State and Territory Written-off Vehicle Registers Development Status and National Best Practice Principles August 2000 Prepared by: S J Wright & Associates Pty Ltd National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council State and Territory Written-off Vehicle Registers. Current Development Status and Recommended Best Practice Principles Report Prepared by S J Wright & Associates Pty Ltd ISBN 1 876704 05 5 REPORT OUTLINE Date: August 2000 ISBN: 1 876704 05 5 TITLE: State and Territory Written-off Vehicle registers. Development Status and Recommended Best Practice Principles ADDRESS: National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council Level 2/464 St Kilda Road MELBOURNE Vic 3004 E-mail: info@carsafe.com.au Type of report: Working Paper Objectives: National information exchange TRC Program: Development of consistent written-off vehicle registers Key Milestones: None Abstract: This report examines the preferred positions of States and Territories for implementing written-off vehicle registers. These positions reflect the recommendations of State and Territory Technical Liaison Groups comprising Government, police, insurers, the motor trades and consumer groups. The report draws upon these positions to recommend nationally consistent best practice principles for: * Describing and assessing high-risk written-off vehicles * Re-registration of written-off vehicles * Notification requirements and criteria for writing-off vehicles * Recording and communicating written-off vehicle data * Re-registration inspections for written-off vehicles * Providing information to the public The report also examines the timelines indicated by States and Territories for implementing the written-off vehicle registers. Purpose: To provide information to the Austroads Registration and Licensing Reference Group to facilitate national agreement on the implementation of written-off vehicle registers in all States and Territories. Key words: Written-off vehicles, written-off vehicle registers, statutory write-off, repairable write-off, re-birthing, re-registration, damage assessment, damage severity, write-off notification FOREWORD Every year in Australia more than 20,000 stolen vehicles appear to vanish into thin air. While many will be dumped in bushland or waterways and others broken down into parts for sale on the black market, around 5,000 will be on-sold as whole vehicles to unsuspecting consumers. In order to on-sell a stolen vehicle, professional thieves require a legitimate Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) to apply to a stolen vehicle of the same age, make and model. The legitimate identity will not be recorded as stolen and minimises the risk of the vehicle being detected as suspicious as it passes through the registration process. Written-off vehicles have traditionally provided the greatest source of legitimate identifiers. More than 2,000 vehicles are re-birthed by this means each year at a cost to the community of more than $30m. Written-off Vehicle Registers (WOVR) that record the details of vehicles declared as write-offs have for some time been promoted as an effective means of reducing re-birthing practices. The NMVTRC's 1999 evaluation of the New South Wales WOVR demonstrated that a comprehensive register, based on mandatory reporting, can have a significant impact on professional theft and reduce re-birthing related activities. However, car thieves do not recognise state and territory boundaries and are quick to exploit any avenue that allows them to circumvent the procedures of individual jurisdictions. The absence of nationally consistent arrangements for the management of written-off vehicles remains a cause of considerable frustration and concern to the NMVTRC and its stakeholders. In April 1999, Australia's Transport Ministers meeting as the Australian Transport Council (ATC) agreed to expedite the linking of state and territory vehicle databases and the development of WOVR. The ATC asked Austroads to work with police and the insurance industry to define the types of written-off vehicles that are useful only for parts and should never be registered. To assist Austroads in this process, the NMVTRC convened a national workshop of key stakeholders in November 1999 to identify the high-level principles that should underpin a national written-off vehicle policy. The workshop endorsed a set of national policy principles and recommended that local state and territory working groups be established to work through issues of detail. This report draws together the output of the state and territory working groups and identifies the inconsistencies between jurisdictional proposals. It recommends a best practice framework for the development of consistent WOVR for the consideration of Austroads and the ATC. Until a truly "national grid" of written-off vehicle registers is operating on the ground, professional vehicle thieves will continue to exploit the current deficiencies in the exchange of this key information between jurisdictions. Recent feedback from stakeholders indicates that they rank completing the "national grid" of information exchange as the number one priority in the NMVTRC's agenda. The NMVTRC hopes that this report will assist all states and territories to act promptly to implement consistent arrangements for the management of written-off vehicles and combat the activities of professional motor vehicle thieves across Australia. SUMMARY Background The National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council (NMVTRC) commissioned this report to assist the States and Territories to expedite the implementation of written-off vehicle registers (WOVR) as requested by the Australian Transport Council. The use of written-off vehicle registers to reduce the re-birthing of stolen vehicles using the identities of written-off vehicles is a key element of the national strategy for reducing vehicle theft developed by the NMVTRC. Re-birthing1 is the practice where thieves use the identity of a legitimate vehicle to register and on-sell a stolen vehicle. To successfully dispose of a stolen vehicle, professional thieves must disguise the fact that the vehicle is stolen. The re-birthing process relies on the inability of registration authorities or prospective purchasers to trace the history of the identity that is used to re-birth the stolen vehicle. Both New South Wales and South Australia operate mandatory written-off vehicle registers, but their effectiveness is compromised by the absence of consistent arrangements across Australia. Professional vehicle thieves are extremely organised and ready to exploit any differences between the laws and procedures of States and Territories that enable them to hide or quarantine their criminal activities. For this reason alone, it is critically important that all States and Territories manage written-off vehicles in a consistent manner. Approach To facilitate the development of consistent written-off vehicle registers, the NMVTRC instigated a process to develop a set of best practice principles. In November 1999, the NMVTRC hosted a national workshop of government, insurance and motor industry stakeholders to reach agreement on a set of high-level principles to underpin a national WOVR strategy. These principles included compulsory notification of vehicle write-offs; consistent criteria for identifying and flagging vehicles with a high risk of re-birthing; bans or restrictions on the re-registration of high-risk vehicles; consistent damage recording procedures; public access to written-off and damage information; and the marking and signing of written-off vehicles. Following the 1999 Workshop, each State and Territory set up a Technical Liaison Group consisting of government, insurance, motor industry and consumer stakeholders to develop and recommend a preferred position for implementing a written-off vehicle register. These positions were developed between April and June 2000, and documented by the convenors of these groups. The objective of this report has been to examine the commonalties and differences between these jurisdictional reports, and to use this information to prepare a set of national best practice principles for written-off vehicle registers as the basis for further consultation. Comparison of State and Territory proposals All States and Territories have submitted preferred positions that largely reflect the high level principles developed at the 1999 WOVR Workshop. Both New South Wales and South Australia, which currently operate mandatory WOVRs, have submitted proposals that would effectively maintain their present practices. There are significant differences between these States in terms of defining, recording and managing high-risk write-offs. These differences are detailed later in the report. With the exception of South Australia, all other States and Territories have decided to adopt in principle, the New South Wales methodology and terminology for defining and recording written-off vehicles. Consistent recording of written-off vehicle status and damage is vital if NEVDIS (the National Exchange of Vehicle and Driver Information System) is to operate effectively as a national WOVR. It is also important for insurers, most of who operate on a national basis, to minimise the costs of compliance. With the exception of South Australia and Western Australia, there is national agreement that a high-risk write-off should not be re-registered. This could permanently remove up to 30 per cent of the highest risk vehicles from the pool of wrecks available to rebirthers. Both South Australia and Western Australia believe that persons who are prepared to repair any vehicle should be able to re-register them subject to high level inspections and the issue of a surrogate VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) or chassis number. There is national agreement that it should be mandatory for insurers, licensed dealers/auctioneers and parts dismantlers to notify a write-off. However, there is disagreement as to whether individuals should be required to do this. Equally there are differences of view as to whether notification should be given within 7 or 14 days. There is a considerable diversity of view as to which vehicles should be subject to notification requirements. Exclusions have been proposed on the basis of exceeding a maximum age of 15 years, not having a VIN, not being ADR compliant, not being a light trailer or being a heavy motor vehicle of a certain maximum tare mass. The issue of the marking of written-off vehicles is also subject to differences in opinion. While a majority supports the agreed high level principle that high-risk vehicles should be labelled, South Australia and Victoria propose that all write-offs be labelled. Neither Victoria nor South Australia supports the placing of a chisel mark on the compliance plate. The stringent inspection of written-off vehicles that are submitted for re-registration is a key feature of an effective WOVR strategy. These inspections should be able to detect stolen vehicles that have been rebirthed as repairable write-offs. While a majority of jurisdictions are proposing a high level inspection (the so-called level 3 inspection as per the draft Austroads inspection matrix), some jurisdictions are proposing lower levels of inspections with a view to only subjecting "suspicious" vehicles to higher scrutiny. Views on the provision of written-off information to the public range from a simple "yes" or "no" confirmation to the question "Is the vehicle written-off?", to proposals to provide written reports (for a fee) containing written-off status and full damage information. All jurisdictions agree that prospective purchasers should not be indemnified against subsequent loss in respect of incorrect written-off vehicle information provided by a jurisdiction. Not all States and Territories have submitted proposals for offences and penalties because they believe consideration of these matters should await national agreement on written-off vehicle practices. However, there is support to apply differential penalties for corporate bodies and individuals. Implementation timelines Not all States and Territories have submitted time-lines for implementing their WOVRs. Some have indicated that they are awaiting national agreement on written-off practices before doing this. However, on the basis of the responses received, it appears that the factors controlling the timing of implementation are likely to be the development of computer systems, the establishment of high level inspection systems, and securing the passage of enabling legislation. It appears unlikely that complete national implementation would occur before the end of 2001, however, all of the Eastern States could have functioning WOVRs early in 2001. Best practice principles From the viewpoint of the NMVTRC, best WOVR practice should deliver an adequate level of deterrence to professional vehicle thieves, without imposing unreasonable administrative effort on registration authorities and industry. For the purpose of this report, best practice principles are those that are supported by all States and Territories, or where differences of view exist, those that best promote national communication, minimise interfacing difficulties and are simple to understand. The key best practice principles recommended are: * The highest risk write-offs (vehicles that have a relatively high undamaged value that are unsuitable for repair) should be designated as statutory write-offs. * Statutory write-offs should not be re-registered. However, a separate project could be established to recommend consistent procedures for defining and handling special exceptions to this requirement (eg. rare vehicles and collector's cars). * Statutory write-offs should be determined and recorded as such, using the New South Wales damage indicators with consideration being given to suggested changes to the severity indicators for impact damage and water immersion. * All written-off vehicles to be flagged as such on the registration database. * Full write-off and damage information should be made available to NEVDIS. * There should only be two categories of write-off, statutory and repairable. Parts dismantlers should be required to notify any vehicle that is being dismantled or crushed for scrap and these should be recorded as statutory write-offs. * Insurers, licensed dealers and auctioneers, and parts dismantlers should be required to assess and notify a write-off. Loss adjusters and assessors should be required to notify when they issue assessments for vehicle owners and registered operators. * A vehicle should be notified only once. Successive persons in the chain, such as auctioneers and dismantlers should not be required to notify a vehicle that has already been written-off. * Persons or bodies required to notify should do so within 7 days. * Vehicle owners and registered operators should not be required to notify that their vehicle is written-off. However, they should be asked to volunteer whether their vehicle is to be wrecked when cancelling the registration, and this information should be recorded as a repairable write-off. * Loss adjusters and assessors should be able to provide written-off assessments and notifications for uninsured vehicle owners, but should not provide notifications on behalf of insurers dealers or dismantlers. * Persons required to submit notifications should be authorised by the registration authority and issued with numbered labels that they must affix to the firewalls of vehicles they assess. It is recommended that a separate project determine appropriate criteria for assessing authorised persons. * Motor vehicles, registered or unregistered, that are subject to notification requirements should conform to ADR requirements, be no more than 15 years old with the exception of high risk vehicles specified by the insurance industry which may be older, and include motorcycles and both light and heavy motor vehicles. Caravans and heavy trailers should be included, but light trailers should be excluded. * Only statutory write-offs should be placarded before being sold. Both compliance plates and body frames of statutory write-offs should be permanently marked with a diagonal chisel mark. * Repairable write-offs that are submitted for re-registration should undergo a Level 3 inspection based on the draft Austroads vehicle inspection matrix. These inspections should be carried out by in-house inspectors or by outsourced providers selected in accordance with strict accreditation requirements who would be subject to frequent audit. * Persons enquiring about a vehicle should be advised whether or not the vehicle is recorded as written-off, and if so, whether or not it can be re-registered. Enquirers should also be able to receive a written report detailing damage information. Persons enquiring about repairable write-offs that have been re-registered should be able to obtain previous written-off status and associated damage information. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The NMVTRC gratefully acknowledges the valuable assistance of those industry and government representatives who participated in the Technical Liaison Group meetings. This project would not have been possible without their considerable co-operation and support. CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Purpose of the report 1 1.2 Background 1 2 ESTABLISHMENT OF HIGH LEVEL WOVR PRINCIPLES 2 3 ESTABLISHMENT OF TECHNICAL LIAISON GROUPS 3 4 CURRENT EXTENT OF WRITTEN-OFF VEHICLE REPORTING 4 4.1 New South Wales 4 4.2 South Australia 4 4.2.1 Victoria 5 4.2.2 Tasmania 5 4.2.3 Other States and Territories 5 5 STATE AND TERRITORY WOVR TLG RECOMMENDATIONS 6 5.1 Scope 6 5.2 Categories of written-off vehicles 6 5.2.1 Unrepairable write-offs that cannot be re-registered 7 5.2.2 Unrepairable write-offs that can be re-registered 7 5.2.3 Repairable or economic write-offs 7 5.2.4 End-of-life or no-value write-offs 7 5.3 Who may assess whether a vehicle is a statutory or economic write-off 8 5.4 Challenges to an unrepairable write-off assessment 9 5.5 Damage assessment criteria 9 5.5.1 Incident type 10 5.5.2 Damage assessment locations 10 5.5.3 Damage severity indicators 11 5.5.4 Possible variations to the NSW damage severity indicators 12 5.6 State and Territory recording of vehicle write-offs 12 5.6.1 Flagging of written-off vehicles 12 5.6.2 Written-off information to be recorded. 13 5.6.3 Provision of information to NEVDIS 13 5.7 Compulsory Notification 14 5.7.1 Who must notify the registration authority? 14 5.7.2 Notification by agents of insurance companies 17 5.7.3 Measures to avoid duplicate notifications 17 5.7.4 When notification must be given 17 5.8 Vehicles subject to mandatory notification 18 5.8.1 Vehicle classes 18 5.8.2 Age or VIN status of vehicles subject to notification 19 5.9 Registration status of notifiable vehicles 19 5.10 Signing of written-off vehicles 19 5.10.1 Written-off vehicles which must be signed 19 5.10.2 Location of written-off signage and indicators 20 5.10.3 Who places the written-off signage, and when 21 5.11 Re-registration requirements for written-off vehicles 21 5.11.1 Unrepairable or statutory write-offs 21 5.11.2 Repairable or economic write-offs 22 5.12 Providing public information on written-off vehicles 22 5.12.1 Public responsibilities for written-off vehicles 22 5.12.2 Access to information about written-off vehicles 23 5.12.3 Liability issues in providing written-off vehicle information 24 5.13 Offences relating to written-off vehicles 24 5.13.1 New South Wales 25 5.13.2 Queensland 25 5.13.3 Western Australia 25 5.13.4 South Australia 25 5.14 Penalties 26 6 DISSENTING VIEWS EXPRESSED BY TLG MEMBERS. 27 6.1 New South Wales 27 6.1.1 Motor Traders Association of New South Wales 27 6.1.2 Phil Marks, Auto-Group.com.au 27 6.1.3 F C Ibels & Co, Loss Assessors and Adjusters 27 6.2 Queensland 28 6.2.1 The insurance industry 28 6.3 South Australia 28 6.3.1 Vehicle dismantlers 28 6.3.2 Royal Automobile Association 29 6.4 Western Australia 29 6.4.1 Royal Automobile Club and CGU Insurance 29 7 INDICATIVE TIMETABLES FOR WOVR IMPLEMENTATION 30 7.1 Queensland 30 7.1.1 Tasks required to implement the policies 30 7.1.2 Stages of implementation 30 7.1.3 Key factors influencing implementation 30 7.2 Western Australia 31 7.3 Northern Territory 31 7.4 Australian Capital Territory 31 8 BEST PRACTICE PRINCIPLES 32 8.1 Approach 32 8.2 Consistent terminology 32 8.2.1 What is meant by "written-off" 32 What is meant by "high risk vehicle"? 33 8.3 Identifying written-off vehicles which pose the highest risk of rebirthing 33 8.3.1 Agreed position 33 8.3.2 How should high-risk written-off vehicles be designated? 33 8.3.3 What level of damage constitutes a high-risk write-off? 34 8.4 Should high-risk written-off vehicles be re-registered? 35 8.5 Who should classify a wreck as a high-risk write-off, and provide notification? 37 8.5.1 Uninsured vehicle operators and owners 37 8.5.2 Registered Operators 39 8.5.3 Loss adjusters 39 8.6 Should wrecks be written-off by each body involved in the process? 40 8.7 How should notification providers be controlled? 41 8.8 End-of life or No-Value write-off category 42 8.9 When should notification of a write-off be given? 43 8.10 Which vehicles should be subject to written-off notification? 44 8.10.1 Should all vehicle types be notifiable? 44 8.10.2 Should unregistered vehicles be notifiable? 44 8.10.3 Old vehicles 45 8.10.4 Light trailers 45 8.10.5 Heavy motor vehicles and heavy trailers 45 8.10.6 Special purpose (non ADR) vehicles 45 8.10.7 Vehicles without a VIN 46 8.10.8 Conclusion 46 8.11 Labelling and marking written-off vehicles 46 8.11.1 What labels should be applied to written-off vehicles? 46 8.12 Re-registration inspections 48 8.12.1 What level of inspection should be required? 48 8.12.2 Who should carry out the inspections? 49 8.13 Providing information to the public 49 8.13.1 What information should be given to a person enquiring about an unregistered vehicle? 49 8.13.2 What information should be provided to the public after a written-off vehicle has been re-registered? 50 8.13.3 Should an indemnity be given for written-off information? 51 8.14 National communication of WOVR information 51 APPENDIX A 54 VEHICLE INSPECTION CRITERIA 54 APPENDIX B 3 SUMMARY OF POSITIONS 3 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Categories of vehicle write-off 8 Table 2. Who may assess whether a vehicle to be a write-off 9 Table 3. Damage locations recorded for written-off vehicles 11 Table 4. Comparison of NSW and SA damage severity indicators 12 Table 5. Bodies and persons required to notify vehicle write-offs 17 Table 6. Notification periods 18 Table 7. Vehicle classes subject to mandatory notification 19 Table 8. Age and VIN requirements for notifiable vehicles 19 Table 9. Written-off vehicles which must be signed 20 Table 10. Location of written-off signage and indicators 21 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the report The National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council (NMVTRC) has commissioned this report, which sets out the preferred positions of State and Territory Technical Liaison Groups (TLGs) for establishing written-off vehicle registers (WOVR) within their jurisdictions. These positions were developed in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, and were current at June 2000. The report examines areas of commonality and difference in the preferred positions, and the timetables that have been nominated for implementing them. The purpose of the report is to establish the current status of WOVR proposals, and to draw upon that information to identify a set of best practice principles that can be used to promote the establishment of consistent WOVR arrangements across Australia. The report is intended to provide a resource to registration authorities to recommend a nationally consistent approach to the Australian Transport Council (ATC) of State and Territory Transport Ministers. 1.2 Background The NMVTRC was formed in 1998 as a joint initiative of all Australian governments and the insurance industry under the National Anti-Crime Strategy. It commenced operations in January 1999. One of its key goals is to lower the level of professional vehicle theft by reducing the economic incentives of dealing in stolen vehicles and parts, and to improve deterrence by increasing the likelihood of detection. The use of written-off vehicle registers (WOVR), which flag that particular vehicles have been declared write-offs, has long been promoted as an effective means of reducing re-birthing practices by professional motor vehicle thieves. Re-birthing is the practice in which thieves use the identity of a legitimate, wrecked vehicle to register and on-sell a stolen vehicle. The annual re-birthing of an estimated 1,400 to 2,100 stolen vehicles may cost the community as much as $30 million per year. At present only New South Wales and South Australia operate WOVRs that require compulsory notification. Victoria operates a voluntary WOVR, based on the NSW model. Significant differences exist between the South Australian and New South Wales WOVRs. Other States and Territories are developing WOVRs. The establishment of nationally consistent arrangements for managing written-off vehicles was a key recommendation of the Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Plan developed by the NMVTRC's predecessor, the National Motor Vehicle Theft Task Force. In April 1999, the ATC agreed to expedite the implementation of written-off vehicle registers in all States and Territories. The ATC asked Austroads to work with police and the insurance industry to identify means of ensuring that the identities of the most severely damaged vehicles cannot be used to rebirth stolen vehicles. The NMVTRC offered to assist Austroads in this process. The NMVTRC's interest is to ensure that State and Territory policies deliver the theft prevention capabilities expected by stakeholders. 2 ESTABLISHMENT OF HIGH LEVEL WOVR PRINCIPLES From the NMVTRC's perspective, the effective implementation of written-off vehicle registers in all States and Territories requires a national consensus on detailed criteria to determine which wrecks are useful only for parts and should be: * declared ineligible for future registration; or * only be re-registered after the vehicle has passed the most stringent inspection standards that conclusively prove it is the original vehicle and that it has been safely repaired In November 1999, the NMVTRC facilitated a national workshop of stakeholders to progress the development of appropriate wreck assessment criteria. Agreement was reached on a set of high-level principles to underpin a national WOVR policy. These principles are summarised as follows: * It must be compulsory in all states and territories for vehicle owners, insurers and the motor trades that deal with written-off vehicles to notify the registration authority that a vehicle has been declared a write-off. * The identities of those vehicles that meet specified criteria (to be developed) that indicate that the vehicle is useful only for parts and therefore represents a high risk for re-birthing will be separately "flagged" on State and Territory vehicle registers. * A written-off vehicle may only be re-registered if it has passed the most stringent inspection standards that conclusively prove that it is the original vehicle and that it has been safely repaired. * The registration authority must record sufficient detail about the nature and extent of the damage to enable authorities to conclusively identify the vehicle in the event it, or a vehicle that purports to be the written-off vehicle is presented for re-registration at any time in the future. * It is essential that the public has access to accurate and timely information on a written-off vehicle's status (and its eligibility or otherwise for future registration) and that the availability of such information be widely promoted to the community. * If a vehicle assessed to be useful only for parts is sold at auction it must be clearly identified by way of placards or labels prominently displayed on the vehicle. 3 ESTABLISHMENT OF TECHNICAL LIAISON GROUPS The November 1999 workshop also recommended that each State and Territory convene a technical liaison group (TLG) to develop detailed criteria to identify wrecks that are only useful for parts, and to develop recommendations for a provisional State/Territory based WOVR policy. In each State or Territory, a senior manager of the local transport authority convened these groups, which typically included representatives of: * * the police * insurance companies * vehicle parts recyclers * vehicle auction groups * vehicle fleet managers * vehicle loss adjusters * vehicle repairers * automobile associations The TLGs were generally tasked with the objectives of: * Developing a preferred position for the State or Territory's existing or proposed written-off vehicle register, having regard to the high-level principles agreed at the November 1999 Workshop. * Identifying potential problems and dissenting views associated with the preferred position. * Identifying timelines for the implementation of the preferred position. 4 CURRENT EXTENT OF WRITTEN-OFF VEHICLE REPORTING 4.1 New South Wales From 1996 to late 1998, the New South Wales (NSW) Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) operated a voluntary written-off vehicle register, mainly using information provided by insurance companies. In September 1998, it became compulsory in NSW for insurers, dealers and automotive dismantlers to notify the RTA when writing-off a NSW registered vehicle not more than 15 years old. The RTA has developed specific damage criteria for assessing whether a vehicle is repairable or whether it is damaged to the extent that it should never be re-registered. The RTA exempts individual owners and collision repairers from notifying vehicle write-offs on the basis that they lack the knowledge and experience to do so. In 1999, the NMVTRC commissioned a study by MM Starrs Pty Ltd to evaluate the impacts of the New South Wales WOVR on professional vehicle theft. The report concluded that the operation of the register has had an impact on the level of professional vehicle theft in New South Wales evidenced by decreases in the: * number of unrecovered stolen vehicles up to 15 years old in the first three months of the register's operation; * proportion of written-off vehicles in New South Wales; * the number of recovered cars that could potentially fall within the strip and buy-back category; and * the price of written-off vehicles sold at auctions in Sydney over the first nine months of the register's operation, with a greater decrease in the price of stripped vehicles than for all categories of written-off vehicles. However, the report also concluded that the New South Wales WOVR has had little or no impact on the stolen vehicle trade in neighbouring jurisdictions. The NSW position has since been assessed by its Technical Liaison Group, which has endorsed its current operating procedures as meeting the six nationally agreed WOVR principles. 4.2 South Australia South Australia (SA) commenced recording details of wrecked and written-off vehicles in January 1991 on the basis of a voluntary agreement with insurance companies. In July 1993, notification of wrecked and written-off vehicles by insurance companies, vehicle wreckers, auctioneers, collision repairers and private owners became compulsory. Legislation introduced in September 1999 resulted in the creation of a structural write-off category and the recording of damage locations. The SA WOVR differs from the NSW WOVR in respect of requiring individual owners and collision repairers to notify, in allowing severely damaged vehicles to be re-registered subject to careful inspections and the issue of surrogate VIN or chassis numbers, and in the recording and use of damage information. The SA position has now been assessed by its Technical Liaison Group, which has endorsed its current operating procedures as meeting the six nationally agreed WOVR principles. 