Chassis Damage & Reexport

[djr81]

Just a quick question. I ahve been asked to sign a disclaimer from a RAWs workshop (Standard doc) which amongst other things says that the cost of dealing with a vehicle not fit for compliance was mine. Now I was under an understanding that it belonged to the broker/RAWS workshop?

I was digging through the sludge in the DOTARS website but I can't even find any reference to it. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Oh, and before anyone gets fired up, no there is no problem with any workshop or any car.

[raz0r$harP.UK]

I don't recall anything in the legislation mandating costs to be borne by a RAWS. They pay DOTARS a $500 fee for re-inspection but it doesn't specify who pays for any costs after that.

And generally from the T&C I've seen costs of dealing with an uncompliable car are passed onto the consumer. I'd expect it to be the same across the place.

[djr81]

I meant in the instance of the vehicle being "not fit for compliance" & unfixable rather than just plain failing an inspection.

I had thought that the RAWS had certain obligation to fulfill BEFORE the car was shipped. Obviously I got it wrong.

Given that the broker is the same company as the compliance shop I would like to see how they would wriggle out of paying for it in any case.

[Guest]

Firstly the document is a requirement for ISO accreditation and below is how some people view the point, I am not saying it is how a workshop is to operate or what you can force them to do or be held responsible for.

For personal importers this is the other side of the double edge sword, under common law all parts removed are to be given back to the owner of the vehicle since it is their property as in After Market bits are to be returned if making standard for compliance, so since you own the vehicle and their is a problem with the car the problem is yours to sort out.

If the vehicle cant be plated and isn't owned by the RAW the seat belts are to be cut, air bag removed, VIN number cut out and JDM compliance plate removed and given back to the owner. If the RAW owns the vehicle it is to be exported or crushed as in whole car nothing is to be removed.

According to the RAWS guide "It is expected that a RAW would take all reasonable steps to avoid importing a crash damaged or corroded vehicle." it isnt saying a RAW is held accountable.

This is part of what is in some agreements,

I "Who ever is importing the car" have read and understand the SEVS (Specialist and Enthusiast vehicle Scheme) requirements.

http://raws.dotars.gov.au/legislation.htm http://raws.dotars.gov.au/index.html

http://raws.dotars.gov.au/raws_online_guide.htm and are satisfied that the vehicle meets these requirements.

All vehicles supplied to for compliance must meet the criteria set by VSS (Vehicle Safety Standards), under the RAWS (Registered Automotive Workshop Scheme) guidelines. Acceptance of this offer is an agreement by vehicle owner confirming they have read them and their understanding of these requirements under the RAWS.

If you want to "save all this money" you are told will happen you have to take risks and that is one of them, at least you are told before you buy the car not after like what has happened to other people.

Buying a car that is spammed out as "minor accident repair cant be seen" is playing with fire as the RAW is the one who decides what is ok and what isn't not some guy in Japan.

[djr81]

Interesting.

I should explain a little.

Firstly I have no problem with regard to either my car or my RAW at this point. It is all good.

But I was suprised by some of the content of the agreement I was asked to sign subsequent to me buying the car through the RAW.

#1

 I understand that should the above mentioned vehicle arrive in a condition not fit for compliance, it shall be disposed of in accordance with the Guide to Registered Automotive Workshops at a cost to myself as the customer.

#2

 I acknowledge that it is my responsibility to provide the original Japanese De-Registration Certificate as required by the RAW to prove the origin of the vehicle.

#3

 I acknowledge that any recall on this vehicle carried out in the next 10 years shall be the financial responsibility of myself as the customer.

As for #1 - well I would be somehwat unhappy (to put it mildly) to have to pay for the disposal of a car bought through the same broker/RAW.

#2. Not sure why it is my responsibility to do this when clearly the broker is engaged for this sort of thing.

#3. The language here is a bit loose. I understand that they meant to say a recall from the manufacturer. I don't see how a recall on their work (compliance work especially) can be held to be my financial responsibility...

[raz0r$harP.UK]

I can only guess here but here's my thoughts

#1 - Your questions are similar to mine, I would just put forward the 'what if' scenario to them and ask what they would do to try and help you out

#2 - The times I've imported the original dereg cert has been mailed to me from Japan so perhaps that's what they are saying, that you need to provide that to them?

#3 - Section 7.3 of the RAWS Recall Code states that 'the RAW is responsible for all costs in a recall.' My reading of it is that it doesn't really specify to what extent this applies. Would be worth reading over the code and then putting the questions back to them.

Actually just another thought on #3. I know of several ppl in Victoria who needed further compliance work carried out some years after their cars were complied, arising from some CPA holders who didn't perform all the necessary work. The workshop had since been closed, but in their cases VicRoads paid for the work to be conducted on the vehicles.

[djr81]

For personal importers this is the other side of the double edge sword, under common law all parts removed are to be given back to the owner of the vehicle since it is their property as in After Market bits are to be returned if making standard for compliance, so since you own the vehicle and their is a problem with the car the problem is yours to sort out.

If the vehicle cant be plated and isn't owned by the RAW the seat belts are to be cut, air bag removed, VIN number cut out and JDM compliance plate removed and given back to the owner. If the RAW owns the vehicle it is to be exported or crushed as in whole car nothing is to be removed.

According to the RAWS guide "It is expected that a RAW would take all reasonable steps to avoid importing a crash damaged or corroded vehicle." it isnt saying a RAW is held accountable.

This is part of what is in some agreements,

All vehicles supplied to for compliance must meet the criteria set by VSS (Vehicle Safety Standards), under the RAWS (Registered Automotive Workshop Scheme) guidelines. Acceptance of this offer is an agreement by vehicle owner confirming they have read them and their understanding of these requirements under the RAWS.

If you want to "save all this money" you are told will happen you have to take risks and that is one of them, at least you are told before you buy the car not after like what has happened to other people.

Buying a car that is spammed out as "minor accident repair cant be seen" is playing with fire as the RAW is the one who decides what is ok and what isn't not some guy in Japan.

I can see how the agreement would protect the RAWS workshop in the event of a third party being the broker or the car being bought directly from Japan. It is infact a very powerful reason for using the RAWS workshop as the broker. They find the car & therefore assure you it is acceptable for compliance. If you use an independent broker as often as not they get you to sign a similar agreement rendering them blameless if the vehicle is not up to scratch. There is scope to be stuck in the middle with a worthless, unregisterable car.

Why I don't understand is why a company with arrangements for brokerage & compliance would fail to leverage them as much as possible. Using agreements holding the customer responsible may very well be in the best interests of the RAWS component of the business but is surely only half the story.

[Guest]

Recalls are for life of model so for ever and Recalls are the RAWS problem not yours, people cut the shit out of pricing for compliance work and they dont leave money aside to cover this at a later date so if their is a problem they go shit how do we pay for this, if you think it is your problem you wont go bothering the RAW, the answers are their just depends if you want to look but I can see are.

If they buy graded cars from the right people not damaged stock from a spammed out email their shouldn't be a problem with the car, a RAW is the best person (in most cases) to ask who wouldn't they comply for and what to look for. It is in their interest because who are you going to tell if you are looked after or get screwed over.

Their are reason's why I charge more for compliance of a car and why I knock back half the work I am offered as I never want to tell a guy his car is two half's so scrap it and the truth scares people away when you tell them everything before they buy the car as in cost's, time frame, risk's and so on.

[32vspecII]

this is the risk of importing a car , if you pick one that cant be complied you picked , bought it and own it , what does it have to do with the raw ?

If you can in some way prove the agent acting to import the car for you knowingly misleeded you to the condition of the car then you may have a case under fair traiding legistlation

[Guest]

Agent or Broker is a get out of jail card if you read their fine print they only "assist" not make the decision on which car to buy, you bought the car of some guy in another country so nothing fair trading can do as people on the forum have experienced this first hand.

[32vspecII]

if it could be proven that the supplier in japan and the agent in australia conspired to bring a car in deliberately and knowingly that was not fit for purpose could you possibly have some recall under the fair trading act against the australian agent?