeps (WW11 MB series etc). There are a fair few of these knocking around and they have a rear seat. I wonder if they manage to get registered as a 4 seater?

Cheers,

---

Agreed. Unless things were different back in the 1970s/1980s (and I don't imagine they were), I seem to have hit a brick wall with that argument, although I might point out that WA DoT have elected to throw up a general chaff cloud rather than specifically point that out for themselves - which rather suggests that either they haven't a clue, or they haven't actually bothered to do any research. Neither of which makes me feel that they are to be trusted further than I can throw my high-lift jack.

I am really struggling to find a civilian spec soft top with seats in the back. As pointed out earlier in this thread by some locals, this probably has more to do with Australian physical and market conditions than it does to do with the fact that they were not legal back in the day.

I will keep trying on that one, but things are not looking positive.

I have just emailed a different man from the ministry with the following:

Good Morning XXXX

Thank you for your email copied below and for the quick response to my original which I have pasted below that for reference.

I am fully aware that "There is a clause in your import documentation which states that your vehicle is accepted for importation but may need to comply with the rules and regulations of the state or territory in which you want to register it. This includes seating allowed elsewhere". This is of course absolutely reasonable and I was fully anticipating this when I imported my 1982 soft top car into (Western) Australia from the UK. Australia's commitment to maintaining the safety of its fleet of road vehicles is commendable and I fully support the intent of all related legislation and codes in so far as they apply to vehicles of different ages.

Unfortunately this statement also however perfectly encapsulates my difficulty with WA DoT's decision not to allow the factory fitted rear seating positions in my vehicle to be retained. In WA (and also in the rest of Australia) there are numerous examples of late 1970s and early 1980s soft top Series III Land Rovers running around on Australian roads with factory fitted and entirely road legal rear bench seats. Denying this reality is actually bizarre and it really appears as though WA DoT has no knowledge of the historic context of the vehicle or the wide range of configurations in which it was legally supplied to the Australian market. I must admit that I do find this quite surprising and disappointing. I am a member of three separate (Australian) Land Rover owner online forums and, after I posed the question on the forums, a number of owners (in WA and in other states) have come forward to indicate that they own Series III soft top land rovers (not hard top 'Wagons') which were supplied as 4 or 6 seat vehicles which are registered as such and currently in use on WA roads. Most of these vehicles are ex-ADF (not that this makes any legal difference), but not all. Therefore, whilst I was fully anticipating that my vehicle would have to 'comply with the rules and regulations of the state or territory in which you wish to register it', what I was not anticipating was that WA DoT would refuse to look at the historic context and original configurations available in Australia and allow me to retain a factory seating arrangement in my own vehicle which is allowed in other vehicles of the same make, model and general age, currently in use on Australian roads. In the current absence of any coherent explanation to support the decision, I am sure that you can appreciate why I might regard that decision as arbitrary, inexplicable and indeed perverse.

You can designate soft top Land Rovers "UTEs" if you want, however by any reasonable measure they are not tray-back UTEs with an enclosed truck cab. They are self-evidently soft top tourers with exactly the same amount of vehicle structure around the rear (passenger) section as there is around the front (driver) section. In fact to describe the vehicle as having two sections, front and rear, is a bit artificial as the bulkhead between the two is only there to stiffen the body of the vehicle, rather than provide any sort of functional separation between front and rear. Ultimately however, whatever you now choose to call them - and I would suggest that 'Tourer' would be more accurate - these vehicles were built this way, were fully compliant with the second edition ADRs at the time, and are demonstrably road legal as soft top cars with rear seats. As are soft top Mokes and the soft top Suzuki Sierra incidentally. I am sure that a quick search of WA DoT's own vehicle database would confirm this - have a look to see how many are currently licensed that way in WA. If they were not legal, you would be writing to all the owners of these historic vehicles telling them to remove their rear seats and/or the police would be defecting them on sight. As you are not and the police are not, the net conclusion is that they are in fact legal in this configuration despite what WA DoT has previously indicated to me; as my vehicle only has to comply with the regulations in force at the time, in the absence of any coherent explanation from WA DoT, it appears to me that there is absolutely no legal or technical reason to prevent me having this factory configuration.

I therefore contend that WA DoT's stated position has been poorly considered leading to an incorrect assessment. I would be very grateful if you could present me with written documentary evidence (i.e. specific references to national and local legislation, regulations, codes and standards), to demonstrate in law why a 1982 soft top land rover series III, factory built with rear seats as a 6 seater (with a rear body, not a tray-back), cannot be legally registered as such in WA despite the fact that numerous vehicles in that configuration are currently legally registered in WA and wider Australia. Please note that a fully considered answer to this issue is required citing references - continued broad generalisations without references and/or references to more recent standards not applicable to second edition ADR vehicles will not satisfy the request. If a reasoned and coherent response is not forthcoming I will likely present my case to the State Administrative Tribunal; a little effort now by DoT to present a well researched and legally coherent answer (which I will of course accept in good grace) will certainly save a great deal of time and effort in due course. If you are not the right person to do this, I would be grateful if you could elevate my request to the person who is best placed to provide a researched response with reasoned legal annotation. This may well be the departmental solicitor.