4.2.1 Victoria Victoria has recorded the fact and date that a vehicle has been written-off on its registration register since the 1980s, using information voluntarily provided by insurance companies. Early in 1999, VicRoads established an Internet-based reporting system for insurance companies to record details of vehicle write-offs using the damage location and severity criteria developed by the NSW RTA. Written-off vehicles are now assessed as being structural or economic write-offs. However, while these categories are equivalent to the NSW Statutory and repairable write-offs, the Victorian WOVR is not yet backed by legislation to require insurance companies, licensed dealers and parts dismantlers to notify, or prevent structural write-offs from being re-registered. 4.2.2 Tasmania Tasmania has been operating a Wrecks Register for some time, although this register only lists very basic information, and only flags written-off vehicles as a "wreck". 4.2.3 Other States and Territories Queensland, Western Australia, Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory have been recording basic written-off vehicle status on their registration databases for some time, and flagging these records. 5 STATE AND TERRITORY WOVR TLG RECOMMENDATIONS Following consultation with Technical Liaison Groups, the Convenor of each State and Territory group submitted a report setting out the preferred position of that group for implementing a Written-off Vehicle Register. This section sets out the details of those positions. It should be noted that the details nominated by both New South Wales and South Australia reflect the current operations of those States as well as their preferred positions. 5.1 Scope The positions covered in this report relate only to the management of written-off vehicles that are damaged or valueless. The report does not extend to the management of vehicles that are written-off as unrecovered vehicle thefts by insurance companies. The obvious reason for this exception is that written-off unrecovered stolen vehicles cannot themselves be candidates for rebirthing. A secondary reason is that placing these vehicles in a statutory write-off category could create difficulties for insurers if the vehicle was eventually recovered. 5.2 Categories of written-off vehicles One of the key components of a national written-off vehicle registration system is the establishment in all States and Territories of equivalent written-off vehicle categories that use common criteria to identify and flag written-off vehicles in terms of their risk of being used for re-birthing purposes. * All States and territories except South Australia have nominated a statutory write-off category for vehicles that pose the highest risk for re-birthing. (These are damaged vehicles that are unsuitable for repair; have a relatively high undamaged value and are known targets of car thieves). South Australia has a structural write-off category. However, this may exclude water immersion damaged vehicles that would be considered high-risk vehicles in every other jurisdiction. The nationally agreed principle was that these write-offs should be declared ineligible for future registration; or only allowed to be re-registered after the vehicle has passed the most stringent inspection to determine that it is the original vehicle). States and Territories are divided as to whether or not these vehicles should be barred from re-registration. * There is national agreement to a second "repairable or economic write-off" category for vehicles that pose a comparatively lower risk because their higher value makes them less attractive to re-birthers. However, because there is evidence that re-birthers are still prepared to purchase these vehicles to provide a new identity, albeit at a slightly reduced profit, it is vital that stringent re-registration inspections are applied to this category. * South Australia has a third category for end-of-life or effectively valueless vehicles that are to be removed from the vehicle population by dismantling or scrapping. Victoria also supports an end-of-life category. 5.2.1 Unrepairable write-offs that cannot be re-registered New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory propose a statutory or "unrepairable" wreck category in which wrecks are deemed suitable only for parts, and cannot be re-registered within those jurisdictions. 5.2.2 Unrepairable write-offs that can be re-registered South Australia and Western Australia respectively propose structural and statutory write-off categories for damaged vehicles that would be deemed unrepairable using damage assessment categories similar to or equal to that used by New South Wales. (However, some wrecks (eg flood damaged) which would be declared as statutory write-offs in New South Wales may be classified as economic write-offs in South Australia). These States would allow these vehicles be reconstructed and re-registered subject to appropriate identity and roadworthy inspections and the allocation of a surrogate VIN or chassis number. 5.2.3 Repairable or economic write-offs All States and Territories agree that there should be an economic or repairable write-off category for vehicles where the vehicle is deemed repairable, but the normal commercial cost of repair would exceed the vehicle's insured or market value. 5.2.4 End-of-life or no-value write-offs South Australia has a specific category for recording vehicles that are effectively at the end of their lives. These are vehicles that are worn out, in poor condition, and useful only for scrap value and spare parts. The intention in writing-off these vehicles is to prevent their identities from being used to rebirth similar stolen vehicles that are in very good condition and which still have a relatively high value. It is expected that parts dismantlers would notify these vehicle write-offs, as they would be effectively declaring that the vehicle is being scrapped. Table 1. Categories of vehicle write-off Nominated Category NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT ACT Unrepairable write-off which cannot be re-registered in the jurisdiction. Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Unrepairable write-off that can be re-registered. Vehicle could be re-registered subject to high-level identity and roadworthy checks, and issue of surrogate VIN or chassis No. No No No Yes1 Yes No No No Repairable or economic write-off. Vehicle is structurally sound but uneconomic to repair. Can be re-registered subject to roadworthy and identity checks and parts/labour verification as per jurisdiction requirements. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No-Value or End-of-Life write-off. Vehicle may be undamaged, or only superficially damaged. It has no value other than for scrap. No Yes No No Yes No No No Note 1. To be referred to as a Statutory Write-off in WA. 5.3 Who may assess whether a vehicle is a statutory or economic write-off There are significant differences between jurisdictions as to who should be permitted to assess whether or not a vehicle is a statutory or economic write-off. New South Wales, Victoria, the ACT, Queensland and Tasmania propose to restrict the making of these assessments to insurers, auctioneers, licensed dealers, and parts dismantlers. However, despite concerns about the adequacy of assessments, no State or Territory has indicated that it will require persons making written-off declarations to possess formal qualifications, accreditation or training. In Queensland, uninsured owners who cancel their vehicle's registration and indicate that the vehicle is to be wrecked will be required to complete damage description forms and forward these to Queensland Transport which will make the assessment. South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory will require uninsured owners to complete forms under these circumstances and assess whether a vehicle is a structural/statutory or economic write-off. Insurance companies will make the great majority of written-off assessments. Many of these assessments will be made by professional loss adjusters acting on behalf of insurance companies, auction houses and uninsured owners, including self-insured vehicle fleets. Parts dismantlers and licensed motor dealers/auctioneers would be assessing the most of the remaining uninsured vehicles. The percentage of assessments likely to be made by lay persons is expected to be relatively small indeed. The issue of collision repairers assessing write-offs was raised in discussions with some jurisdictions, although no TLG has expressed a formal view about their role. Collision repairers who operate towing services often hold collision-damaged vehicles until insurance companies are able to assess them. For uninsured owners, collision repairers can provide an estimate of the cost of repairing their vehicles but are generally considered to lack the expertise and knowledge required to make a written-off assessment. New South Wales has advised that it no longer requires or accepts assessments made by individual vehicle owners because it found that most individual owner assessments of statutory write-off were incorrect, and that the management of challenges to these errant declarations was imposing a high administrative workload. Table 2. Who may assess whether a vehicle to be a write-off Assessor NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT ACT Motor vehicle Insurer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Motor vehicle dealer/auctioneer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Auto parts dismantler Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Uninsured vehicle owner No No No Yes Yes No Yes No 5.4 Challenges to an unrepairable write-off assessment Some States and Territories acknowledge that there will be challenges to unrepairable write-offs. Proposed methods of dealing with these challenges vary: * Queensland. Challenges to an unrepairable assessment will only be accepted if there is suitable evidence of an administrative error having occurred. There will be a specialised unit within Queensland Transport that manages other security matters, which will be authorised to adjust such records. * South Australia. If the owner or purchaser of a write-off challenges the assessment, the person or organisation that originally notified the write-off must provide a statement. The category of write-off can be amended on the wrecks register through an "override" made by the Manager of a Customer Service Centre. SA policy does not require an independent assessor to provide a report. A policy decision was made to request the owner of the vehicle to agree to alter the category of write-off. * New South Wales. A statutory write-off assessment is not challengeable, unless the insurance company or dealer/auctioneer or parts dismantler who made the assessment reverses their original determination. * Northern Territory. An unrepairable assessment may be challengeable subject to an appointed independent assessor or industry/government assessment panel report 5.5 Damage assessment criteria With the exception of South Australia, all TLGs have advised that they propose to adopt damage assessment criteria based on the New South Wales RTA model for determining whether or not a vehicle is repairable or unrepairable. New South Wales describes write-offs in terms of: * The type of incident associated with the damage * The location of the damage on the vehicle * The severity of the damage Several TLGs have stressed the importance of having nationally consistent damage assessment criteria. 5.5.1 Incident type New South Wales describes the circumstances that result in a write-off in terms of the following incidents: * Fire * Hail * Impact * Malicious * Unrecovered theft * Water damage South Australia does not record write-off circumstances. 5.5.2 Damage assessment locations All TLGs except South Australia propose to adopt the NSW damage locations. Table 3 illustrates the coincidences and differences between the New South Wales and South Australian damage locations for motor cars and trucks. Most damage locations appear to be equivalent, with the South Australian locations providing a higher level of detail. The NSW model has 9 damage locations versus South Australia's 19. New South Wales also records front and rear damage locations for trailers and caravans, and front, rear left and rear right damage locations for motor cycles. South Australia has not nominated separate damage locations for caravans and motor cycles. Table 3. Damage locations recorded for written-off vehicles New South Wales South Australia Passenger front left Front left fender Driver front right Front right fender Driver middle side Front right door Rear right door Driver rear right Rear right quarter panel Passenger rear left Rear left quarter panel Passenger side middle Front left door Rear left door Engine bay Auto or manual transmission Engine Hood Roof (Turret) Body shell Frame Interior Seats Air bag Tail gate Boot lid 5.5.3 Damage severity indicators (a) New South Wales All TLGs except South Australia are proposing in principle to adopt the New South Wales damage severity indicators. These indicators describe the major damage types as impact, fire, salt or fresh water immersion, and theft/stripping. There are 5 sub-indicators for impact damage, and If 3 of these are present, the vehicle must be declared a statutory write-off. Statutory write-off criteria are specified for fire, and salt/fresh water immersion indicators. (b) South Australia With the exception of removal of components by theft, the South Australian indicators do not distinguish between various forms of damage. The severity indicators for all types of non-theft damage are simply graded as superficial, medium or severe. South Australia does not provide minimum criteria for assessing a vehicle as an unrepairable write-off. The principal differences between the New South Wales and South Australian indicators can be seen in Table 5. Table 5. Comparison of NSW and SA damage severity indicators New South Wales Unrepairable write-off when: South Australia Impact damage. If 3 of the 5 indicators below are present in a car or truck * Roof (Turret) =300 mm x 300 mm * Floor pan (cabin area) =300 mm x 300 mm * Firewall =300 mm x 300 mm * Suspension (any damage) * Mechanical (engine blocks, transmission cases etc cracked or broken) Motor cycle impact damage. if motor cycle has suspension damage and 2 areas of structural frame damage (excludes scratching damage) Damage to all types of vehicle is assessed in terms of the following indicators: * Superficial * Medium * Severe There are no specific indicators for water or fire damage South Australia does not preclude any write-off from being re-registered Salt water damage. Immersed above door sill for any period (car) or completely immersed for any period (motor cycle) Fresh water damage. Immersed >2 days up to dashboard/steering wheel (car) or fully immersed for same period (motor cycle) Fire damage (burnt out) Theft/Vehicle stripped Removed. (eg. "Seats" being the major vehicle component when the interior of the vehicle is removed. 5.5.4 Possible variations to the NSW damage severity indicators (a) Victoria Victoria's insurers have suggested that the statutory write-off indicator for fresh water damage be made the same as the salt-water indicator. That is, a vehicle immersed above the doorsill for any period in fresh water should be a statutory write-off. This would reflect the current practice of Victoria's insurers. (b) South Australia In discussing the New South Wales model, the representative of the South Australia Automobile Association disagreed with the impact damage criteria of 300 by 300mm damage to the roof and floor pan. His opinion was that consideration should instead be given to the damage caused to the pillars that support the roof and floor. This would allow cut and shut repairs to be carried out, which is the case in a number of States. 5.6 State and Territory recording of vehicle write-offs 5.6.1 Flagging of written-off vehicles All States and Territories propose to flag written-off vehicles on their Registers. However, the level of detail that has been provided at this stage suggests that in some cases, the initial flagging of vehicle records may simply indicate that the vehicle has been written-off, rather than separately indicating that the write-off is non-repairable or otherwise. 