Position Statement- John Brett
I commenced Low Volume Vehicle Certification in April 1999 when the LVV System was overhauled, and was administered by Motorsafe.
I have been told that Mr Johnson (then a Technical Officer with the LVVTA) very angry that LVV Certifiers had been appointed who were NOT from his Hot-Rod mates.
I rapidly built up a large and loyal client base, and have LVV Certified over 4500 vehicles
I was considered an excellent Certifier by all my clients, and by LTSA and their successor NZTA, consistently getting near maximum scores on my PRS reviews. I have a large file of very positive references.
The website New Zealand Complaints has NO complaints about my company, however the recent survey on the Low Volume Vehicle system showed only 8.99% of respondents satisfied with the LVVTA
There were no Low Volume Vehicle standards at that time, other than the ‘Hot Rod Manual’. I used international standards such as ADR when required.
Mr Johnson began making complaints to the then LTSA and their successor NZTA about vehicles I had certified. Nothing I certified has caused any accident, injury or fatality. None of the complaints were upheld, and no actions were taken by LTSA or NZTA.
The LVVTA involvement in Auditing LVV Certifications began around 2007, using outside hired staff who had no previous LVV experience.
The issues raised supporting my revocation included all of these previously dismissed complaints as new issues- (Double Jeopardy)
Other later examples used to justify my revocation included many wrong statements and lies (e.g. I was blamed for faulty inspection of one vehicle which actually met standards when inspected. It had then driven for 3 months, raced, and unsafely re-modified before being reviewed) If interested my final submission is here:- IN THE DISTRICT COURT-Submission 2
Unfortunately the Judge chose to believe the litany of lies from LVVTA.
I believe that Mr Johnson and his staff have been carrying out a process of “Constructive Dismissal” for around 9 years using their review process to find fault (real or imagined) on the Certifiers that Mr Johnson wanted removed. This process is still being used to remove excellent LVV Certifiers who are not liked by Mr Johnson. Because the LVVTA system is not transparent, this cannot be proven or disproven.
In the Appeal Hearing, under my cross-examination, Mr Johnson admitted many highly dangerous and life threatening errors and practices of the LVVTA that he had previously denied.
Subsequent events are now revealing further huge areas of incompetence on the part of LVVTA and its staff. One example is body re-structure- e.g.the UDM Skoda disability vehicles. In another example the LVVTA ordered the removal of the Anti-Lock Braking from a vehicle because “LVVTA don’t understand this technology”!
In my opinion, the LVVTA have no claim to be the source of all knowledge of engineering, or even vehicle engineering.
According to legal opinion, the LVVTA have no legal right to be making LVV Certification decisions, or judging the decisions of LVV Certifiers
In my opinion, there is no way forward for the Low Volume Vehicle system until NZTA affirm the responsibility of the LVV Certifiers, and eliminate the LVVTA from the Certifying process.
In my opinion, a new culture of Safety, Innovation and Sharing of Knowledge should be the aim,
rather than the present culture of Danger, Ignorance and Authoritarianism.
I look forward to an Independent Inquiry into the Low Volume System, and offer any assistance that I can give.
John Brett June 2015