Unregistered Vehicle Permits UVP

1

I have been trying to get a proper answer or response to what I see as a problem with VicRoads issuing Unregistered Vehicle Permits online and based on a honesty system. There is no regulation of the number of times a UVP can be issued to a vehicle and although it is about $86 more expensive to get one for 12 months in a row than paying the yearly registration fee it is still much cheaper than having to get a vehicle roadworthy.
It also raises the question if VicRoads is liable if someone is killed or injured by a unroadworthy vehicle that they have given a permit to to be able to drive on the road.
For your information a vehicle can be issued with a UVP for the express purpose of driving it to a repair shop in order to get repairs done to make it roadworthy. VicRoads issues them but cannot enforce their proper use. The police can enforce their proper use but they need to catch the person driving. If the driver says ā€œI am driving this vehicle to a repairer to get repairs doneā€ the police cannot charge the person.
To me this is a major gap that neither VicRoads or the Police are interested in.
Below is a copy of an email I have sent to the ABC in Melbourne to see if I can spark some interest.
Should I just mind my own business or should I keep pushing.
Thanks Ray

" For the past 3 months I have been corresponding with VicRoads regarding what I consider the misuse of their Unregistered Vehicle Permits.

About 12 months ago I noticed a car that is often parked in our street, pulled over by the Police and they removed the registration plates of the car as it was obviously unregistered.

After a few months of the car being parked in the personā€™s driveway I noticed it being driven around with registration plates. I was surprised as I know the fine for driving an unregistered vehicle is about $800.

I walked past the car one day about 3 months ago and noticed a form on the dash. On a closer look it was a Unregistered Vehicle Permit (UVP) which allows the owner to drive the car around to get the vehicle roadworthy and registered. They last for 28 days.

I noticed that after the UVP had expired the vehicle had a new UVP with a further 28 days. In the meantime I saw the vehicle being used as a daily drive car, at the supermarket and driving off at various times of the day. The vehicle is clearly unroadworthy as it has several cracks in the windscreen. I donā€™t like to look more closely at tyres, brake lights, indicators etc in case I am observed. Other things that only a mechanic could tell might be wrong with the car.

I felt it was proper that I report this to VicRoads that their UVPā€™s were being misused. I got a standard response to my email that did not even address what I had told them but advised me if the vehicle was emitting smoke to contact the EPA or if being driven erratically to call Victoria Police.

I then tried to find a contact for someone higher up than the Customer Response Management (CRM) team. I could not find any emails to anyone higher on their website.

I looked up on LinkedIn the name of VicRoads CEO, a man by the name of Dean Tilson and sent him a message explaining my report and the response I received.

After a week or 2 I received an email from someone from the CRM team saying that Mr Tilson had asked them to contact me. I explained what my issue was and also sent them photos of the 2 consecutive UVPā€™s displayed on the car. I received a response that VicRoads issue the permits but do not enforce them and and that it is about $85 more expensive to use UVPā€™s for a year than paying for standard registration and I should report it to the Police. (It is more expensive to keep registering the vehicle but the owner does not have to pay the money required to bring the vehicle up to a roadworthy state, so they can save of tyre replacement etc.) I replied that it was not my permit that was being misused but theirs and that surely it was their responsibility to report to the Police.

I also advised them that on my walk around streets I had spotted another vehicle that I remembered had been parked in my street last year and was now parked a few streets away with a current UVP on the dash as well.

After I had sent them a photo of a 3rd consecutive UVP for the car and the UVP for the second vehicle and asking why they did not have a computer system that kept a record of how many times a UVP is issued to the same vehicle I eventually received a email saying they had no intention of instituting such a system and would I mind if they passed my email to the Police. I replied that I had no problem with that.

I received an email from a Police Sergeant asking for my phone number which I supplied.

I received a phone call from the Sergeant about my concerns. She made a few points to me during the conversation. Firstly that VicRoads, being a business would not care if someone is overpaying on the cost of registration for a vehicle, also Police have to actually catch the driver in the act of driving the car and pull him over and question him as regards to him actually complying with the conditions of the UVP, which they may or may not find reasonable. She gave me the example of someone who is restoring a vintage car over several years. I mentioned that Linkt tollways may be interested but she said that it was probably a minor expense to them. I said what about the fact that an unroadworthy vehicle being driven on the roads is a danger to other road users and pedestrians if they have faulty lights, brakes, seat belts etc. Her answer was that there are lots of unroadworthy vehicles on our roads as vehicles only have to have a roadworthy if they are sold. I asked what happens if a vehicle with a UVP runs a red light camera and she admitted that in that case the Police could do nothing. The same can be said if it is caught by a speed camera. Also how can you report a vehicle driving dangerously or erratically if there is no number plate.

However the one comment that annoyed me was ā€œHow is it affecting youā€ to which the answer is that it isnā€™t affecting me at all, I can just walk past the vehicle without looking to see if it is registered. However in hindsight it does affect me because I am paying to keep my car safe and roadworthy. Also as a member of a community I would think the Police would welcome a report of this sort of thing going on.

I got the feeling after the conversation that I was being placated and that I should mind my own business and the Police had better things to do.

I would agree that this problem could be best handled by VicRoads not issuing multipule consecutive UVP to the same person for the same vehicle. However they are relying on an honesty system as you apply for these permits online and promise to tell the truth. The vehicle does not even have to be sighted by VicRoads.

Perhaps I am a stubborn retired person with to much time on my hands but I do think this is an issue that should be addressed.

I look forward to you confirming you received and read this email even if you think I should mind my own business.

I have photos of the permits if you require.

Thanks and best regards

1 Like
2

An interesting read @Raybies. FWIW if you delved into the ā€˜licensed tradiesā€™ regime (in any state) you might find a similar level of disinterest in much more than collecting fees.

Take a sparky or plumber license for example. To get it the first time one has to demonstrate or document training and knowledge of ā€˜the rulesā€™ but once the license is issued nobody wants to know if a particular tradie is performing substandard or even incompetent or illegal work (as defined by standards and regulations). Excepting in the most egregious circumstances when the media get called in, the only thing the ā€˜regulatory agenciesā€™ seem concerned with is receiving their annual renewal fees. I admit I have taken some license here and it is not quite that bad, but.

It is endemic in the discussion about ā€˜red tapeā€™ versus ā€˜oversightā€™ and where the balance is with differing opinions.

In the case you highlighted it does suggest a problem and rather than the good people at Vicroads perhaps going to your MP (whose staff will reply that they have passed it to the CEO who passes it back to the ā€˜teamā€™) might result in somebody caring, although on the balance of probability not - at least not until there is a high profile fatal accident caused by a vehicle travelling on a permit.

Wish I could be more positive because ā€˜I hear youā€™, but.

4 Likes
3

The world is based on ā€˜honestyā€™ and ā€˜trustā€™. Unfortunately there are those who think that the laws donā€™t apply to them. In relation to the UVPs, if the driver in question is pulled over either because their vehicle is unregistered (has a UVP) or because of an infringement, they would have to explain how the use of the vehicle complies with the highly restricted use conditioned by the UVP.

Every day they drive they might think they are outsmarting the system, but, when they get caught they will realise that the system ā€˜outsmartsā€™ them with the fines and other action which may result.

VicRoads/Police canā€™t ensure that every vehicle owner/road user is complying with the law all the time. If they did, then most of their work about enforcing road rules would become redundant, along with issuing infringement notices/penalties.

It is unfortunate we live in a world that there are individuals like that you have found.

3 Likes
4

Yep I know what you mean. While I have a bit of steam going with this issue I will continue to push it a bit further. I was thinking of my MP and the Minister for Transport. It might even have a bit of interesting footage for A Current Affair.
Cheers

2 Likes
5

Unfortunately outsmarting the system is paying off in this case and probably many others. If the person is pulled over by Police all they have to do is say ā€œIā€™m driving it to a garage to get some work doneā€ what copper has the time to investigate if this is correct or not. It would be fixed by a simple change at VicRoads but they have no incentive as they make a bit more money per year if they issue these permits.
Very frustrating and concerning.
If these vehicles run red lights they cannot be found and fined. If they steal petrol how do you track them down? If they drive on Tollways how can they be charged?
Iā€™m not ready to give up on this yet.

1 Like
6

Yes, It may come down to how convincing a story the driver has at any time. How plausible the story and relatable to the location of the vehicle, itā€™s likely if pulled over the officers involved would not have done so just to fill in their day.

Hope you find some success with your efforts in raising concerns with government. My experiences when raising concerns vary, with the most common response to refer one on. Getting a commitment from a local member to take up the cause, YMMV.

This is what we need to comply with, and appears to addresses many of the issues raised in your posts.

Not explained solely by the difference in preferred football codes in each state. :wink:

2 Likes
7

There appears that there may be more behind this in relation to the car owner in question.

One has to remember that there will be most that use the UVP correctly and it saves time and costs for the ability to have such permits, when they are required.

Changing the current UVP system to try and catch out one person may have detrimental effect on those who do the right thing. These unintended consequences are real.

You have raised it with both the police and VicRoads which is as much as you possibly can do. Governments will register your complaint and if there are an overwhelming number of complaints or proof that most using the UVP system are taking advantage of it, then it may result in change.

2 Likes
8

If you choose to do so, include points and questions that hopefully have them giving your letter more than just a quick glance.

For example, in addition to issue you have already listed, ask for details of the number of vehicles that have multiple permits used over an extended period, particularly after being deemed unroadworthy and whether there is any crosschecking done between UVP vehicles and camera detected traffic offences.

3 Likes
9

Thanks for your input :+1:

2 Likes
10

This is nowhere as much as I can. I donā€™t believe this is limited to the one person in my street. I am not a frequent driver but I have noticed 2 cars with no plates while driving on tollways this year and one other driving on the road.
VicRoads could easily place a limit of 2 or 3 UVPā€™s per vehicle per year. They could also increase the price of them.
I am assuming that 3rd party insurance is included with the permit. I should check.
Thanks Ray :blush:

2 Likes
11

Certainly in Victoria a UVP covers third party (TAC) compulsory insurance.