5.6.2 Written-off information to be recorded With the exception of South Australia, all TLGs propose to record written-off damage and severity information as per the New South Wales model subject to the consideration of changes as discussed in 5.5. Specific information recording proposals advised by states and territories are: * New South Wales. In addition to standard registration data, Internet access code, User ID, Incident type (fire, hail, impact, malicious, unrecovered theft, water damage), salvage condition (repairable, statutory write-off, theft unrecovered), up to 9 damage locations qualified by 5 levels of severity, Insurance company claim number, recording date * South Australia. Up to 19 areas of damage qualified by 4 levels of severity. The write-off category (Structural, Economic or No-Value). A voluntary recording of the odometer reading. If a surrogate VIN/chassis number is issued, an incident type code STN (stolen/recovered), REP (repaired/rebodied/rebuilt) or INV (Investigated by Police and cleared, but identification is not clear) will be recorded. * Queensland. In addition to standard registration data, details to be recorded are: Incident type code (New South Wales criteria), incident date, salvage condition code (Statutory write-off or wrecked), damage location (New South Wales criteria), damage severity code (New South Wales criteria), wrecked write-off date from which state/jurisdiction in Australia the vehicle was wrecked/write-off, rebuilt date. Optional details to be captured and provided by both insurers and auction houses will include purchase and sale information, ie estimated salvage/reserve price, name and address sold/disposed to, sale price, date sold. * Western Australia. In addition to standard registration data, details to be recorded are: Incident type code (New South Wales criteria), incident date, salvage condition code (Statutory or Economic write-off), damage location (New South Wales criteria), damage severity code (New South Wales criteria), insurance company and insurance claim number. The TLGs of several States and Territories discussed the possibility of storing digital photographs of vehicle damage provided by insurance companies. The Western Australia TLG considered, that over a period of time there was potential for the storage, indexing and retrieval of digital photographs to become cumbersome and unwieldy given the number of photographs taken. 5.6.3 Provision of information to NEVDIS It is understood that NEVDIS has provision for storing written-off vehicle damage information, however, this part of the system is not in use and would probably need to be revised following the reaching of national agreement on WOVR criteria. New South Wales currently provides only the salvage condition of the vehicle to NEVDIS, that is whether a vehicle is classed as a statutory write-off, or repairable. South Australia has yet to determine its position in this regard. The Northern Territory proposes to stage the information it provides to NEVDIS, commencing with statutory write-offs. 5.7 Compulsory Notification All TLGs support the concept of compulsory notification. However, there are significant differences regarding who should be required to notify, and the form and timing of the notification. It should also be noted that the requirement to notify does not necessarily mean a requirement to assess the type of write-off. 5.7.1 Who must notify the registration authority? (a) Registered operators. Under the August 1996 draft regulations of the National Heavy Vehicle Registration Scheme, which has been adopted by most jurisdictions for both light and heavy vehicles, registered operators are obliged to cause notice to be sent to the registration authority if their vehicle is wrecked or written-off. (Anecdotal evidence suggests that very few vehicle operators are aware of this requirement, or ignore it because they assume that their insurer is handling all matters relating to the wrecked vehicle). New South Wales has reportedly not enacted this regulation. Other States that propose to exclude individual owners from notifying have yet to indicate whether they will retain, modify or repeal this requirement. It is important to note that the notification under the current national law does not require the registered operator to make an assessment of the write-off category. Queensland, South Australia, Northern Territory, the ACT and Western Australia have indicated that the registered operator will be required to provide notification - generally before selling or otherwise disposing of a wrecked vehicle. In Queensland, this notification will only apply to uninsured registered operators who cancel their registration because their vehicle is damaged. The current South Australian WOVR legislation requires registered operators to notify before selling or disposing of the vehicle, and does not appear to provide any exemption from notification for insured owners. However, South Australia has advised that the law is not applied to insured registered operators, because the insurance company is deemed to be acting as the agent of the registered operator. Overall, it appears that all jurisdictions will excuse registered operators from assessing and notifying if an insurance company writes off the vehicle. The position of uninsured registered operators who dispose of their wrecked vehicles to auction houses and parts dismantlers in jurisdictions where registered operators are required to notify, is less clear. (b) Insurance companies. All TLGs agree that insurers should be required to notify the registration authority whenever they assess a vehicle as a write-off. Concern was expressed by some insurance companies that contract commitments with their insured clients might preclude their notifying the registration authority when vehicles are returned to the insured owner, or an uninsured third party owner, as part of a reduced value settlement. Current written-off legislation in both New South Wales and South Australia requires insurers to notify all vehicles they write off, and there have been no reported problems with the operation of such provisions. A recent legal opinion in South Australia is that insurance companies that are legally required to notify write-offs in that State must also provide notification if these vehicles are subsequently returned to insured parties under reduced value settlements. However, this may not be the case for vehicles that are returned by insurers to uninsured third parties under reduced value settlements. (This situation could arise where an insured vehicle is at fault in a collision with an uninsured vehicle, and the insurance company accepts liability for the damage to the uninsured vehicle. If the cost of repairing the uninsured vehicle exceeds its market value, the insurance company will offer the market value to the uninsured owner in exchange for the wreck. The issue of notification arises when the uninsured owner requests the return of the wreck under a reduced value settlement). The legal opinion is that insurers cannot write off a third party vehicle, as there is no contract in place between the insurer and the third party. In these cases the insurer can only make an offer being the lesser of repair costs and market value. Hence no reporting requirement could exist. South Australia is considering the possibility of modifying its legislation to require that insurers report details of third party vehicles that would otherwise be written-off. Other States and Territories have indicated that they propose to require insurers to notify all write-offs they make. (c) Loss adjustors. Both New South Wales and Queensland have made the point that, where loss adjusters make an assessment on behalf of an insurance company or an auction house, these bodies, not the assessor, should make the notification. The New South Wales policy requires insurance companies to retain responsibility for assessments made on their behalf. With the exception of South Australia and New South Wales, TLGs have not indicated their positions regarding loss adjustors making assessments and providing notifications on behalf of uninsured owners. South Australia will authorise a loss adjuster to act as an agent for providing notifications directly to the South Australia Motor Vehicle Registry. New South Wales accepts notifications by loss adjusters in respect of uninsured vehicle owners. (d) Licensed motor dealers and auctioneers. All TLGs agreed that these bodies should be required to notify when they receive damaged vehicles that have not already been notified by insurance companies or other parties. (e) Automotive dismantlers and wreckers. All TLGs agreed that these bodies should be required to notify when they receive damaged vehicles that have not already been notified by insurance companies or other parties. (f) Scrap metal dealers. The Victorian TLG recommended that scrap metal dealers should be required to notify. However, because of identification practicalities, these dealers should only be required to notify if a vehicle is not received in a crushed or compacted form. (g) Collision repairers. No TLG proposes to require collision repairers to notify write-offs. The reason is that such a requirement would result in unnecessary duplication and possibly conflicting write off notifications that would still be required from insurance companies, vehicle dealers and auctioneers. (h) Owners of uninsured vehicles. This group also includes owners of large vehicle fleets who self-insure their vehicles. States and Territories are divided as to whether or not uninsured vehicle owners should be required to notify Queensland, South Australia, the ACT, Western Australia and Northern Territory propose to require uninsured vehicle owners to notify. Queensland will require uninsured owners to fill out assessment forms when they apply to cancel the registration, if they indicate that the vehicle is to be wrecked. The Queensland Department of Transport will then assess whether the vehicle is repairable or unrepairable, based on the information provided. New South Wales asks persons surrendering their registration to volunteer information as to whether or not their vehicle is damaged, and uses this fact alone to record such vehicles as a repairable write-offs. South Australia also obtains information on uninsured vehicles when operators surrender the registration, but requires the person to provide detailed damage information and to make the actual written-off assessment. (i) The responses of the TLGs do not indicate whether uninsured owners who have their vehicles assessed by loss adjusters would be excused from their obligation to notify. An obvious difficulty here is that no jurisdiction (with the possible exception of South Australia) has proposed a notification obligation for loss adjusters who act as agents for uninsured owners. South Australia appoints loss adjusters as agents of the registration authority, and presumably this would impose an obligation to notify as well as assess. (j) Owners of unregistered vehicles. South Australia, the ACT and the Northern Territory propose to require owners of unregistered vehicles to notify. The reasoning behind this requirement may be to prevent uninsured vehicle owners from escaping their notification obligation in these jurisdictions by allowing the registration to lapse (rather than cancelling it). However, it may also be a necessary requirement to ensure that insurers and other mandatory notifiers proceed with making a notification if an insured vehicle's registration expires after it is damaged but before an assessment is made. Table 7. Bodies and persons required to notify vehicle write-offs Body NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT ACT Registered operator No No Yes1 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Owner of unregistered vehicle No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Motor vehicle insurer Yes. Yes Yes Yes. Yes. Yes Yes Yes Motor dealer/auctioneer Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Automotive dismantler Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Insured vehicle owner No No No No Yes No Yes Yes Uninsured vehicle owner No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Note 1: Applies only to uninsured registered operators 5.7.2 Notification by agents of insurance companies In South Australia, several auction houses are providing a service to a number of insurers to actually provide the notification of their write-offs to the registration authority on their behalf and to affix notices to the vehicles. New South Wales advises that it does not permit these arrangements because it believes that insurers should retain full responsibility for assessments made on their behalf. Queensland's submission suggests that it will accept notifications from auction houses acting as agents for insurers. 5.7.3 Measures to avoid duplicate notifications Both New South Wales and Queensland have proposed clear measures to ensure that a vehicle is written-off and notified only once. The measures recommended by Queensland are: 1. Insurers or their agents must report all written-off vehicles 2. Auction houses must report all written-off vehicles acquired from a source other than an insurer (unless they are an agent for an insurer) 3. Auto recyclers must report all written-off vehicles acquired from a source other than an insurer or auction house The submissions of other TLGs are unclear on this point, but could be seen as requiring a notification from every person or body acquiring a written-off vehicle. The South Australian legislation is specific in requiring separate notifications from owners, insurers, dealers, auctioneers and parts dismantlers. However the South Australian law excuses successive acquirers of the wreck from having to affix written-off labels. 