As an aside, I believe that your statement "It is true that Army specification vehicles did have additional seating but this is removed when they are licenced as private vehicles" is inaccurate. I am seeking advice through the Registry of Ex-Military Land Rovers (Australia) to confirm this. It is correct to say that the coil sprung modern generation of ADF 'Perentie' land rover, which are currently being released from service to the public, are currently being sold (typically unregistered) at auction with certain additional seats removed. I do not however believe that this was ever true of Series III Land Rovers which were released from service in the mid 1980s; these were released in their original seating configurations with the original rear bench seats fitted. There is plenty of evidence of this online. Although it is always possible that WA did something completely different to all the other states, I think it would also be worth you checking the factual accuracy of your statement in respect of the earlier generation of ADF Series Land Rovers.

I would also be grateful if you provide me with a file reference number for future correspondence.

O.K so there are a couple of points made which are probably not strictly factually accurate but I doubt that their records and/or historic knowledge are good enough to spot it. Anyway, lets see what they make of that hand grenade....

:twisted:

Have you tried talking to your local member? A different problem, different state, but I recently managed by this route to get a vehicle registered in the name of a fourteen year old for whom I am the trustee of an estate, despite being told it could not be done. It actually ended up requiring changes to their software, apparently.

Public servants usually do respond to letters from the parliamentarians, provided what you are asking for is not actually illegal. They may drag their feet, but my experience with this has been positive, provided you can get the local member on your side.

John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Have you tried talking to your local member? A different problem, different state, but I recently managed by this route to get a vehicle registered in the name of a fourteen year old for whom I am the trustee of an estate, despite being told it could not be done. It actually ended up requiring changes to their software, apparently.

Public servants usually do respond to letters from the parliamentarians, provided what you are asking for is not actually illegal. They may drag their feet, but my experience with this has been positive, provided you can get the local member on your side.

John

---

Hi John

That thought did cross my mind as a last resort, probably before going down the Administrative Tribunal route.

I don't know though how interested he would be in representing someone who isn't an Australian voter (yet)...

You are absolutely right in what you say, that essentially an MP asking the question might have more effect than me asking it. My line of inquiry at the moment is to ascertain what the legal situation really is, rather than what WA DoT wishes it was. I am strongly getting the sense that the two are a long way from being coincident and the more I push the more bluster and less concrete fact I receive. As an ex member of the armed forces I can spot bulls*it from civil servants at 1000 marching paces - and this is it.

I am not an expert in motoring law, but having now read and re-read the relevant legislation, codes and standards, I really don't believe that any of this should be a problem. If my car was built under 3rd Edition ADRs then I would have a problem, but it wasn't, it was built under 2nd Edition ADRs which don't even give this situation a mention in passing.

Before deciding my next step I will see what they come back with to answer my request for proper legal commentary as opposed to woolly opinion based on nothing concrete other than what looks like unofficial policy made up on the hoof to be as obstructive as possible when it comes to old Land Rovers. If needs be I will formalise it as a Freedom of Information Act request which they will have to cooperate with.

Alistair, it sounds like you will have a better understanding of the WA DOT's regulations than any of their employees by the time you get through this saga.
I know how you feel, it's annoying that you have to deal with these idiots that have the decision making power, but have bugger all of an understanding of the rules and policies that they are employed to oversee.
You will be much wiser by the end of this journey!
Is there an "Ombudsman" that handles these situations/grievances in WA?


Good luck and keep plugging along.


Cheers, Mick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mick88

Alistair, it sounds like you will have a better understanding of the WA DOT's regulations than any of their employees by the time you get through this saga.
I know how you feel, it's annoying that you have to deal with these idiots that have the decision making power, but have bugger all of an understanding of the rules and policies that they are employed to oversee.
You will be much wiser by the end of this journey!
Is there an "Ombudsman" that handles these situations/grievances in WA?

Good luck and keep plugging along.
Cheers, Mick.

---

Hi Mick

Thanks for the encouragement and words of support.

I musn't loose sight of the fact that I do now have my modification permit approved and I can essentially install whatever I like in the back - provided it meets the relevant codes which is of course fair enough - subject to getting my existng cage certified as a ROPS. Because it was built to conform to the LK codes in the first place, (mainly because I did a bit of research online about the problems associated with the Australian modification scene before I left the UK and I saw this farce coming), none of this is actually a problem, other than the fact that there will be a cost implication to getting the engineer to sign off on the cage.

The point is that I am pretty certain that there is no legal requirement for this. What really infuriates me is when I encounter bloody minded paper pushers who wield a disproportionate amount power, yet when tested or asked to think about something slightly unusual seem not have a clue what the regulations which they are paid to enforce actually mean in practice. Particularly when my tax pays them to do it. :mad: At the moment they are merrily making pronouncements and then flatly refusing to back them up by citing specific laws or regulations to justify their decisions. It may be that actually I am wrong in all this, and in due course I will get to hold my hand up and post the technical detail of why, but at the moment the inability and/or unwillingness of WA DoT to actually provide documentary evidence to support their decision seems to me to be a pretty clear indication that actually they don't have a clue and are currently busy entrenching an undefendable position.

