John Brett

John is a professional engineer with 50 years experience.

John has designed and built many cars, trucks, and vehicle assembly facilities.

John has worked on design of roads, bridges, cranes, transmission towers, and buildings, and operation, maintenance and upgrade of hydro and gas turbine power stations.

John was a LVV Certifier for 13 years. John has long been a whistle-blower, expressing the view that the LVV system is dangerously deficient. John's authority was revoked in December 2012.

John rides a 1992 Yamaha FJ1200ABS, and is also a keen road and off road cyclist.

APOLOGY

“The LVVTA has brought it to my attention that statements I have made in relation to it and its employees may have been perceived as defamatory.

I sincerely regret that and apologise for any harm caused. I have taken down the statements identified by the LVVTA of concern to it.

I have strong views about the low volume vehicle certification process and intend in the future to direct my energies into the public inquiry now being held in relation to it.”

John Brett 7th October 2015

Disclaimer

1. Disclaimer

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this web site do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the owners of this website or official policies of the owners of this website

2. Copyright Statement and Policy

A. The author of each article published on this web site owns his or her own words.
B. The articles on this web site may be freely redistributed in other media and non-commercial publications as long as the following conditions are met.
(i) The redistributed article may not be abridged, edited or altered in any way without the express consent of the author.
(ii) The redistributed article may not be sold for a profit or included in another media or publication that is sold for a profit without the express consent of the author.
(iii) The articles on this web site may be included in a commercial publication or other media only if prior consent for republication is received from the author. The author may request compensation for republication for commercial uses.

3. Submissions

An article may be submitted for possible publication on this web site in the following manner.
A. Logging in an Author
B. The website owners reserve the right to approve or decline Authors
C. Articles are published on this web site only on the condition that the author agrees to the terms of the Copyright Statement and Policy above.

Defamation Trial date set.

CIV-2015-404-001925 Mr AP Johnson and Low Volume Vehicle Technical Association vs John Brett
I will be self representing as a Lay Litigant

3 Day Trial Auckland High Court
Jul 31 – Aug 2 · Auckland High Court · Auckland
3 people interested · 1 person going

I have written to Mr Johnson, the LVVTA, all LVVTA Counsel members, and other interested parties, asking what they hope to achieve by this action.
I pointed out that it is going to be very costly for the LVVTA, (in additional to expenses already incurred). I cannot see any possible gain to them even if they were to win the case.

I have yet to hear any reply.

John Brett

Freedom of the Press

“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.

“Press freedom is one of the most important freedoms in a civilised society. It allows us to discover things about the world, including things the powers-that-be would prefer to keep hidden, and it allows us to give our own take on the world, too. It’s the freedom that lets us see what’s going on, and to say our piece about it. It’s the building block of democracy, and of liberty. In the words of Thomas Jefferson: ‘Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press.’ ”

Extract from Editorial by BRENDAN O’NEILL
EDITOR, SPIKED.

NZ Legislation- Bill of Rights

Imported Modified Vehicles

In an email received from NZTA is this content:

“Good afternoon,

In September we invited you to comment on a proposed change to the process for imported modified vehicles, which would allow these vehicles to be excluded from LVV certification in New Zealand if they’ve already met appropriate overseas standards.

Please find attached a document which provides a summary of the key feedback received and our response to that feedback, and an update on what’s happening next.

We also invited comment on a second proposal that would provide an alternative way for approved commercial modifiers to achieve LVV certification for series production-based vehicle modifications. We’re in the process of collating and responding to the feedback we received on that topic, in parallel with running a pilot of the proposed process, and will provide an update on that activity within the next few weeks.
You’ve received this email because you previously indicated that you wanted to be kept informed of progress on the LVV Review, and/or because you made a submission on a discussion document relating to the processes mentioned above. Please let us know by return email if you’d like to be removed from this mailing list: lvreview@nzta.govt.nz
NZ Transport Agency
National Office / Victoria Arcade, 50 Victoria Street,
Private Bag 6995, Wellington 6141, New Zealand

Here is a link to the PDF containing the full details
imported_modified_vehicles_-_update_to_submitters

Here’s one of the first examples of imported modified vehicles (built in France, Certified to E standards) which should be arriving in NZ very soon.

French Built U-Drive Skoda Yeti mobility vehicle, Certified to E

French Built U-Drive Skoda Yeti mobility vehicle, Certified to E

Low Volume Vehicle Certification review- update from NZTA 31 August 2015

In an email received from the LVReview@nzta.govt.nz is this content:

In our last email update, we told you about a number of changes we were working on to improve the Low Volume Vehicle (LVV) system. Those changes have now been completed and further information about them follows. This update also contains information about work underway to provide alternative pathways to LVV certification for lower-risk modifications. Please find following some questions and answers – we’ve also added these to our website so the latest information is available to everyone.

We’ll contact you soon with further updates about the review. We’ll only contact you when we have something new to say, and anticipate this won’t be for a few weeks.

What has happened since the last update?

Since we last updated you in May 2016, we have finalised the following actions:

Improving certifier consistency:
• The Low Volume Vehicle Technical Association (LVVTA) has completed an update of all standards so there is a single, up-to-date source of information for both certifiers and modifiers. As a result, certifiers will need to rely less on instructions issued via LVVTA information sheets, and customers will find it easier to locate information on requirements and will experience more consistent interpretation and application of standards by certifiers. The latest versions of all standards are available in the Documents section of the LVVTA’s website.
• Although there will always be a level of interpretation and individual decision-making exercised by certifiers, it’s important that certifiers can see where their decision-making may be out of step with other certifiers. To achieve this, the LVVTA has established a certifier Community of Practice, and the first meeting was held in Auckland on 26 June. The next meeting is planned for 13 September, and future meetings will occur around every two months.
• We have ensured there will be an increased focus on consistency in the LVVTA’s certifier training – using the results of form set audits and common queries to identify individual and group training needs – and more opportunities within the training for certifiers to share with and learn from others, through case studies and group discussion of challenging cases.
• The LVVTA has formalised a new requirement for LVV certifiers to ‘co-certify’ (with another certifier) at least one vehicle per year, by adding this to the Operating Requirements Schedule (ORS).
• We have increased the frequency of auditing of certifiers carried out by our Certification Officers, to further ensure high standards are being maintained.
• The LVVTA is continuing to research options and approaches for making the Hobby Car Technical Manual available online. We expect the manual to be published online by the end of October 2016, and it will be renamed. (Comment- About time- ‘Hobby Car Manual’ was completely inappropriate)

Tailoring certification processes to risk

Together with the LVVTA, we consulted with certifiers and modifiers on short-term options for tailoring LVV certification to risk. As a result of the feedback we received, the LVVTA has:
• changed the certification process so that low-risk (‘below threshold’) modifications are excluded from LVV certification when more significant modifications are being certified
• increased the range of modifications that can be certified by different categories of LVV certifiers, which has increased the number of potential certifiers available for most types of certification, and
• excluded brake-testing from certain LVV certifications where it is not relevant to the modifications that have been made.
The result of these changes is that the time and complexity of some certifications will be reduced, as fewer items will need to be tested, and customers will find it easier to find a certifier for their vehicle.
The LVV Code and ORS have been updated to reflect the changes above, and LVV certifiers are currently receiving training on all these aspects.

Reviewing roles, functions and performance metrics
We’ve completed a review of the roles and functions of the various parties to the LVV system, and strengthened these where necessary to support good performance of the system. Some of the changes made include:
• formalising and documenting the LVVTA process for regularly updating the LVV Standards and Code
• reinstating regular formal meetings of the LVVTA-Transport Agency Policy Working Group
• confirming and clarifying the LVVTA’s processes for reporting on certifier performance, and
• formalising the Transport Agency’s annual auditing and review of LVVTA.

What work is happening now?
We’re currently working on further ways to tailor certification to risk, and are working with the LVVTA and industry to develop streamlining options. Our work focuses on vehicles that are currently required to undergo LVV certification, but are lower risk because:
• they’ve been produced in a commercial, production-based setting with quality controls in place, or
• they’ve already met appropriate standards overseas.
The options we’re working on are:
• creating a commercial sub-committee of the LVVTA’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to enable quicker decision-making on approvals for innovative commercial designs
• allowing some modified vehicles imported from other countries to be exempted from LVV certification in New Zealand, if they’ve already met appropriate standards overseas, and
• providing an alternative way for commercial modifiers to achieve LVV certification for production-based vehicle modifications (sometimes referred to as ‘type certification’).
Once implemented, these changes will streamline certification processes and make it quicker and easier to get lower-risk modifications certified, creating benefits for commercial modifiers and importers of modified vehicles. We will consult key parties on the detailed changes in early September, and use their feedback to help refine the new processes. This consultation will include inviting members of this distribution list to provide their views, so you will receive more detailed information about the proposed changes soon. We expect the first of these new processes to be implemented in October and will gradually roll out further changes as they’re developed.

Why weren’t more tailored certification options rolled out sooner?
The options we’re considering represent more significant change to the LVV system than the short-term tailoring options that have already been implemented. They require us to consult and work closely with the LVVTA, LVV certifiers, and industry members to ensure they are implemented effectively. The LVV system is complex, both in terms of the way the sector is regulated and the legislation that supports it. We want to make sustainable changes, so taking a collaborative, considered approach is critical.

What’s happening next?
Through October, we’ll continue to work towards implementing further options for tailored certification described above. Once the changes have been implemented we’ll take stock of the improvements made, and consider whether any further changes are required to improve the functioning of the LVV system.

NZTA webpage

Low volume vehicle certification review (phase 2)

From NZTA:
This is to let you know we have updated our website with a new Questions and Answers document to provide an overview of work since we last communicated with you, and work currently under way.

Since we last updated you in December 2015, we have finalised our actions around:
• Increasing Transport Agency oversight of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and
• Increasing user awareness of the TAC process as the pathway for innovative new approaches or materials and for specialist enquiries.
We have also made significant progress on the actions relating to:
• Working with the LVVTA and certifiers to ensure users experience consistent interpretation and application of standards.
• Developing and implementing tailored certification processes that reflect the risks associated with different types of modifications and the contexts of different sector groups.
• Reviewing and clarifying the roles, functions and performance metrics of the LVVTA, LVV certifiers and the Transport Agency in respect of the LVV system.
Included in the updated Q&As document is the following:
• Links to flow charts to step users through the LVV system, and case studies on our website profiling recent approvals for variation from technical requirements to show the sorts of modifications and variations that the LVVTA’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) deals with.
• An update on various initiatives to improve the consistency of certification decisions. This work was in response to concerns raised in the survey we conducted last year. LVVTA has already introduced changes to increase certifier consistency, and the additional changes planned or underway should see this improve further. We have already received feedback from industry that consistency has been improving.
• An update on our work to investigate tailored certification processes that reflect the risks associated with different types of modifications and the circumstances of different sector groups.
We’ll contact you soon with a further update about the review. We’ll only contact you when we have something new to say, and anticipate this won’t be for a few weeks.

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/low-volume-vehicle-certification-review/low-volume-vehicle-certification-review-phase-2/

Low-volume-vehicle-certification-review-QAs-phase-2-update-201605(2)

Give a Little- Please!

ALTHOUGH WE WON THE CASE THE COURT DID NOT AWARD COSTS (18TH MARCH 2016)

The cost to me of defending Mr Johnson’s application for an Injunction to suppress this website has been $8264
Huge thanks to the generous donors who have already contributed $1233.45.

My financial position now is RETIRED, (now my LVV Certification authority has been revoked) and my only income is from National Super.

We WON the case, and Mr Johnson and the LVVTA were DENIED the Injunction that they wanted.
We WON because New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, gives the entitlement to free speech, according to clause 3(b) relating to “by any person or body in the performance of any public function, power, or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to law”. This clearly applies to Mr Johnson and the LVVTA.
New Zealand Bill of Rights

I then applied to the High Court for costs, although I represented myself, I had extensive legal help from Andrea Halloran, Staff Barrister, of Chris Patterson Barrister Limited

The Judges decision has finally arrived- Judge Woolford has decreed that Costs shall lie where they fall- in other words- I can claim nothing.

My actions were motivated by concern for public safety, and the way the Low Volume system was being run, and aimed at provoking the NZTA into reviewing the Low Volume Vehicle Certification system.
This is now happening, and I await to see the final outcome. I hope that we will have once again a workable Low Volume Vehicle Certification system which will benefit all Vehicle Modifiers.

FREE SPEECH about the dangers of the LVV System has cost me my LVV Certification business, instigated by Mr Johnson, and now, thousands of dollars to defend against Mr Johnson’s allegations of DEFAMATION.

The $7544 debt is a burden in my retirement, and I would appreciate any further donations, no matter how small, and call on everyone who will benefit from new Low Volume Certification system to make a small donation.

NEWS 23rd May 2016 – MR JOHNSON’S LAWYERS HAVE ADVISED THE REGISTRAR OF THE HIGH COURT THAT HE INTENDS TO CONTINUE TO A DEFAMATION TRIAL.

I have served my statement of defense, and there is a Case management Conference on 1st September before a Judge.

NEWS 2 August 2016- The Give a Little page has closed, and can’t be revived. So we have started another page, with exactly the same content. Not showing is the $1233.45 already donated

See Give a Little
and
Donate

Thank you for your support, now and in the past

John Brett

Low volume vehicle certification review (phase 1)

From the NZTA website:

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/low-volume-vehicle-certification-review
Low volume vehicle certification review (phase 1)

Published: October 2015 | Category: Research & reports | Audience: Motorists

The Low Volume Vehicle (LVV) certification system for scratch-built or modified vehicles is being reviewed to ensure it is still fit for purpose, and to look for ways it could be improved.

As a starting point, we commissioned Standards New Zealand to undertake an independent survey with a wide range of users of the LVV system, to understand their perspectives on which elements of the current system are working well, and those that are not working so well. This report outlines the findings of this consultation. There are also some Q&As that provide further information.

We are analysing the findings, along with other relevant information available to us (such as customer feedback, and correspondence such as Official Information Act requests) to form a picture of potential changes we can make to the system.

As decisions are made about those changes, we will update the information on this website.
Publication details

Author: Standards New Zealand
Published: October 2015
Contact: lvreview@nzta.govt.nz

Browse section/chapter

Low-volume-vehicle-certification-review-QAs(3)

Scoping-report-for-review-of-the-LVV-certification-system(1)

Web: www.standards.co.nz | Email: enquiries@standards.co.nz | Phone: +64 4 498 5990

Electronic Systems- LVV standard required?

It is no secret that a modern car is becoming a computer on wheels. Critical functions such as braking, steering, chassis dynamics are becoming- not just electronically enhanced, but electronically CONTROLLED by embedded software and electronics systems. Self-driving cars are not yet on New Zealand roads, but they do exist- and most of the enabling technology already exists to varying degrees in most modern vehicles.

Even in STUFF.co.nz Motoring section

Drive-by-Wire is not some futuristic concept. Drivers today are already “driving by wire” far more than they suspect.
Pressing the brake pedal simply starts a process controlled by electronics. The brakes can be applied even without the driver pressing the pedal. Steering on some new models is fly-by wire. Traction control, chassis control all have electronic systems that over-ride the driver.
Disability drive by wire control systems exist and are used in other countries. Using such systems, a driver can control steering, acceleration, braking all from a tiny joy-stick- just like the pilot of a modern jet fighter or airliner! At present there is no process to allow such systems in New Zealand, and they are ruled out by the Low Volume Vehicle Technical Association.
Driving with a joystick

Safety is also a key area that is electronically managed- a possible approaching collision can trigger self-actuating brakes, then arm airbags and seat-belt pretensioners according to tested protocols, activate safety systems in the event of an impact, and even send out an emergency message!

rightcar.govt.nz/protection-during-a-crash

There are International Standards such as ISO 26262 is a Functional Safety standard, titled “Road vehicles – Functional safety”

Modifications impinge on these Electronic Systems in many ways. Examples include seat and seat-belt modifications, disability adaptions, power train, suspension or brake modifications or changes, and structural modifications.

At present, all of this passes below the Low Volume radar- the Low Volume Vehicle Certifier may or may not identify modifications affecting electronic systems, and may or may not make a sensible decisions about whether the modification can be allowed, if so what the affects might be, and what actions should be taken to achieve a reasonably safe vehicle.
The Low Volume Vehicle Certifier may or may not not adequately understand the implications of the modifications.
The Low Volume Vehicle Certifier may or may not not document all of this for his own records, or may not document anything.

There is no guidance available, and no formal processes for a Low Volume Vehicle Certifier to follow.
The contingent liability for injuries of death could be high- It might be argued that a modification affected an electronic system to the extent of causing or contributing to an accident, or that the modification resulted in greater exposure of the vehicle occupants to Injury or death.

A formal process needs to be written as a “Low Volume Vehicle Standard” to ensure optimized vehicle safety, provide guidance to LVV Certifiers, and to protect all parties from potential legal action.
Such a Standard should follow steps such as : 1 Identify, 2 Quantify, 3 Justify, 4 Certify.

Now check out what a hacker can do:

Government probe into LVVTA and LVV system

1 Low volume vehicle review welcomed

Press release- NZ Police
Thursday, 9 July 2015, 11:53 am

and
Hon Craig Foss

Hon Craig Foss
Associate Minister of Transport
9 July 2015

Low volume vehicle review welcomed

Associate Transport Minister Craig Foss is welcoming a review of the certification process for vehicles built from scratch or modified for a specialised purpose.

The review of low volume vehicle (LVV) certification, initiated by the New Zealand Transport Agency, will be undertaken by Standards New Zealand.

“The LVV certification process is about ensuring vehicles built from scratch or modified for a specialised purpose are safe to be on the road,” Mr Foss says.

The review will begin this month with a scoping phase. This will involve working closely with the vehicle industry, certifiers and others to better understand the strengths of the current system and potential areas for improvement.

“Standards New Zealand brings an independent perspective to this review. I’m pleased it will be seeking feedback from a wide range of people, including those in the industry,” Mr Foss says.

“I’m keen to ensure our LVV certification system enables innovators to utilise new technologies and create opportunities.”

More information on the LVV certification process: www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/warrants-and-certificates/modifying-your-vehicle

Craig Foss Letter and Standards Association review proposal

Statement from David Seymour, Epsom electorate MP, leader of the ACT party New Zealand, and qualified Engineer

“I have viewed the reports related to UDM’s vehicles, both those prepared by LVVTA and those by professional engineers. It is clear that the LVV process, while ideal for builders of hot rods, kit cars, and the like, does not have the technical expertise to service commercial operators working closer to the frontier of technology.

A review of this system is long overdue. If New Zealand is going to be have the knowledge economy that most of us want, it must have a regulatory environment that works.”

3 Government minister to probe NZTA ban on wheelchair-access vehicles
Automotive News

Associate-Transport-Minister-Craig-Foss

Associate-Transport-Minister-Craig-Foss

ACT-leader-David-Seymour

ACT-leader-David-Seymour

Roger-Phillips, UDM

Roger-Phillips, UDM

CARTOON CENSORED

Engineer’s report on faulty wheelchair vehicles haunts NZTA (UN-SAFER JOURNEYS?)

KIVI Kea Carnival conversion

KIVI Kea Carnival conversion

Automotive News

The NZ Transport Agency dismissed a written report from one of its senior engineers warning that millions of dollars worth of wheelchair-access vehicles imported from Italy for use by the Accident Compensation Commission were unsafe and should not be allowed on NZ roads until they were repaired.

Tauranga mechanical engineer Bill Cassidy – a long-time NZTA heavy vehicle certifier – listed seven major faults with the heavily modified vehicles, questioning their life expectancy and saying they could risk life and limb because of “poor workmanship.”

But the NZTA said Cassidy’s findings didn’t justify “further enquiry” because the vehicles had already “been certified in New Zealand under the Low Volume Vehicle Code”(LVV). The code is road-worthiness approval issued by NZTA-appointed LVV certifiers supported and trained by the Low Volume Vehicle Technical Association (LVVTA), a blood relative of the NZTA set up in the late 1990s to certify ‘hobby’ vehicles like hot-rods.

WHAT ENGINEER CASSIDY FOUND …

In the six-plus years since Cassidy’s report – November 10, 2008 – the 90 Italian-modified vehicles have needed on-going repairs at a cost independent engineers have put at hundreds of thousands of dollars on top of the $NZ8.34 million ACC paid for them. Carterton company Braiden International did many of the repairs under a government agency contract, company spokesperson Rochelle Williams confirmed.

The vehicles – 50 long- and 40 short-wheelbase Kia Carnival vans – were converted in 2007-08 by Italian company KIVI and bought by the ACC for its disabled clients. The ACC had cancelled an agreement with its NZ supplier of such vehicles. The long-wheelbase Italian models each cost $NZ94,825 and the short-wheelbase $NZ89,599. KIVI, based near Turin, is a long-time supplier of vehicles for European health agencies.

Cassidy’s findings included:

a modified rear suspension assembly that would (and later did) fracture under stress
a relocated spare wheel that could break loose from its makeshift mounting and become a “missile” inside the cabin – “a lethal situation”
a replacement floor “not made to accepted engineering practice” and made of steel so “flexible” it could “distort upwards into the passenger compartment” in an accident
an airbag system whose inspection module had been “modified” to show it was working when it wasn’t
seatbelts anchored to the floor in a way that didn’t comply with the Low Volume Vehicle Code

ACC COMPLAINS OF CASSIDY’S ‘CONDUCT’ …

Cassidy sent his report to ACC executive John Payne. On November 19, 2008, Cassidy received a reply – not from Payne but NZTA response team manager Dave Robson. Robson wrote that the NZTA had received a complaint from the ACC “about your conduct as a NZTA-appointed heavy vehicle certifier.”

Robson went on … “Further I have read your deed of appointment and have been unable to locate a clause which authorises you to specifically enquire into Low Volume Vehicle certification issues or to demand information from vehicle modifiers or any other persons in relation to Low Volume vehicles.”

Addressing Cassidy’s criticisms of the Italian vehicles Robson wrote, in part … “the technical department within the NZ Transport Agency have not found that your specific complaints justify further enquiry as they are satisfied that vehicle does not currently present a risk to land transport safety.”

Cassidy soon fired back, saying Robson had “jumped to conclusions without ascertaining the facts.” He said he had a contract with the ACC to inspect the ‘engineering’ issues of the vehicles in production, “as a professional engineer, not as a certifier.”

Cassidy further told Robson that ACC executive Gail Kettle had asked him early in August, 2008, if he would like to see one of the Italian-modified Kias. Robson later replied, saying “it is not my intent to enter into a debate over the issue.”

ACC THOUGHT ITALIAN VEHICLE WAS ‘BEE’S KNEES’ …

Cassidy had had many dealings with Kettle, then the ACC purchasing executive for health and provider relationships. Cassidy had previously inspected vehicles modified for the ACC by Waikato firm Vehicle Adaption Services (VAS). Kettle cancelled the ACC agreement with VAS after a recall over a reported seatbelt malfunction and chose Italian firm KIVI as the preferred new supplier. Kettle is now the Earthquake Commission’s general manager customer and claims.

The vehicle Kettle arranged for Cassidy to see was trucked from Wellington to Tauranga, where it was met by an ACC occupational therapist. “Gail Kettle wanted me to check it out because she thought it was the bee’s knees,” Cassidy said. It was late in the evening when he met the therapist at an ACC’s client house. “The therapist asked me about towbars, seatbelts and the vehicle in general. Only a brief inspection by torchlight was possible. I asked if I could inspect it properly in the morning light but she said she had to drive it to Auckland that night.”

What Cassidy had seen in a few minutes concerned him, he said. “For a start the heavily modified rear end wasn’t strong enough to accommodate a towbar.” He said he met with Kettle weeks later on another matter. “I hinted that I wasn’t happy with what I had seen with the Italian vehicles. She was in a hurry to get to a meeting and that was the last conversation I had with her,” said Cassidy.

IDENTICAL VEHICLE HAD ‘REMEDIAL’ WORK DONE ON IT …

Over the next few weeks Cassidy arranged to inspect an identical vehicle in use by a family in Te Awamutu. He said the family told him the vehicle had just had ‘remedial’ work done on it in Wellington. On November 6, 2008, Cassidy checked out the Italian-modified van at the VAS workshop, in Matangi, near Cambridge.

With him, he said, were NZTA reviewer Bruce Adams (confirmed later by Robson’s letter to Cassidy) and LVVTA certifier Neal Miller. Days later Cassidy sent his report to the ACC’s Payne. He said that whatever ‘remedial’ work had been done on the vehicle in Wellington, the faults he identified were still present. His was the only signature on the letter.