5.7.4 When notification must be given States and Territories are divided between requiring 7 or 14 days as to the time in which notice must be given Table 8. (Under the August 1996 draft regulations of the National Registration Scheme, 14 days is the required notification period for registered operators who write-off or destroy a vehicle). Queensland proposes separate notification periods for individual owners versus the motor and insurance industry. The New South Wales situation is typical of the application of the notice periods: * insurers must notify after deciding to write off the vehicle, * Licensed dealers and auctioneers must notify after the vehicle comes into their care, custody or control, * Dismantlers must notify after commencing work to dismantle the vehicle, and individual owners before disposing of the vehicle. New South Wales requires that notification of a New South Wales registered write-off is given, even if the vehicle is written-off in another State or Territory. South Australia also requires a person who brings a written-off vehicle into the State from another State or Territory or from outside Australia to provide notification within 7 days. Table 8. Notification periods Jurisdiction NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT ACT Days 7 7 7/14* 14 7 14 14 14 *Queensland requires individual owners to notify in 14 days, and industry to notify in 7 days 5.8 Vehicles subject to mandatory notification 5.8.1 Vehicle classes States and Territories are divided as to which vehicle classes should be subject to mandatory notification requirements. There is unanimous agreement to include light motor vehicles, motor cycles, and caravans. However, Western Australia and Northern Territory propose to exclude light trailers on the grounds that these will be low risk vehicles. Queensland and the Northern Territory have specifically nominated that only ADR complying vehicles are notified, thus excluding plant and special purpose vehicles. New South Wales includes these vehicles and argues that there is a rebirthing market for them. With the exception of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, other States and Territories will use the 4.5 tonne gross vehicle mass breakpoint to define vehicle class exemptions, such as light trailers. New South Wales specifies tare mass limits that are the break points for its annual inspection regime. This means that some but not all heavy motor vehicles and trailers will be subject to notification in New South Wales. The Australian Capital Territory proposes to adopt the New South Wales tare mass classes. Table 10. Vehicle classes subject to mandatory notification Vehicle class NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT ACT All motor vehicles and trailers No Yes Yes3 No Yes Yes Yes2 No Light motor vehicles and motor cycles Yes Yes Yes3 Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Yes Heavy motor vehicles Some1 Yes Yes3 Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Some1 Non ADR and special purpose vehicles Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Heavy trailers Some1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes2 Some1 Light trailers Some1 Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Some1 All trailers No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No All caravans Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Note 1. New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory require notification of commercial motor vehicles up to 5 tonnes tare mass, and trailers up to 2.5 tonnes tare mass Note 2. Northern Territory exempts plant and special purpose vehicles Note 3. Queensland excludes recreational ships and special purpose vehicles 5.8.2 Age or VIN status of vehicles subject to notification States and Territories differ in their approach to vehicle age, with a majority opting for a 15-year age limit while South Australia does not propose an age limit. Western Australia is to limit its notification requirement to vehicles that have a VIN, and proposes to apply a 15-year age limit to these vehicles after 2004. Table 11. Age and VIN requirements for notifiable vehicles Criteria NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT ACT Not more than 15 years Yes tbd Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Only vehicles with a VIN No tbd No Yes No No No No No age limit No tbd No No Yes No No Yes tbd: to be determined 5.9 Registration status of notifiable vehicles All TLGs have suggested that written-off notification should also be given for vehicles in notifiable classes that are unregistered. The NSW legislation requires that the vehicle must be recorded on the NSW register, or is an unregistered new vehicle. 5.10 Signing of written-off vehicles 5.10.1 Written-off vehicles which must be signed The signing of written-off vehicles is not only important for consumers, it also alerts auctioneers, vehicle dismantlers and other vehicle acquirers that the vehicle has already been written-off, and thus prevents unnecessary duplication of vehicle write-off notifications. All TLGs agree that signage should be applied to vehicles which are assessed as being suitable only for parts. However, SA requires signage to be placed on all categories of write-off Table 12. The Victorian TLG also expressed support for labelling all written-off vehicles. South Australian consumers are reported to have complained that they cannot distinguish between structural, economic and no-value write-offs because the same label is used for each. If all write-offs were to be labelled, there may a case for distinctive labels indicating write-off type. In States and Territories where only statutory write-offs would be labelled, there may be potential for confusion where wrecks can be written-off by individual owners. These vehicles would be entering the market outside the insurer/auctioneer/dismantler groups that would have established arrangements for advising each other of the legal status of a wreck. In the absence of a label, a dismantler who acquires an economic write-off from an individual would not know if it had been notified, and would need to contact the registration authority to see whether a notification has already been made. This requirement could establish an unnecessary burden for vehicle dismantlers and registration authorities. Where end-of-life write-offs can be made by individuals, rather than dismantlers, the situation without a label would be even worse, because acquirers of undamaged, unregistered vehicles would have no way of knowing if the vehicle had been written-off without first contacting the registration authority. Persons proposing to restore these vehicles would be unaware of parts and labour verification processes, and high-level inspection requirements until they presented the vehicle for registration. An even greater burden would be imposed on parts dismantlers, because they would be placed in the position of having to make an enquiry for every vehicle they receive from sources other than insurers and auctioneers. Table 12. Written-off vehicles which must be signed Write-off category NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT ACT Unrepairable write-offs only Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes All write-offs No Yes No No Yes No No No 5.10.2 Location of written-off signage and indicators All TLGs agree that the label should be placed in a prominent position, but differ on the number of signs to be placed on a written-off vehicle and whether or not compliance plates and vehicle frame identifiers should be permanently marked. The NSW practice of placing a non-obscuring diagonal chisel mark on the compliance plate of unrepairable write-offs is not permitted in South Australia (because it is illegal to deface an identifying mark) and would not be adopted. Western Australia and Victoria advise that they do not propose to mark the compliance plate because it can easily be removed, and its absence does not prevent a vehicle from being identified. Table 14. Table 14. Location of written-off signage and indicators Type and location NSW Vic Qld WA SA Tas NT ACT Label in prominent position Yes1 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Label on firewall No No No No Yes No No No Diagonal mark on VIN stamped on the vehicle frame No No No Yes No Yes Yes No Diagonal chisel mark on compliance plate Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Note 1. In NSW, a label is a voluntary requirement. 5.10.3 Who places the written-off signage, and when Most TLGs agree that the person who writes off the vehicle must apply the label, and do so before selling or otherwise disposing of the vehicle. Queensland differs slightly by requiring the person who is selling the written-off vehicle to apply the label, although this is effectively the same. South Australia allows its external label to be removed after the vehicle is sold, but only an authorised vehicle inspector can remove the second label on the firewall. In New South Wales, under a voluntary code of practice, the decision on when to place the signage on a vehicle is left to the insurance company or auction house. However, the signage must be on the vehicle before it is sold or otherwise disposed of by either the insurance company at their own auction, or by an independent auction house. Both auctions have catalogues to show a vehicle's status. That is, statutory write-offs are usually shown in the catalogue under their own separate heading. Also, the auctioneer will advise potential buyers of the vehicle's written-off status during the auction of the vehicle. 5.11 Re-registration requirements for written-off vehicles 5.11.1 Unrepairable or statutory write-offs All TLGs except South Australia and Western Australia have advised that they would not permit a vehicle that has been assessed (and if necessary, confirmed) as an unrepairable write-off to be re-registered under any circumstances. South Australia advises that a structural write-off that is presented for re-registration would be subject to a vehicle safety inspection and an identity inspection (equivalent to the Level 2 Inspection on the draft Austroads matrix shown in Appendix 1). This inspection is conducted by Government inspectors in the Adelaide metropolitan district and by Police in country areas. The Police provide training to both Government inspectors and Police in country areas on how to conduct an identity inspection. Tasmania and the Northern Territory advise that there will be circumstances in which a vehicle enthusiast may choose to restore an extremely damaged vehicle because of its intrinsic value, or for sentimental or collector reasons. These States propose to establish special procedures that would consider requests to allow these vehicles to be registered on a case by case basis. One possible procedure that has been mentioned is to treat these rebuilt vehicles as homemade vehicles. These vehicles would be unable to assume the marque name (eg "Holden") of the original vehicle, and would therefore be rendered unattractive to the market served by vehicle re-birthers. Western Australia will permit a wreck classified as being unrepairable to be re-registered subject to a Level 2 identity inspection and a roadworthy inspection. An inspection by an engineering signatory is not required unless the vehicle has been modified from its original specification. These vehicles can then be issued with a surrogate VIN or chassis number that is linked to the original vehicle identifiers on the Register. 5.11.2 Repairable or economic write-offs All TLGs appear to agree that a repairable write-off that is submitted for re-registration must, at a minimum, undergo an identity check, and the person seeking the registration must provide receipts for repair labour and parts. Queensland has nominated a Level 3 inspection for all written-off vehicles being presented for re-registration. In the draft Austroads report, a Level 3 inspection is defined as "Essentially a forensic inspection to determine conclusively the identity of the vehicle, to be carried out by persons qualified to conduct such inspections - Police or highly qualified specialists". New South Wales carries out a normal safety and identity check at an Authorised Unregistered Vehicle Inspection Station, and then subjects the vehicle to what is essentially a Level 3 inspection by an in-house group of trained inspectors from the RTA's Vehicle Identity Inspection Unit. South Australia carries out a Level 2 check of the vehicle, and may require a Level 3 check if the vehicle looks suspicious, and a safety check if there is clear evidence of repair work. With the exception of the Northern Territory, there appears to be a consensus that Engineering Signatory inspections would only required if the repaired vehicle has been modified from its original specification in some way. 5.12 Providing public information on written-off vehicles 5.12.1 Public responsibilities for written-off vehicles Members of the public will need to be aware of their responsibilities when they write off a vehicle, or dispose of a written-off vehicle. In New South Wales, members of the public who are vehicle owners have no formal responsibilities in respect of write-offs. Written-off notification responsibilities reside entirely with insurers, licensed auctioneers and dealers, and wreckers and parts dismantlers. In South Australia, members of the public who are vehicle owners are required to notify if they write off a vehicle, and must affix a written-off label before disposing of it. Similar requirements are expected to apply in, Northern Territory, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. These owners will generally be made aware of this requirement when they apply to cancel the registration. However, several States and Territories will be preparing public brochures on this subject. In Queensland, a communication strategy will be developed to inform members of the public of their obligations by various methods such as brochures and posters and industry support. The Queensland Transport "Application to Cancel Vehicle Registration" will prompt the applicant to complete a "Wrecked or Written-Off Vehicle Notification" if required. This will also be reinforced with registration mail outs for renewal and cancellation of registration. 5.12.2 Access to information about written-off vehicles Members of the public will also need to be alerted to the importance of written-off vehicle status when acquiring an unregistered vehicle or a wreck, and the availability of written-off vehicle information from registration authorities (and possibly insurance companies). States and Territories differ as to the extent of written-off information that should be released to the public. In New South Wales, members of the public may enquire through the RTA's Customer Service Centre to confirm if a vehicle is recorded as written-off or not. This is a verbal "yes" or "no" response. The RTA can provide written confirmation of a vehicle's status, however a search fee applies. It is understood that enquirers seeking written confirmation are provided with an insurance company's case number for a vehicle which is recorded as written-off, and that insurers may subsequently provide additional information on the vehicle. In Queensland, the public can obtain a certificate from the Register of Encumbered Vehicles (REVS) which will indicate if the vehicle is encumbered, stolen and/or statutory write-off/wrecked, plus the incident type (eg fire hail etc.). It is proposed that under a service level agreement between REVS and Queensland Transport, customers seeking further clarification of the wrecked status of a vehicle would then be redirected to Queensland Transport. Providing the two components is expected to minimise the amount of telephone enquiries to the call centres. In South Australia, the general public can obtain information regarding the category of vehicle write-off through Transport SA Customer Service Centres. Brochures are available to inform the public of the steps that should be taken when considering the purchase of a second-hand vehicle, especially a write-off. The fact that a vehicle is recorded as a Structural write-off is available to the public before and after a vehicle has been repaired, inspected and re-registered. The fact that a vehicle is recorded as either an Economic or No-Value write-off is available to the public only until the vehicle has been repaired inspected and re-registered. Once re-registered, the information is stored as history. In the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, the public will be provided with information that the vehicle is or is not written-off, and whether or not it can be re-registered. Victoria proposes to provide a complete Vehicle Information Package (VIP) to allow potential vehicle purchasers to obtain information about vehicles such as registration history, status, description, financial encumbrances, whether or not it has been written-off (including a damage report for repairable write-offs. The VIP would also show, for statutory write-offs, that the VIN has been recorded as ineligible for future registration. Unlike the South Australian report, the Victorian report would also indicate whether a vehicle that is registered has been previously written-off. In Western Australia, information available to both public and industry will be on a "yes" or "no" basis. Enquirers will be informed of the external marking process for statutory write-offs. Tasmania has yet to consider a definitive position on the provision of information to the public. 5.12.3 Liability issues in providing written-off vehicle information Some TLGs have proposed providing written advice of a vehicle's status to enquirers who are prepared to pay a fee. Queensland and Victoria have discussed providing an "all-in-one" or "one-stop-shop" report that will encompass not only written-off status, but stolen and financial encumbrance information as well. No TLG has indicated that it would support an indemnity for persons who are provided with written-off vehicle information that is incorrect. (For example, a person who is advised by a registration authority that a vehicle is not written-off may subsequently discover that it was, and suffer financial loss). However, several jurisdictions have indicated that claims made in respect of incorrect information would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Victoria currently provides a form of indemnity in respect of financial encumbrance information provided on a Certificate. However, Victoria has indicated that it will not be providing an indemnity for incorrect information relating to written-off status. New South Wales advises that if incorrect information is held in its WOVR, a customer will be referred to the information source. That is the insurance company, dealer or dismantler. Queensland has advised that it is examining the need for legislative backing for a statement on its advice certificates disclaiming responsibility. The SA registration authority does not indemnify a vehicle owner in respect of incorrect information recorded about a write-off. Information recorded on the wreck's register is only as good as the information provided. 5.13 Offences relating to written-off vehicles States and Territories have either provided only limited information on this matter, or are awaiting resolution of best practice principles before finalising their position on offences relating to written-off vehicles. Specific written-off vehicle offences nominated were: 5.13.1 New South Wales * Failure for an insurer, dealer or dismantler to provide information on each vehicle written-off within 7 days. * Any person knowingly providing false or misleading information. * Unauthorised access by insurers to the WOVR. * Unauthorised disclosure of information by insurers, dealers or dismantlers. * Failure to comply with a notice to remove, obliterate or destroy a vehicle's identifiers. 5.13.2 Queensland * Failure for individuals to report a wrecked or statutory write-off vehicle within 14 days. * Failure for corporations to report a wrecked or statutory write-off vehicles within 7 days. * Failure to display placard warning of wrecked or statutory write-off vehicle on auction or sale of such vehicle. * Providing incorrect information of a wrecked or statutory write-off vehicle. 5.13.3 Western Australia * Not providing information. * Providing misleading information. * Unauthorised disclosure of information. * Removal of identifiers. * Not complying to mark identifiers. 5.13.4 South Australia * Various offences relating to the misuse of an identification plate. * For insurers, vehicle importers, dealers and wreckers, failing to notify the registration authority within 7 days. * For all persons writing off vehicles, failing to affix a written-off label as required. 5.14 Penalties The range of penalties nominated were: * New South Wales. $2200. Companies only. There are no written-off penalties that relate to registered operators. * Queensland. Queensland will consider the issue of Penalty Infringement Notices (PINs) for minor offences and the issue of summons (court process) for regular or serious offenders and seek maximum penalties. Offences will be adjudicated on a case by case basis. * South Australia. $2500 for any offence committed in the course of a trade or business. Ina any other case, $750. * Western Australia. To be determined with regard to penalties in other States and Territories, with the possible adoption of differential penalties for business and private individuals. Preferably penalties should be nationally consistent. * Northern Territory. To be determined. Northern Territory favours a consistent national approach if possible, and supports differential penalties for business and private individuals. * Tasmania. To be determined. * Australian Capital Territory. To be determined, but would need to follow Australian Capital Territory requirements for appropriate level, generally imposing higher penalties for corporations than individuals. 6 DISSENTING VIEWS EXPRESSED BY TLG MEMBERS. States and Territories reported a high level of agreement between members of their Technical Liaison Groups in respect of the final WOVR positions adopted. However, some dissenting views were expressed, along with some useful perspectives. 6.1 New South Wales 6.1.1 Motor Traders Association of New South Wales * Would like to see the New South Wales requirements regarding challenges to statutory write-offs strengthened as follows: "Any decision to change the status of a WOVR from a statutory write-off to a vehicle capable of re-registration should be taken only by a most senior RTA officer and on the basis of a compelling error. Suitable records of such a decision need to be maintained for subsequent review if necessary" * Strongly advocate that the existing policy relating to statutory write-offs in New South Wales be applied nationally. * Are concerned at the New South Wales practice that re-registerable written-off vehicles be subject to inspections by an Authorised Unregistered Vehicle Inspection Station and the RTA's Vehicle Identity Inspection Unit. Their view was that these vehicles should only be subject to one or the other of the required inspections, not both. 6.1.2 Phil Marks, Auto-Group.com.au * Was concerned at the fact that New South Wales dealers and auctioneers have no way of knowing whether vehicles that originate in other States and Territories are written-off, because the RTA marking procedure is not followed in other jurisdictions. 6.1.3 F C Ibels & Co, Loss Assessors and Adjusters * Independent loss assessors are required by the RTA to submit their assessments to their principals, who may not necessarily be insurers, but may be self-insured small fleet owners. Loss assessors should be required to submit their findings directly to the RTA, and be reimbursed by the RTA for completing the WOVR form. This way we know the information has been submitted, there could be no intervention or loss of information, and this would assist in notifying the RTA within 7 days of the categorisation being made. 6.2 Queensland 6.2.1 The insurance industry * While there was unanimous agreement on recording statutory write-offs, the insurance industry felt that if there was the opportunity that a statutory write-off could be re-registered after being subjected to a strict inspection process and issued a surrogate vehicle identifier, it would increase the market value of the vehicle at auction. * The insurance industry raised an issue that in the scenario where the vehicle owner chooses to buy back the wrecked vehicle, therefore the vehicle does not become the property of the insurance company. In this case they are not the registered operator of the vehicle and cannot legally notify the WOVR. Insurers believe that they could be subject to litigation by the vehicle owner if the details of the wrecked status were incorrectly recorded on WOVR. The insurance industry was prepared to inform registered operators of their obligation to notify the department of the written-off vehicle details if they retained the vehicle. An alternative for the industry to consider is to adopt the practice of the NRMA (NSW), whereby the vehicle cannot be retained by the vehicle owner through the claim process but can be repurchased through the auction process. This would ensure that the vehicle is recorded on WOVR. 6.3 South Australia 6.3.1 Vehicle dismantlers * The workshop also discussed the flagging of the VIN of wrecked and written-off vehicles that are disposed of to scrap metal merchants as salvage. One of the workshop participants, who is a vehicle dismantler, raised a concern that vehicles could be compacted before being disposed of to a scrap metal merchant, and that access to the VIN may not always be practicable. It was suggested that prior to a vehicle being compacted and delivered to a scrap metal merchant, information that the vehicle had reached the end of its life should be flagged on the Wrecks Register to prevent the VIN/Chassis number from being used to re-birth another vehicle. Concern was expressed by industry regarding the burden if further notification to the authority was required to notify that a vehicle had been disposed of to a scrap metal merchant. (End of Life Vehicle) * An issue was also raised by the vehicle dismantler on the possibility of licensing persons to purchase vehicles from auctions, where the vehicles have been classified as "never to be re-registered". * A dismantler did not agree with differential penalties. The dismantler raised the issue that there are so many "back-yard" dismantlers who do not comply with regulations required to operate a dismantling business and if penalised would only attract the lower penalty. 6.3.2 Royal Automobile Association * The RAA representative suggested that a Vehicle Inspection Declaration should be developed and used by all jurisdictions as a pre-registration declaration by a person prior to re-registering a wrecked vehicle. Such a declaration would assist police in their investigations/prosecutions of persons involving with stealing vehicles. 6.4 Western Australia 6.4.1 Royal Automobile Club and CGU Insurance * Members representing these groups objected to the release of information to the public of insurer details and claim numbers. They argued that providing these details would invite contact with insurers seeking detailed information on damage points and severity, and could lead to potential litigation. TLG members therefore considered it was not necessary to release this detailed information, and did not endorse the release of these details. 7 INDICATIVE TIMETABLES FOR WOVR IMPLEMENTATION Both New South Wales and South Australia already have their written-off vehicle registers in operation, and do not propose to implement further changes at this stage. Tasmania and Victoria have not indicated timetables for implementation. 7.1 Queensland 7.1.1 Tasks required to implement the policies Queensland Transport has formed a working group with industry to implement WOVR in Queensland. Business Rules for Queensland WOVR now finalised. Computer system analysis of WOVR to be completed by end of July 2000. Queensland Transport to consult with industry about the introduction of an accredited level 3 inspection (yet to be determined). Queensland Transport to seek approval of business case for the introduction of an accredited level 3 inspection (yet to be determined). Amend the Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Vehicle Registration) Regulations 1999 and Transport Operations (Road Use Management - Vehicle Standards and Safety) Regulations 1999 (late 2000). Design and implement a communication strategy prior to the commencement of operations of the WOVR (September 2000) 7.1.2 Stages of implementation Development of Level 3 inspection infrastructure in Queensland (accreditation and IT system access). Construct WOVR (computer system changes). Supporting legislation for WOVR and Level 3 inspection. Training for users with access to WOVR and qualified staff for level 3 inspection. Communicate WOVR to industry and vehicle owners. 7.1.3 Key factors influencing implementation The introduction of a WOVR in Queensland is scheduled for late 2000. This however, now appears unlikely and is dependent on three key factors: 1. Agreement and implementation on an accredited Level 3 inspection scheme. 2. Computer system resources to develop and implement WOVR. 3. National agreement by all REVS jurisdictions to provide this information and that costs of implementation, infrastructure and on going service delivery which may be incurred by the REVS jurisdictions is resolved. 7.2 Western Australia Western Australia intends to follow the timelines and targets presented by the NMVTRC. Appropriate system changes have been made to currently provide a flag and limited write-off description. Transport is developing a new computer system TRELIS that will provide the avenue to record areas of damage and severity codes. This is anticipated to take between 12 to 18 months. Implementation of a compulsory WOVR will be dependent upon obtaining the passage of appropriate legislation. 7.3 Northern Territory A staged implementation approach is preferred with a focus on statutory write- offs being recorded first for data inter change via NEVDIS. * The broad tasks required to implement the policies are being finalised and the individual estimated times and dates for achieving these tasks commences with stage one available at the end of August 2000. * The likely stages and staging dates leading to full implementation are currently being established. * The major controlling factors influencing the timing of implementation relate to changes to the MOVERS system. 7.4 Australian Capital Territory A timetable is not able to be provided at this time as there are a number of factors that affect the timing, including mechanisms to be used to implement agreed outcomes, agreement to the strategy at the appropriate level and redevelopment of the TRIPS (registration) computer system. 8 BEST PRACTICE PRINCIPLES This section proposes best practice principles for establishing written-off vehicle registers in terms of the original ATC request and the outcomes of the NMVTRC's 1999 stakeholder workshop. 8.1 Approach The overall goal of establishing best practice principles is to establish a nationally consistent WOVR system that delivers the best possible theft deterrent outcomes with reasonable or sustainable administrative effort. For the purposes of this report, best practice principles for establishing written-off vehicle registers in Australian States and Territories have been established using the following means: 1. Where all States and Territories have agreed on a particular practice, this practice will be considered the best practice. 2. Where States and Territories have proposed different approaches to a particular issue, the best practice will be the one considered to possess a majority of the following features: (a) best facilitates national communication of information (b) does not create interfacing difficulties between States and Territories (c) requires the least administrative effort by stakeholders (d) is the simplest and most understandable approach to the issue (e) is supported by a majority of States and Territories 8.2 Consistent terminology 8.2.1 What is meant by "written-off" While the focus of the TLG considerations has been on written-off vehicles, a study of the legislation of the two States that have mandatory WOVRs suggests that there needs to be a nationally consistent interpretation of this expression. (a) New South Wales The New South Wales legislation states, inter alia: "a motor vehicle is written-off if a determination is made by an insurer in respect of the motor vehicle that the vehicle should be written-off or should be repaired". The obligation on dealers, auctioneers and parts dismantlers is to notify the Authority when they receive or dismantle a vehicle defined in New South Wales as a "wreck", which is separately defined as: " a motor vehicle is wrecked if it is demolished or dismantled, or if it is in some state or condition, or damaged in some manner prescribed by the regulations". Dealers, auctioneers and parts dismantlers in New South Wales therefore do not "write-off" a vehicle in the legal sense because they are not insurers. What they do is assess whether a wreck conforms to the Authority's statutory or repairable write-off criteria, and notify the Authority accordingly. (b) South Australia The South Australian legislation defines a written-off vehicle as "..a motor vehicle that is to be or has been written-off as a total loss or constructive total loss for insurance purposes; or wrecked or wholly or partly disassembled for salvage; or sold or acquired for wrecking or disassembling for salvage or when in a condition such that it cannot be driven on a road lawfully or at all and requires extensive repairs, and includes a part of a wrecked or wholly or partly disassembled motor vehicle, being a part that bears a vehicle identification plate" While the definitions of each State achieve a similar purpose, there could be legal argument that a South Australian written-off vehicle may not equate to a New South Wales written-off vehicle. In the context of all jurisdictions interacting in respect of written-off vehicles, it is highly desirable that a common definition is used to describe a written-off vehicle. Proposed best practice: That a nationally agreed definition of "written-off vehicle" be developed, which incorporates the meaning of the word "wreck". What is meant by "high risk vehicle"? The expression "high risk vehicle" is central to the proposed treatment of written-off vehicles. For the purpose of this report, a high risk vehicle is one that: * has been so severely damaged or exposed to fire or potential corrosion that at best it could be used only for parts, and * would be attractive to car thieves as an inexpensive means of providing a legitimate identity 8.3 Identifying written-off vehicles which pose the highest risk of rebirthing 8.3.1 Agreed position All TLGs have agreed that high-risk vehicles: * should be flagged on the registration database; * should not be re-registered, or if so, should be subject to more stringent re-registration requirements than other written-off vehicles; and * should be placarded prior to disposal. 