Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 65249	2006-01-12 02:12:00	Is it an offence to park outside your own house with an expired WOF?	Billy T (70)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
420366	2006-01-13 02:28:00	This snippet is from Grahams reference: "1. New Zealand's first infringement regime was introduced in 1968 and was confined to parking offences in breach of local authority bylaws and overloading offences by heavy motor vehicles." That seems quite remarkable. Does that mean before 1968, then "anything goes" ?	Terry Porritt (14)
420367	2006-01-13 02:35:00	Great news. You can legally have a vehicle without a warrant of fitness, and be immune from infringement notices. The only snag is that the vehicle must be "for use only on Matakana Island". You can have an unregistered vehicle, and use it on the roads. If it's on the Chatham Islands. But it has to have a warrant of fitness. :( Bad news. If you have a vehicle not displaying the appropriate stickers, better keep it out of sight. The definition of "road" in the LTA is fairly "flexible." As well as the expected things, a road is also "a place to which the public have access, whether as of right or not." 10 foot high block walls and razor wire seem to be indicated.	Graham L (2)
420368	2006-01-13 02:43:00	Hear hear! BUT, is it turkey twists or turkey twizzlers? (images.google.com) Yep, your right, and they look disgusting. If i had one I could try and feed it to my son, then see how severe a beating I get from Mrs Metla....	Metla (12)
420369	2006-01-13 02:50:00	This snippet is from Grahams reference: "1. New Zealand's first infringement regime was introduced in 1968 and was confined to parking offences in breach of local authority bylaws and overloading offences by heavy motor vehicles." That seems quite remarkable. Does that mean before 1968, then "anything goes" ? No such luck Terry. It took minor things out of the court system. Before, everything went to court. It might have been good for lawyers, but it didn't do much for justice. The infringement scheme means that there aren't convictions entered (because you haven't been convicted). If you want to fight an infringement notice, there is provision for appeals to the "prosecuting authority" ( see that Christchurch link I gave), and if you're not satisfied with that, you can choose to go to court. I think that can end up with a conviction, as well as a lot of expense.	Graham L (2)
420370	2006-01-13 03:12:00	So, what all this contrary discussion means for the average Joe Bloggs including me, is that the law is not well written at all . Even the road code does not mention parking without a WOF, this is all it says, which implies operating a vehicle: IMPORTANT You should not drive on the road any vehicle that is not up to warrant of fitness standard Certificate of Fitness . You can be fined if you do . A police officer can require you to stop for a roadside vehicle check at any time . (my emphasis, note it says should not, not must not . ) . ltsa . govt . nz/roadcode/your-vehicle/car-requirements1 . html" target="_blank">www . ltsa . govt . nz Perhaps it is time the road code was re-written .	Terry Porritt (14)
420371	2006-01-13 03:27:00	So, what all this contrary discussion means for the average Joe Bloggs including me, is that the law is not well written at all . . . . But you are making an elementary error . Laws don't have to be well written, sensible, nor just . They just have to be laws . :D In fact, what we still call "Warrants of Fitness" are nothing of the sort . They have been renamed in the acts, because they do not "warrant" anything . You the driver are responsible for making sure the vehicle is in a roadworthy condition . You could be prosecuted for having a vehicle not in a roadworthy condition, after being stopped driving away from the testing place with your brand new sticker . It says only that the vehicle was considered to be roadworthy at the moment when it was inspected . If a light bulb burns out as you move off . . . . tough . :D The road code is not "the law" . It's a guide . Humans can't be expected to understand the law . That's why lawyers were invented . (There had to be some reason . :D) Ignorance of the law is no defence . They've got you coming and going . :( Of course we have inherited this legal structure and our "rights" from Mother England . It could be worse .	Graham L (2)
420372	2006-01-13 03:36:00	Forgive my ignorance but what is a turkey twissler?	Dally (6292)
420373	2006-01-13 03:59:00	Forgive my ignorance but what is a turkey twissler? Check it our here (www.dailymail.co.uk) - I can almost guarantee that no turkeys were harmed in the manufacture of these food substitutes. A	andrew93 (249)
420374	2006-01-13 04:31:00	Ahhh...found my book, blew the cobwebs and associated grmlins off it. It is a "Stationary Vehicle Offence Infringement Notice" book. It is "issued under Section 42A of the Transport Act 1962 and Section 139 of the Land Transport Act 1998" There are several of the most common offences included on the face of the ticket, which includes "No Warrant of Fitness" and "Unlicensed Motor Vehicle" each of which attract a $200 fine. Now this is clearly set out in Statute which means that this can happen to anybody, anytime, anywhere NZ law applies. I also see that I have written two of these notices in the last 7 years. Obviously I am not doing my bit for revenue gathering!!!!	Tukapa (62)
420375	2006-01-13 04:37:00	As an aside, if anybody cares and can be bothered reading it, below is s139 of the Land Transport Act 1998 . 139 . Issue of infringement notice— (1)If an enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe an infringement offence is being or has been committed by a person, an infringement notice in respect of that offence may be issued to that person by an enforcement officer . (2)An infringement notice may be served— (a)By attaching it, or a copy of it, to the vehicle to which the notice relates; or (b)By delivering it, or a copy of it, personally to the person who appears to have committed the infringement offence; or (c)By sending it, or a copy of it, by post addressed to him or her at his or her last known place of residence or business or postal address; or (d)If the person is a holder of a land transport document, by serving it, or a copy of it, by post on that person at his or her last address for service provided for the purposes of that document . (3)For the purposes of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957,— (a)An infringement notice attached to a vehicle under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) is to be treated as having been served when it is attached to the vehicle: (b)An infringement notice sent to a person by post under paragraph (c) or paragraph (d) of that subsection is to be treated as having been served on the person when it would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post . (4)Every infringement notice must be in the prescribed form and must inform the person to whom it is issued that: (a)No proceedings in respect of the infringement offence will be taken if the infringement fee (including any towage fees) is paid, within 28 days after the date of issue of the notice, to the enforcement authority at the address shown in the notice; and (b)The person should write to the enforcement authority if the person wishes to— (i)Raise a matter concerning the circumstances of the offence for consideration by the enforcement authority; or (ii)Deny liability for the offence and request a court hearing; or (iii)Admit liability for the offence, but make written submissions to the court; and (c)If the person does nothing, a reminder notice explaining fully how to defend the charge and containing a statement of the person's rights will be issued to the person; and (d)In the case of a moving vehicle offence, the owner of the vehicle is responsible for moving vehicle offences committed with the vehicle unless 1 of the relevant statutory defences can be established . (5)Different forms of infringement notices may be prescribed for different kinds of infringement offences .	Tukapa (62)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9