Thread: Series III SWB Soft Top Rear Seats - Advice Needed

Hi Guys

By way of an update - Despite sending several nagging emails to DoT and leaving several phone messages for the inspector dealing with this application to call me back, I heard nothing from them for a couple of weeks.

Out of the blue yesterday I got a letter from them. The thrust of it is that I can do whatever I like in terms of installing rear seating in whatever configuration I damn well please, provided that the relevant national documentation is followed and I get a recognized engineer to sign off to that effect in writing.

That seems reasonable enough. I suspect that in the intervening two weeks the inspector took legal advice and relalised that, no matter how against WA DoT's internal policy it might be, they can't legally refuse this application provided I follow the relevant rules and regulations. This was pretty much my (diplomatically put) position from the start.

The slight problem is that they are still insisting that, what is self-evidently a soft top car, is actually a UTE in the meaning of the legislation which means that I do have to have a certified ROPS/roll cage fitted before rear seats can be installed. So front seats in a soft top are fine without a ROPS, but rear seats are not. According to WA DoT anyway.

In one sense this isn't a problem for me because I already have a full cage fitted. All that I have to do is get an engineer to inspect it and sign to say that it is compliant, which it is because it was built that way. There is a cost implication to this, but it probably will only be $300 or so to get it written into the engineering report. So not a show-stopper for me.

Interestingly however it also means that WA DoT have essentially rulled that this Series III Adventuremobile is illegal and should be defected.... As should every ex-ADF soft top Series III currently on the road with rear seats in the back.

Evidently, although I can now work around my own seating problem, this is clearly not a satisfactory state of affairs. In fact it is a complete nonsense.

So I guess that I am now looking to go through whatever sort of tortuous and Machiavellian appeals procedure WA DoT has in place to make sure that this decision is challenged. In the meantime I shall get on re-fitting my rear bench seats...

Hi Guys

Another update to this saga.

As I posted previously I got my modification permit through from one section of WA DoT which essentially said that I can do what I like with rear seats provided that a) the relevant construction and modification guidelines are followed and b) I have a ROPS fitted and c) (Of course) an engineer signs off on the modifications in a formal report.

That is all a reasonable interpretation of the regulations if you take the view that the adding of rear seats constitutes a modification (in WA). In my vehicle's case it isn't a modification per-se as the car was built as a soft top with rear seats although clearly it could still pose a problem in WA if that configuration was never licenced/legal for use on the road.

I decided that I would write to a different section of WA DoT and challenge the original decision to make me take the rear seats out in order to pass the roadworthy. The summary of my points raised would be a) It was built like that b) vehicles were supplied to the Australian market like that and they are allowed so mine should be as well and c) there is stacks of evidence for this, notably in the form of over 2000 ex-ADF Series IIIs which were soft top with rear seats.
In response I got this response (which didn't really address the specific points raised, may be factually inaccurate and is only borderline coherent (but then again I am coming to expect that from WA DoT):

"With reference to your request for consideration for fitment of additional seating in the rear of your Landrover. I have checked the details of the initial inspection for licence and at this moment nothing has changed. An application to our vehicle safety section will be required. It is true that Army specification vehicles did have additional seating but this is removed when they are licenced as private vehicles. 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."

My question now is, is the statement "It is true that Army specification vehicles did have additional seating but this is removed when they are licenced as private vehicles" correct for military Series IIIs released to the Australian market in WA? (I know that it is true of the ongoing release of current coil sprung vehicles, but Series?).

If it is true then fair enough - that is WA's local law and application of the national regulations. I will have to go down the route of getting my ROPS certified before re-installing my rear seats. As I said earlier it is not a show stopper but I would have rather avoided the cost implication.

If however it is demonstrably untrue then I am of a mind to challenge the statement directly with WA DoT initially and through the Civil and Administrative Tribunal if necessary - there is nothing I hate more than some obstructive civil servant using public money to (deliberately?) misapply regulations and inconvenience the people paying his wages.

So my original question remains, can anyone point me in the direction of someone in WA who owns a (legally constructed and registered) soft top Series III with rear seats, SWB, LWB, military or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Alistair

Hi Guys

Another update to this saga.