8.3.2 How should high-risk written-off vehicles be designated? All TLGs except South Australia propose to refer to a high-risk write-off as a "Statutory write-off". The South Australian "Structural write-off" category describes some of these vehicles but excludes others that would be considered high risk in all other jurisdictions. With the exception of South Australia and Western Australia, all States and Territories propose to deny further registration to high-risk vehicles. Thus, with the exception of Western Australia, the term "Statutory Write-off" is also associated with a ban on future registration. The issue of whether or not high-risk write-offs should be re-registered is separately discussed in 8.4. It is desirable that a single term be used nationally to describe wrecks with the highest risk of being re-birthed. If national agreement were subsequently reached that these wrecks must not to be re-registered, then the meaning of the term would simply be reinforced. Without a common term, registration personnel and Police in other States and Territories could reasonably believe that a South Australian "structural" write-off", is not a "statutory write-off". The use of a uniform term is therefore preferred. Proposed best practice: The term "Statutory Write-off" be used to describe a high-risk write-off. 8.3.3 What level of damage constitutes a high-risk write-off? All TLGs except South Australia have agreed in principle to adopt the New South Wales impact damage criteria, which describe the conditions required to make a high-risk or statutory write-off assessment. South Australia's criteria do not specify conditions that require an impact-damaged wreck to be assessed as a high-risk write-off. The person assessing an impact-damaged wreck is required to make a subjective judgement to this effect. It is possible that the extent of high-risk write-off assessments made by experienced South Australian insurers would not be dissimilar to those made by assessors using the New South Wales criteria. However, in the absence of clear criteria, impact damage assessments made by individual South Australian vehicle owners and smaller parts dismantlers could vary considerably from equivalent wrecks assessed in other States and Territories. Of greater concern is the fact that hail and water damaged vehicles, which would be assessed as high-risk or statutory write-offs in every other State and Territory, could be assessed as economic or repairable write-offs in South Australia unless there was clear evidence that their structural integrity had been compromised. All of these differences mean a wreck that would be assessed as a statutory write-off in all other States and Territories could be assessed as "an economic write-off" in South Australia. One consequence of these differences is that an incentive could be created for persons handling certain types of wrecked vehicles (that would be assessed as statutory write-offs in all other jurisdictions) to transport them to South Australia for assessment as higher value "repairable" write-offs. The obvious conclusion is that differences between States and Territories as to what constitutes a high-risk write-off would undermine the integrity of procedures for handling and recording high-risk write-offs. It would also create opportunities for manipulation of the written-off register system and could possibly facilitate further avenues for rebirthing stolen vehicles. While a majority of TLGs have agreed in principle with the New South Wales damage assessment criteria, some Liaison Group members have suggested that worthwhile changes could be made in the areas of statutory write-off requirements relating to fresh-water immersion and impact damage to roofs and floors as discussed in 5.5.4. A national technical group should consider the merits of these suggested changes. Proposed best practice: 1. All States and Territories use the New South Wales criteria for assessing whether a vehicle is a high-risk write-off. 2. A national technical group to assess suggested changes to the immersion and impact damage criteria for statutory write-off. 8.4 Should high-risk written-off vehicles be re-registered? TLGs differ as to the re-registration restrictions that should be placed on high-risk write-offs. A majority of TLGs propose to enforce a total ban on re-registering a vehicle that has been declared a high-risk write-off. However, both South Australia and Western Australia propose to allow these vehicles to be re-registered subject to Level 2 inspections to confirm the vehicle's identity, and the issue of a surrogate VIN or Chassis Number. Arguments supporting a ban on re-registering these vehicles are: * The highest risk vehicle wrecks are then permanently removed from the pool of potentially re-birthable vehicles available to thieves. (In New South Wales, this reportedly amounts to 30% of all written-off vehicles). * The need to ensure that repaired high-risk vehicles are indeed the original vehicles would create a high demand for skilled police or government inspectors, or require the establishment of highly secure private sector inspection arrangements that are likely to incur significant costs. * Consumers would have less chance of buying a re-birthed stolen vehicle and of having the perpetual risk of it later being seized by police. * Consumers would also benefit from a reduction in the price of second-hand parts because more vehicles would be left in the dismantling chain. There would also be a reduced demand for parts used to rebuild written-off vehicles. * There would be less risk to consumers of purchasing a poorly re-built vehicle. * South Australia has commented that "There is a major concern that, if the process of issuing a surrogate VIN (when high-risk write-offs are re-registered) is not adequately controlled, an avenue may be created to rebirth stolen vehicles. The risk of litigation is likely to fall mainly on the authority issuing the surrogate VIN". Arguments against placing a ban on re-registering high-risk vehicles are: * A ban serves no better purpose than a system where all write-offs are recorded and vigorous procedures are followed to carefully examine all vehicles presented for re-registration. * If an individual or a collision repairer had the time and effort to re-build a write-off it should be allowed. A compulsory ban will impose unnecessary hardship on individuals who wish to retain and restore their vehicle. * If a compulsory ban is implemented, thieves will move to using the available stock of economic write-offs for rebirthing, and will accept reduced but nevertheless significant profit margins. In considering a best practice position, it is worth examining the issues likely to arise from States and Territories having different positions on a re-registration ban. * If a write-off cannot be re-registered in one jurisdiction, could it be re-registered in another jurisdiction? States that permit such re-registrations could become popular because they could provide the owner of a reconstructed high-risk write-off in another State or Territory with a means of overcoming the ban on its re-registration. * If a high-risk write-off originating from a State or Territory that bans re-registration is legally re-registered in a State that allows re-registration, what would happen if the vehicle were to be subsequently transferred back to the State or Territory it originated from? This could create a consumer nightmare, particularly if the vehicle retained its original VIN. While the National Registration Scheme would allow such a vehicle to legally operate in another jurisdiction, the difficulty would arise when the registered operator attempted to transfer it to the original jurisdiction, possibly as a result of a permanent change of residence. The transfer of registration would be refused because the vehicle had previously been recorded as a statutory write-off. It is concluded that the existence of different re-registration requirements would impose a considerable administrative burden on registration authorities and would create unnecessary risks for consumers who acquire vehicles from South Australia and Western Australia. At a minimum, these States would need to establish legislation to prevent vehicles declared as high-risk write-offs from other States and Territories from being re-registered in their jurisdictions. It is recognised, however, that there is a need for all States and Territories to provide an avenue for the small number of persons who wish to rebuild a vehicle that has been declared a high-risk write-off. The reasons for wishing to do this may be sentimental or collector reasons, but should not be for commercial reasons. Persons would need to apply to do this before commencing any work on the wreck, and would possibly need to have the vehicle subjected to staged inspections, and pay appropriate fees. One possible method is to treat such vehicles as "homemade vehicles" as discussed in 5.11.1. It is suggested that nationally consistent procedures be developed for these owners under a separate project. Proposed best practice: All States and Territories should refuse to re-register high-risk write-offs, and only consider appeals against this for a limited range of specified reasons under strict, nationally consistent controls to be developed under a separate national project. 8.5 Who should classify a wreck as a high-risk write-off, and provide notification? The nationally agreed position appears to be that insurers, licensed dealers and auctioneers, and parts dismantlers should make the write off assessment and notify the registration authority. It is implicit in the responses of all TLGs that insured vehicle owners should not be required to make assessments or notifications. It also appears implicit that loss adjusters should be able to make assessments and provide notifications on behalf of uninsured owners. The issue of whether insured owners who receive their vehicles back as part of a reduced value settlement should be required to notify appears to have been resolved by a legal opinion that says the insurance company remains responsible. What remains at issue is whether uninsured owners should be required assess the status of a wreck and make the notification. 8.5.1 Uninsured vehicle operators and owners South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory propose to require individual owners to assess whether a vehicle is a high risk write-off and notify the Registration Authority. In assessing what should be best practice in this area, it is worth examining the scenario facing uninsured owners of wrecked vehicles. These vehicle owners can have their repair costs assessed by a collision repairer, or by a professional loss adjuster. Most self-insured fleets would use the services of a loss adjuster who would be able to submit a notification on their behalf if the vehicle was assessed as written-off. Those persons not using the services of a loss adjuster who decide that they do not wish to repair their vehicle may seek to recover its remaining value through a motor auctioneer, or by direct sale to a motor wrecker. Either of these venues would properly assess and notify the vehicle's write-off status. A percentage of owners may bypass these venues and advertise their damaged vehicles in the Trading Post and similar publications. The bulk of them will approach the Registration Authority to recover the remaining balance of their registration charges. These owners could then be asked to volunteer a statement concerning the condition of the vehicle. The remainder of these owners, whose vehicles would probably be unregistered, would remain unknown to the registration authority. The point of the forgoing discussion, which mirrors the New South Wales experience, is that the great majority of uninsured owners will direct their vehicles through venues that will properly assess and notify them. Only a very small percentage of uninsured owners would bypass these venues by selling direct to persons or bodies not required to notify. It is debatable whether placing a compulsory assessment and notification requirement on uninsured owners would result in a worthwhile increase in compliance by this very small group. New South Wales initially required lay persons to notify, but removed this requirement when a study indicated that up to 90 per cent of these lay assessments were incorrect, leading to a high administrative workload to handle challenges to these assessments. In New South Wales, loss adjusters, auctioneers and parts dismantlers now make the majority of assessments of uninsured vehicles. Owners of uninsured vehicles in New South Wales are asked to notify if their vehicle is to be wrecked when they cancel their registration. The RTA classifies these notifications, which form a very small percentage of all write-offs, as repairable write-offs, but does not record any damage information. Should one of these vehicles subsequently be re-registered, it is subjected to a Level 3 inspection. In South Australia, notifications made when registration is cancelled can be recorded as structural write-offs, economic write-offs or no-value write-offs on the assessment of the owner or registered operator. Owner assessments could also create difficulties for auctioneers and parts dismantlers who would also have a legal requirement to notify. Unless the owner has affixed a written-off label to the vehicle, these bodies would be relying on the owner's advice that the vehicle has already been written-off, and notified. In New South Wales, there were many cases of conflicting double notification. Most commonly, an experienced dealer would assess a wreck as being repairable, and sell it as such at auction, unaware that the original owner had previously or subsequently notified the authority that the vehicle was a statutory write-off. The buyer of the wreck was then unable to re-register the repaired vehicle and would appeal the assessment. These notification difficulties with industry bodies might be partly overcome if the enabling legislation was to excuse owners from assessing and notifying a write-off when the vehicle is being disposed of to a dismantler or licensed dealer/auctioneer. However, conflicting notifications could still occur through owner confusion about the role of the person the vehicle was being sold to. An issue of motivation arises if vehicle owners are only to be required to assess and notify when they dispose of the wreck to another individual who is not a dealer or a dismantler. Obviously, in this situation, a wreck that has not been notified as written-off is going to command a higher price than one that has. Similarly, a wreck that has been written-off as a repairable wreck would command a higher price than a statutory write-off. Individuals who cancel their vehicle's registration might therefore be more inclined to say that their vehicle is not a wreck, or otherwise that it is a repairable wreck rather than a statutory write-off. Unlike dealers and dismantlers, there would be no audit process to assess the honesty of personal write-offs. There is also a potential issue about the credibility