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

On Wed I was bored and decided that, seeing as no-one from DoT had acknowledged any of my recent emails including the one from the Minister saying that I should put my complaint through DoT rather than him, I would use the DoT online complaint web form and see if I could attract some attention.

On Fri mid morning I got a call from someone new... she (this time) didn't actually identify what her role was in the wider picture, but she assured me that all of my correspondence had been put together, that all points raised were being condidered () and that I should get a 'final' response next week...

She came across as being half way to reasoned and articulate (youngish junior solicitor?) which is a step in the right direction and does at least show that I do now have the attention of someone who is probably at the right sort of level to actually make something happen here or at least provide a legally reasoned argument why it should not. Which ultimately is all I actually wanted.

Unfortunately I didn't get the impression that she had really grasped that there are three separate issues at play here and they need to be considered separately otherwise things will get horribly confused:
1) Vehicle is a soft top/convertible not a UTE within the meaning of the law and can legally have rear seats so I should not have been made to remove them.
2) Separate from 1, despite the issue of a modification approval and repeated asking on my part, Technical Policy Services has refused to give definitative guidance on the required seat separation should I go down the route of 2 x forward facing rear seats (whether the vehicle is a UTE or a Soft Top actually makes no difference to this). The fact that it is a difficult question to answer does not excuse TPS from providing a written answer seeing as it is their job...
3) Separate from 1& 2, the answer to my second (and deliberately impossible to resolve) modification application to convert from manufacturer's UTE variant (which it clearly isn't) to manufacturer's Soft Top variant (which it already is).

In fairness it is entirely posslble and indeed probable given the timeline, that she got the entire mess dumped on her desk 10 minutes earlier and, after an initial read through the file, picked up on the fact that I am more irritated by the abject lack of meaningful responses than I am about the situation itself, decided that an initial phone call to me saying 'hello' would at least stop another grumpy email over the weekend.

I am almost looking forward to the response to see just how badly they mangle the answer to these issues....

Got a call from the chap at DoT this morning. Long and short of it they now want me to bring the vehicle in to their inspection centre so that they can have a look at it in the flesh and decide what it is and what to do about it. They didn't say it, but there was a pretty clear subtext that they now are leaning towards accepting my argument, but want to be sure that the photos I have sent them are representative of what is actually going on. I guess that is fair enough - if not exactly trusting.

On the one hand this is really good news because it means that finally I may be getting through to them - they can all stand there, suck their teeth and decide that, yes, it is a soft top body not a UTE body within the intent of the law.

On the other hand, it is clear that the guy at the initial Roadworthy didn't have a clue what he was looking at (he decided that a soft top was a UTE after all) and didn't spot a significant amount of work (professionally and seamlessly) done to the car in the UK which really should be covered by modification permits under the Australian system. Taking the car back in gives them more chance to spot this and insist that the work is examined and retrospectively signed off on... At the very least I expect to be required to retrospectively submit a modification permit for the two new front seats. Not that that is a particular disaster if it happens, just another $200 or so rubber stamp tax payable to the relevant engineer for an extra paragraph in the report. I also know that the design of the cage at the front meets the codes requirements, would be fine in Queensland and NSW, but has in the past been frowned upon in WA... We shall see - it may just be that they are now just desperate to see the back of me and my blasted UTE/CON/WAGON whatever(!)

Anyway, one way or the other the chap is now on leave for 10 days, so I guess I will be taking it in for a 'discussion' in the first week of March...

Until then I have a sticky brake master cylinder and a fuel vapour lock problem to sort out.

Cheers

Alistair

Hmmmmm - this thread has me wondering.

I have a 73 SWB station wagon in NSW. Rego notes only two seats as a PO has pulled out middle seat. I understand that I would need an engineers certificate to put the 3rd seat back in.

But what if I wanted to put a bench seat or a few fold down singles in the back? Has anyone in NSW done this successfully?

I only use the vehicle to put around the inner city, so Safety isn't too much of a concern for me (low speeds only).

Doable?

P.s. Sorry for the thread hijack.

Originally Posted by S3 Tom

Hmmmmm - this thread has me wondering.

I have a 73 SWB station wagon in NSW. Rego notes only two seats as a PO has pulled out middle seat. I understand that I would need an engineers certificate to put the 3rd seat back in.

But what if I wanted to put a bench seat or a few fold down singles in the back? Has anyone in NSW done this successfully?

I only use the vehicle to put around the inner city, so Safety isn't too much of a concern for me (low speeds only).

Doable?

P.s. Sorry for the thread hijack.

Hi Tom

Firstly, a lot of my problem seems to stem from the fact that I live in WA and, now that I have read around the subject a bit on forums of the wider modification scene, it transpires that WA DoT has a bit of a reputation for being a bunch of myopic, obstructive tossers... things that are clearly legal are rejected and, worse, they take the attitude that their word is law, reacting very poorly when they are challenged to explain (arbitrary) decisions they have made based on what they would like to be the rules rather than what they actually are....

It is pretty likely that none of my problems would be a problem on the other coast.

Anyway to answer your question, because yours is a hard top, there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever why you shouldn't put the factory optional seats in the rear. Don't make my mistake of doing it under the LK modification codes though (Seating and Occupant Protection) as it is likely that the factory original seat and seatbelt mounts will not meet the required modern standards and you will not be able to simply bolt in the original parts as per the part manual. Also you may end up with head clearance issues. Do it instead under the LH codes, specifically LH7 Body/Chassis Variant Conversion, which means that you would bolt in bog standard factory parts in their factory configuration and no-one can complain if things don't come up to modern standards - if it was good enough at the time under 2nd Edition ADRs then it is good enough for the vehicle now.

Cheers

Alistair