In December, 2012, the NZTA’s sidekick the LVVTA issued a recall on its website – www.ivvta.org.nz – for the long-wheelbase vans to repair “fracturing to trailing arms” in the rear suspension. The recall mentioned “incorrect suspension geometry and poor workmanship involved in the modification process.” The LVVTA said Braiden International would do the repairs. The repairs weren’t completed until late 2013, early 2014, said Braiden’s Rochelle Williams.

The “fracturing” the LVVTA said needed fixing was exactly what Cassidy had said would happen back in 2008. He identified “incorrect suspension geometry” and “poor workmanship” back then too. Cassidy is one of the NZTA’s most reputable professional engineers. Why wasn’t his 2008 warning to the NZTA and ACC acted on? Why wasn’t it passed to the LVVTA, which is indirectly responsible for certifying wheelchair-access vehicles.

NZTA CERTIFIER’S TIME FRAME WAS ‘VERY LIMITED’ …

LVVTA chief Tony Johnson said he never received a copy of Cassidy’s 2008 letter. “Had we been made aware of the issues identified by Mr Cassidy we certainly would have become involved earlier,” he said.

Johnson said the LVVTA didn’t certify the vehicles. “Nor do we certify any vehicles. Modified vehicles are inspected and approved by independent LVV certifiers who are appointed by the NZTA. LVVTA’s role is to provide technical support and training to the LVV certifiers.”

He said he understood the certifier’s time frame to inspect the vehicles was “very limited.” “I also believe he would have based some of his decisions that the vehicles were sound after reviewing the vehicles’ European type-approval certification, which was presented to the ACC team at the time of inspection,” Johnson said.

Johnson said he agreed that there were problems with the vehicles’ design and construction. “But in balance they would have been very difficult for (the certifier) to identify in isolation. It’s easier to identify problems with the luxury of several heads, and several hours, particularly when someone is bringing problems to your attention.”

But engineer Cassidy identified on his own, in a few minutes, in a Tauranga driveway, in the dark, with a torch, that the modified vehicles for which the ACC had paid $8.34 million didn’t stack up.

Weeks later, with the NZTA’s Adams and LVV certifier Miller in tow, Cassidy inspected an identical example, this time for three or four hours, in a garage workshop, on and off a hoist. Days later, the NZTA rejected Cassidy’s report that the vehicles were badly flawed. Since then the NZ taxpayer has had to fork out hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix what the NZTA said in 2008 wasn’t a problem.

MY COMMENT ON THIS
All modified vehicles entering the NZ Fleet need to be LVV Certified, according to the Vehicle Standards Compliance Rule 2002, Clause 6.5(1)(c)

Clause 3.2 Action following failure to comply with conditions of appointment or with this rule
3.2(1) If the Director has reason to believe that a vehicle inspector or inspecting organisation has failed to comply with any of the conditions of their appointment, or has failed to comply with this rule, the Director may require the inspector or organisation to undergo such an investigation and to provide such information as the Director reasonably considers appropriate.

3.2(2) Subject to 3.2(3), if, following an investigation under 3.2(1), the Director is satisfied that a vehicle inspector or inspecting organisation has failed to comply with any of the conditions of their appointment, or failed to comply with this rule, the Director may do one or more of the following:

(a) require that remedial action, such as training, be undertaken by the inspector or organisation;
(b) suspend the whole or any part of the appointment of the inspector or organisation for a specified period or until specified conditions are met;
(c) revoke the whole or any part of the appointment of the inspector or organisation.

THE LOW VOLUME VEHICLE SYSTEM HAS LOST THE ABILITY TO CARRY OUT HIGHER LEVEL CERTIFICATIONS SUCH AS THESE, BECAUSE

A ….. LVV STANDARDS COVER ONLY VERY BASIC MODIFICATIONS.
B ….. THE SKILLED AND QUALIFIED CERTIFIERS HAVE LEFT THE SYSTEM, REPLACED BY ‘HOBBYIST’ CERTIFIERS.

The LVV system is reverting to just a low-level ‘hobby car’ certification system.

We intend to make an official Information Request to NZTA as to how these vehicles were permitted to enter the NZ Fleet, what Technical Evaluation was carried out, and what remedial action the Director will be taking.

LVV Certification Satisfaction Survey

Survey now closed, results to be provided to NZTA