So basically on the one hand I am merrily progressing my design and installation with one section of WA DoT, whilst on the other hand pushing back hard against another section.... basically I don't see why they should be allowed to make up law as they go. That is what politicians and judges are for, not glorified mechanics with a blue uniform and a badge. (Not that I have anything against mechanics before I get a howl of protest!)

I am hoping that this issue quickly makes its way far enough up the DoT food chain that someone with an ounce of intelligence and common sense gets to look at it. At the moment though I am strongly getting the sense that I am dealing with individuals who are acustomed to believing that their word is law and don't like being asked to account for their decisions by pulling out the references and explaining why they are right... which frankly just makes me want to become a real thorn in their side whilst I get on with having my cage and seats engineered.

Expect this saga to run and run. :soapbox:

Currently waiting with bated breath for the response from DoT to my latest attempt to licit anything resembling a coherent explanation from them as to why rear seats are a legal problem in a 1982 soft top land rover, I have come across the following snippets of information on the website of a manufacturer of roll over protection systems:

Despite the increased protection that roll over systems create, the Federal Office of Road Safety reports that there are currently no rules covering the strength of the roofs of passenger cars in Australia. The situation is particularly worse for occupants of four wheel drives and light commercial vehicles.

And
According to Monash University, there is currently no roll over requirements, such as roof strength testing, for any passenger vehicle or four wheel drive (except buses) sold in Australia. Roof strength testing does not apply under Australian Design Rules as four wheel drives are classed as 'special purpose vehicles?.

Which confirms my reading of all the rules and regulations and probably goes a long way to explain why there is currently a deafening silence from WA DoT. Basically, although my request may fly in the face of their internal policy, there doesn't appear to be any legal reason why passenger seats can't be put in a soft top car with or without a ROPS.

:banana:

...... except they are calling it a ute, not a passenger car....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cjc_td5

...... except they are calling it a ute, not a passenger car....

---

hmmmmm....

No they are not. There is no mention of the word 'UTE' in any of the legislation. Special purpose vehicle does not equal ute - as far as I can see the concept of a UTE does not exist in law. Which is utterly amazing from the point of view of a Pom given that 'Ute' is one of those quintessential Australian terms datng right back to Henry Ford. In fact, from the point of view of officialdom, it appears to exist only on the computer system of the DoT. Anyway, that strengthens my point, not weakens it.

You either have a car (less than 9 people) or a special purpose vehicle which is a car which carries passengers and also does other 'stuff'- which is a 4x4 like a land rover in all its forms, or a commercial vehicle which isn't primarily for passengers and isn't a car. Either way there is no reference whatsoever to soft top or otherwise either in the context of a car or a special purpose vehicle, nor to what protection should or should not be afforded to passengers in the back (other than for an omnibus). And that includes 3rd edition ADR vehicles currently on sale. There is plenty of stuff about converting your hard top to a cabriolet (i.e. soft top) but only from the structural design considerations, seat and seatbelt mountings, and absolutely nothing - not a word - about the roll over protection to be afforded to occupants (front or rear) afterwards.

In fact, interestingly, if I had a hard top land rover 'wagon' with 6 seats there is an obvious modification codes route to remove the roof and retain the seats, (without ROPS being mentioned) but not an obvious way of putting the same seats in the back of a soft top 'ute' where there were no seats in the first place, even if, as in the case of land rover, it is precisely the same base vehicle to which an unboltable roof and seats were then optionally bolted. All most illogical and unhelpful.

The nearest I have come to finding anything about this is the requirement for a ROPS in the tray of 'utilities or trucks'', (not that the term 'utility' is defined either as far as I can see), if you want to install seats there, but this also implies an enclosed cab and specifies a tray... but I haven't got a tray or an enclosed cab... because it is a soft top. And possibly not even a UTE within the intention of the law, even if that is what computer now says?

How is my soft top car functionally any different from the latest soft top range rover Evoque car (or special purpose vehicle if you would rather), to hit the market in 6 months? Not that land rover can tell me yet what classification will be actually applied to that vehicle in Australia despite having asked them a week ago. I am starting to wonder if this is Land Rover Australia being Land Rover Australia, or if they haven't quite worked out yet how they are going to get away with not calling the car a soft top UTE... :eek: Which probably won't go down so well with the target demographic.

In fairness it won't matter because the Evoque soft top car/ute does have an automatic ROPS, but it can't be making things any easier for them to classify (or market). I am genuinely interested though to see what they call it. After all the hard top is a 'wagon', but the soft top must be a special purpose vehicle (or 'UTE') by the current logic being employed.

Pitty the bloke at WA DoT who has to explain this one. But I don't write the rules. :bangin: