View Single Post
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 12-24-2011, 04:16 AM
Treeve Treeve is offline
CC Member
Visit my Photo Gallery

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orange, NSW
Cobra Make, Engine: Dax
Posts: 429
Not Ranked     
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob. Smith View Post
The certifier needs to be very rich. To cover the 10 million $ + insurance policy that must be paid for seven years after he retires. The test that must be done for braking and handling are far beyond the requirements of major auto manufacturers. Litigation started this whole ridiculous thing...and ask Baz. They can knock back an ICV for any simple excuse. A name change doesn't change a draconian system. Treeve, you can see I am bitter and twisted about the RTA. ( I had lots of stress when I registered mine) I sincerely hope the process has been 'cleaned up' and things start to go smoothly for future builders.
There is a lot of mis information about what you must have heard. The thing about the insurance requirement is:
1. You have to be very rich to be uninsured
2. The insurance policy arranged by the RMS already covers the run off period - once you stop, there are no further payments to make
3. They can no longer knock back a vehicle without an excuse. If thy did in the past, you should have asked your engineer what they were going to do about it - they should have known it was wrong (and hence misled you in the first place) or they should have challenged it until a satisfactory decision was given. Any decisions about accepted standards are distributed such that the signatories must read them before they can log in.

Finally, there is the issue of fraud. The RMS have prosecuted 2 signatories from the 'old' scheme, where both admitted fraudulently issuing certificates. One issued 20, the other 26. They have put this out in a media release, and to my knowledge, they are following up on further cases.

The new guidelines are not likely to change in a hurry, and they have taken suitable steps to ensure all engineers are kept up to date with determinations on rulings. I see it as a good thing.

I appreciate that past performance has severely damaged people's trust in the RTA / RMS. I'm not employed by them, but as a signatory I am free to ask questions on your behalf and clear up anything which you want to know.

Cheers,

Treeve
Reply With Quote