As I posted previously I got my modification permit through from one section of WA DoT which essentially said that I can do what I like with rear seats provided that a) the relevant construction and modification guidelines are followed and b) I have a ROPS fitted and c) (Of course) an engineer signs off on the modifications in a formal report.

That is all a reasonable interpretation of the regulations if you take the view that the adding of rear seats constitutes a modification (in WA). In my vehicle's case it isn't a modification per-se as the car was built as a soft top with rear seats although clearly it could still pose a problem in WA if that configuration was never licenced/legal for use on the road.

I decided that I would write to a different section of WA DoT and challenge the original decision to make me take the rear seats out in order to pass the roadworthy. The summary of my points raised would be a) It was built like that b) vehicles were supplied to the Australian market like that and they are allowed so mine should be as well and c) there is stacks of evidence for this, notably in the form of over 2000 ex-ADF Series IIIs which were soft top with rear seats.
In response I got this response (which didn't really address the specific points raised, may be factually inaccurate and is only borderline coherent (but then again I am coming to expect that from WA DoT):

"With reference to your request for consideration for fitment of additional seating in the rear of your Landrover. I have checked the details of the initial inspection for licence and at this moment nothing has changed. An application to our vehicle safety section will be required. It is true that Army specification vehicles did have additional seating but this is removed when they are licenced as private vehicles. 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."

My question now is, is the statement "It is true that Army specification vehicles did have additional seating but this is removed when they are licenced as private vehicles" correct for military Series IIIs released to the Australian market in WA? (I know that it is true of the ongoing release of current coil sprung vehicles, but Series?).

If it is true then fair enough - that is WA's local law and application of the national regulations. I will have to go down the route of getting my ROPS certified before re-installing my rear seats. As I said earlier it is not a show stopper but I would have rather avoided the cost implication.

If however it is demonstrably untrue then I am of a mind to challenge the statement directly with WA DoT initially and through the Civil and Administrative Tribunal if necessary - there is nothing I hate more than some obstructive civil servant using public money to (deliberately?) misapply regulations and inconvenience the people paying his wages.

So my original question remains, can anyone point me in the direction of someone in WA who owns a (legally constructed and registered) soft top Series III with rear seats, SWB, LWB, military or otherwise.

Try REMLR.

Originally Posted by digger

Try REMLR.

Currently waiting for my new member activation email to come through...

What "state" are Army vehicles actualy registered in or is it a Commonwealth Registration?
Cheers, Mick.

Originally Posted by mick88

What "state" are Army vehicles actualy registered in or is it a Commonwealth Registration?
Cheers, Mick.

They're not registered.

Originally Posted by mick88

What "state" are Army vehicles actualy registered in or is it a Commonwealth Registration?
Cheers, Mick.

I think that "They are not (technically) registered" is probably the correct response. That is why all the current ADF land rovers being sold off at auction are being sold without registration.

It is also why a lot of the additional 'non-standard' seating is being taken out before sale.

The question is, when Series IIIs were released, were their rear seats also removed.... the man from WA DoT contends that the rear seats were removed and they were sold as 2 seaters (in WA at least).

Frankly the whole thing seems to be a complete blag which isn't supported by official rules, regulations or legislation, and basically WA DoT has got something against old soft top vehicles and has adopted a policy position, unsupported by law, which means that it is as obstructive as possible in these situations.

Or at least that is how they are currently coming across.

I reckon you are right on the money there, Alistair.
Engineering certification for the rear seats is definitely required for most of the Perenties as they fall under the third edition ADRs.
Series 3 Landrovers fall under the second edition ADRs. The addition of seat belts will require engineering but not if already factory fitted
Series 2 Landrovers don't require seat belts as they were built before 1972. My two old Mercs don't have seat belts in the rear seat.
It sounds to me they are trying to apply third edition ADRs and recent knee jerk decisions made in response to an individuals recent campaign.
I can see no reason why rear seats in a Perentie cannot be approved if the appropriate documentation is produced i.e. engineering reports. There are companies that advertise doing this for a fee.
In your case, it should be a doddle.
I have a '63 ex army 2a SWB (unregistered) with rear seats and am following your experience with interest.