1 Like
12

I am with you, but it seems the only thing that moes official inertia is to keep on making a song and dance about it. Have you written to the Premiers department and or one of the morning shows on television. I wish you success because someone who is killed by one of these criminals can not do anything from the grave. It is a crime that is being committed; the moment an unregistered car is on the road, it must go to a repairer. Write again to the commissioner of police and warn her you are going public to television if she does not take action. After all they should escort the car to a registered repairer and make sure the driver has left the car. The police and government are aiding and abetting crime if no action is taken. They can do a blitze on anything if they get the authority to do so.

2 Likes
13

But how do they do a blitz on everything with the same resources?

It is hard to make the argument that a blitz on one area would be possible, even within existing resources, until you can get agreement on what is the most important issue. The problem is that in many cases allocation of resources is a zero-sum game, what is gained by one must be lost by another.

So everybody lobbies for their pet issue to get more attention and the result is - nothing much because nobody will concede another issue is more important than theirs.

In the meantime making a song and dance is good for cardiovascular fitness.

14

Well I am up to yelling at clouds for a while yet. I feel the responsibility lies with VicRoads continually issuing Unregistered Vehicle Permits for the same vehicle to be the source of the problem.
It should be a minor tweaking of their computer system to highlight that multiple UVPā€™s have already been issued for that vehicle. Although I donā€™t know if they require a VIN on the UVPā€™s. Maybe 2 tweaks to their system.
A bit of cardio is good for the soul. And singing and dancing is never wasted and if everyone lobbies for their pet issues then the authorities can may the decision about which one is the most effective.
Iā€™ve got to run outside, I saw another cloud!!!
Ray

15

VIN is required as well as all the details of the car like make, model, colour.

So really all that should be required if a UVP is issued to the same car twice is a ā€˜please explainā€™ why the thing is not now registered. The first UVP could be cheap or even free as the purpose is to get the vehicle to a mechanic and testing centre to get it ready for registration, or to get it registered at a Vicroads office.

Subsequent UVPs could be made very expensive compared to normal registration for normal vehicles like cars.

1 Like
16

The majority should rule.

17

Probably serve the community better if Victoria had yearly roadworthy checks of cars, like other states. A lot of people have no clue about the condition of their brakes, steering, suspension until they need them in an emergency.

I wonder how many cars, if inspected after an accident, would be found to be in no condition to being driven around.

18

Somewhat off topic talking about roadworthy tests every year. But on a similar vein, how about retesting drivers every year. I am pretty sure unroadworthy drivers would be the cause of far more accidents than unroadworthy cars.

19

I think retesting drivers is a good idea, see if they are up with any rule changes. Maybe every 5 years.

1 Like
22

In Victoria a roadworthy is only required for registration when a car is bought. In theory the seller is supposed to provide it but in reality it becomes negotiable as part of a deal for privately sold used vehicles. Whether mandated inspections reduce the number of dangerous vehicles seems to depend on the implementation. Some of the issues often cited include:

  • Licensed inspectors usually have to pay fees and the regulatory agencies sometimes are more interested in their ongoing fees (and window dressing) than the inspectorsā€™ integrity and standards.
  • Some inspection stations anecdotally always find something wrong, windscreen wipers being common, especially if there are no serious issues such as bad brakes, tyres, malfunctioning lights, leaks, and so on they can repair. Ref my next bullet. Not many drivers argue because a fail is a fail and legislation dependent can require a second fee for a re-inspection.
  • Some places enable garages that obviously have conflicts of interest to up-sell while others have dedicated inspection stations that do not do more than the most basic (ie wipers and lighting), and in the latter case there can be a mismatch between vehicles needing to be inspected on schedule vs the places to do them. When there is a dedicated inspection station the driver can waste lots of time in the queue or having to leave it ā€˜againā€™; when it is done by a garage as part of a service the vehicle can be left for the day as it would usually be anyway. At least if it was maintained which unfortunately is not always the case.
  • In NSW for example what evidence is there vehicles need inspecting from 5 years? Why not 2, 4 or another seemingly random number? Some could do 100,000km p.a. on tracks and others a gentle 5,000km p.a. on rural freeways. The ā€˜magicā€™ of time seems reasonable at first glance but is it? I accept it will catch the former but a discussion is whether the expense is justified for the latter and which gets priority.

Many drivers seem oblivious but if they have an accident and their vehicle is discovered to have not been roadworthy at the time their insurance probably will not pay. Is assuring that is widely known enough of a deterrent? That seems another case of the not-at-fault victim having to bear the cost, but to a point legislation could make it incumbent on the at-fault non-roadworthy driver to pay, accepting there are many problems in how to do that for the economic ā€˜zero scofflawsā€™. Insurers will go after them but there are still hurdles.

1 Like