of repairable write-offs coming from jurisdictions that allow owner assessments. The New South Wales experience with owner assessments was that there were many challenges to statutory write-off assessments made by lay persons. The RTA was forced to reverse many of these to repairable write-offs after investigation. In South Australia, all that is required to do this is to obtain a written statement from the lay person who made the original assessment, stating that it was incorrect, and for a registration customer service officer to make the appropriate change to the register. South Australia relies on its inspection process to cover any deficiencies in this reversal process. In conclusion, it would appear that compulsory assessment and notification for uninsured vehicle owners is unlikely to provide any worthwhile benefit in terms of additional notifications, and could have the capacity to diminish the integrity of the statutory write-off category. Even with exempting legislation, it could create difficulties for auctioneers and parts dismantlers. It could also introduce a considerable administrative workload for the registration authorities in managing challenges to statutory write-off assessments. A system in which uninsured owners are required to notify but not assess might alleviate problems with conflicting assessments, but would need to excuse owners who notify through loss adjusters, auction houses, dismantlers and registration offices to avoid duplicate notifications. Ultimately, such a requirement is unlikely to be known to or fulfilled by the very small number of vehicle operators who would be its real target. Proposed best practice: 1. The preferred practice is that vehicle owners and operators, whether insured or not, should not be required to make a written-off vehicle assessment or make notification that their vehicle has been written off. 2. Registration authorities should ask vehicle owners who cancel their registration to volunteer information that the vehicle is to be wrecked and record this information in the register as a repairable write-off. 8.5.2 Registered Operators As discussed in 5.7.1(a) the Regulations of the National Registration Scheme require a responsible operator to cause notice to be given to the registration authority if the vehicle has been wrecked or written-off. In the light of the proposed best practice for notification, this requirement would become redundant, and should therefore be rescinded. Proposed best practice: States and Territories should rescind the notification requirement of the National Heavy Vehicle Registration Scheme 8.5.3 Loss adjusters It is important that uninsured vehicle owners, including self-insured fleet owners, have access to professional assessors who can provide notification to the registration authority. Both New South Wales and South Australia agree that it is appropriate for loss adjusters to do this, although other jurisdictions have remained silent on this issue. The issues relating to notifications by loss adjusters are: (a) Should loss adjusters be allowed to make notifications on behalf of insurers and auctioneers? Both New South Wales and Queensland oppose the practice of loss adjusters making notifications on behalf of insurance companies. New South Wales has advised that this practice can allow insurers to distance themselves from taking responsibility for assessments notified by their agents. They claim that this encourages three-sided disputes between insurers, the registration authority and the assessor when a purchaser of a wreck disputes its statutory write-off classification. Presumably, this concern also extends to dealers and auctioneers. (b) What is the legal position of loss adjusters regarding the notification of assessments they make in respect of uninsured owners? It would be desirable to make loss adjusters responsible for notifying assessments they make in respect of uninsured owners. Proposed best practice: Loss adjusters or assessors: 1. should be permitted to make notifications in respect of uninsured vehicles, and should be legally responsible for forwarding such notifications to the registration authority. 2. should not be permitted to act as agents by submitting notifications of their assessments on behalf of insurers, dealers and auctioneers. 3. who wish to submit notifications on behalf of owners of uninsured vehicles must be registered with the registration authority before doing so. 8.6 Should wrecks be written-off by each body involved in the process? While several jurisdictions have indicated that they wish to have only one notification, it is not clear from the submissions of other TLGs as to what is intended. South Australia originally intended that each party be required to notify, so that the wrecks could be "tracked" as they progressed from insurer to auctioneer to parts dismantler or private acquirer. Indeed, South Australia's legislation still reflects this intention, although it is no longer required in practice. It is understood that while this measure was strongly supported by the Police the practice was dropped because of the considerable administrative workload it imposed upon the motor industry. It appears likely that all jurisdictions support the concept of having only one notification for a written-off vehicle. Obviously, this has considerable benefit because it removes the opportunity for conflicting assessments and greatly reduces administrative effort by both the motor industry and registration authorities. Proposed best practice: 1. Insurers must report all written-off vehicles. 2. Auction houses must report all written-off vehicles acquired from a source other than an insurer or a vehicle owner whose vehicle has been assessed by a loss adjuster. 3. Auto recyclers must report all written-off vehicles acquired from a source other than an insurer or auction house or a vehicle owner whose vehicle has been assessed by a loss adjuster. 8.7 How should notification providers be controlled? Most TLG submissions have referred to insurers and licensed dealers or auctioneers. Obviously there are clear processes to determine who is or is not an insurer, dealer or auctioneer. However, some TLG members have queried how individuals and small firms that call themselves parts dismantlers and loss assessors or adjusters are to be regarded by the registration authority, and what measures might be applied to these individuals or firms that do not satisfactorily comply with assessing and reporting requirements. Desirably, there should be national consistency in the criteria for managing these providers. South Australia has implemented a system by which insurers, dealers, auction houses, parts dismantlers and loss assessors must firstly be authorised as an Agent of the Motor Vehicle Registry before they can issue written-off a written-off vehicle notification. These agents are issued with "Written-Off Vehicle" notices in the form of adhesive labels that must be placed on each vehicle that has been assessed. The notices, which must be annotated with the vehicle's identification details, have a sequential serial number that allows the registration authority to identify the provider. These notices are placed on the firewall wherever possible, and cannot be removed until the vehicle has been re-registered. A separate part of the label is placed on a prominent part of the vehicle to warn purchasers that it has been written-off. The benefit of this secondary warning label is questionable, and is discussed further in 8.11.1 Proposed best practice: 1. Notification providers should be required to seek authorisation from the registration authority prior to being allowed to issue written-off notices. 2. Authorised notifiers should be issued with adhesive labels identified by serial number to attach on the written-off vehicle's firewall as practiced in South Australia. 3. A national committee establishes business rules for assessing and managing authorised notifiers. 8.8 End-of life or No-Value write-off category South Australia has a no-value write-off category for vehicles that have reached the end of their lives and are useful only for parts or scrap. The Victorian TLG endorsed a proposal to establish a similar write-off in Victoria. It is therefore worth considering whether it should be best practice for all jurisdictions to adopt such a policy. From an anti-theft viewpoint, the main objective of a no-value category should be to have certainty that worn-out or slightly damaged vehicles have been permanently removed from the pool of vehicles available to re-birthers. A Victorian dismantler has suggested that this process could also form part of a final "de-commissioning" of vehicles, in which air-conditioning gases and other fluids and toxic metals are disposed of responsibly in accordance with environmental requirements. Ideally, only parts dismantlers and wreckers should notify these vehicles, and this should only be done after they have actually been dismantled or are about to be crushed for scrap purposes. Dealers could provide simple, periodic notifications to registration authorities listing the identifiers of vehicles disposed of. Dealers should also be responsible for the accuracy of these lists. Because these vehicles will no longer physically exist, they should be classified as statutory write-offs that are never to be re-registered, and should be flagged as such on the WOVR. Currently, South Australia allows individuals to declare these vehicles as No-Value write-offs when they are being de-registered, and allow these vehicles to be re-registered. The only difference between the South Australian No-Value and Economic write-offs is that the re-registration inspection for No-Value is more rigid. The issue is, should there be a formal category of "end-of-life" or "no-value" write-off which would become a choice for persons writing-off a vehicle (as it is now in South Australia), or should this simply be a voluntary or compulsory 'behind the scenes' activity conducted by parts recyclers only? Potential difficulties with a formal "end-of-life" or "no-value" write-off category are: * It adds complexity to what should be a simple system of write-off categories. Wrecks should either be repairable on non-repairable. Physically, there may be no difference between a repairable write-off and a "no-value" write-off. * If only one or two States adopt the category as operated by South Australia, there could be confusion as to how these write-offs should be treated when presented for re-registration in other States and Territories. * It could create additional work for parts dismantlers in jurisdictions where owners must notify write-offs, and only statutory write-off are to be labelled. This is because undamaged vehicles can be declared as end-of-life vehicles. If there is no written-off label on the vehicle, the dismantler has no simple way of checking whether or not it has already been written-off by a previous owner, and could have to make unnecessary enquiries to the registration authority. * The issue of vehicle age or VIN status would mean, in some States and territories, that not all old vehicles would qualify as no-value or end-of-life write-offs. This would create additional work for dismantlers unless these qualifications were relaxed for this category. In conclusion, the creation of a separate category of write-off for "end-of-life" or "no-value" vehicles could add confusion to what should be a simple process. It would be most desirable, however, if all parts dismantlers were to be required to notify the registration authority when vehicles under their control have finally reached the stage where they cannot be rebuilt-either through dismantling or scrapping. This could be done on a periodic basis in the form of a list of vehicle identifiers, and should include vehicles previously written-off as repairable write-offs, and vehicles that have not otherwise been written-off, irrespective of age. Proposed best practice: 1. Written-off vehicle categories should be restricted to repairable and unrepairable, and there should not be a separate write-off category for end-of life vehicles. 2. Parts dismantlers should be required to provide the registration authority with details of identifiers when any vehicle that has not previously been declared a statutory write-off has been dismantled or scrapped. Such notifications should be recorded by the registration authority as a statutory write-off, "never to be re-registered". 8.9 When should notification of a write-off be given? TLGs are divided as to whether write-offs should be notified within 7 days or 14 days. Queensland is proposing to require both, depending upon whether the notifier is an individual or a member of the auto industry. Ideally, the fact that a vehicle has been written-off should be conveyed to the registration authority as quickly as possible to reduce the opportunity for car thieves to use its identifiers to rebirth another vehicle in the intervening period. For the motor industry, a 7-day period represents the best compromise between the need for rapid notification versus administrative practicability. Insurers, auctioneers and dismantlers can notify quickly via the Internet or via established paper-based systems. While a 14-day period might be more reasonable for individuals who would not be familiar with notification requirements and procedures, the ability of registration authorities to enforce such a period for individuals is probably non-existent. Therefore it may be more realistic for authorities to simply request notification when the owner applies to cancel the registration. Proposed best practice: A 7 day notification period for the motor industry, and a voluntary requirement for individuals on cancellation of registration. 8.10 Which vehicles should be subject to written-off notification? TLGs differ considerably as to whether there should be age, vehicle class, and VIN or ADR qualifications on notifiable vehicles. Opinions differ as to whether or not light trailers, special purpose vehicles, pre 1998 vehicles, vehicles older than 15 years, and very heavy vehicles should be excluded on the grounds that they represent a small risk for re-birthing. 8.10.1 Should all vehicle types be notifiable? On one hand, the more vehicles that are included, the greater the amount of administrative effort that will be required by the motor industry and registration authorities to assess and notify these vehicles. On the other hand, if all vehicles are included, then the requirements are very simple and easy to understand, and maximum coverage is provided to written-off vehicles. If some vehicles were to be excluded, the requirements would become more complex, particularly for individual owners (in those States and Territories that require them to notify) who would be expected to comprehend these qualifications in order to comply with the law. The question then arises as to whether the effort of recording large numbers of very old vehicles and items of plant and small household trailers would be justified by the savings to be recouped through reduced theft of these vehicles. 8.10.2 Should unregistered vehicles be notifiable? At least three TLGs propose to require notification of unregistered vehicles. This appears to have merit because it removes possible loopholes that might otherwise arise if the registration of a wrecked vehicle lapses before it can be assessed. Without such a requirement, high value vehicles could slip through the notification 'net' and become available to re-birthers. 8.10.3 Old vehicles A majority of States and Territories propose to limit the age of notifiable vehicles to 15 years on the grounds that vehicles older than this represent a low risk for re-birthing. To a large extent, this reasoning is probably correct, however there would remain within this group a significant number of classic, prestige and collectable vehicles that would retain a relatively high value. The issue is, should all old vehicles be notified so that these higher value vehicles are protected against rebirthing? If not, what else could be done? One possible solution might be to place a minimum market