Collectible Vehicles NZ

To the Minister for Transport:

The wording of VIRM-3-4 Repaired damage is damaging the collectible economy

The issue

25 years ago, Kiwis would search the planet for barn finds – vehicles with collectible value in need of a complete restoration, or perhaps just some loving care. They would ship them home, do the necessary body and mechanical work, take it for the First Entry Inspection which would usually pass unless they missed something.

Typically they would have to change the seat belts or get a waiver, RHD lights, a high stop light, and ensure tyres, brakes and steering were safe. Almost all would show signs of having been repaired – either over a long lifetime or or during the fresh restoration carried out either by the owner or by a specialist restoration shop.

But then, it all changed. What were called cowboy importers were buying insurance write-off cars, mostly from Japan, and selling them in NZ as clean-history, late-model imports. Flood or crash damage would be concealed, but soon show up on the front pages of the news. NZTA rewrote the first-entry inspection rules, including one called VIRM 3-4.  The VIRM says:

These 29 words in VIRM 3-4 decimated NZ’s collectible import industry

Why? Liability, not Safety

In practice, entry inspectors tend to refer vehicles whenever visible indicators listed in VIRM section 3-4 are present. This is not necessarily because structural damage is suspected, but because of how responsibility is structured within the certification system. If an entry inspector fails to identify structural damage and the vehicle is later found to be unsafe, the inspector’s authority can be suspended or revoked. By referring the vehicle to a specialist repair certifier, the responsibility for assessing structural integrity is transferred to the certifier. As a result, the safest professional decision for an inspector is often to refer any vehicle showing visible indicators such as repairs, rust prevention, or under-sealing, even when those indicators may simply reflect normal restoration work on an older vehicle.

An economy not an industry

Unlike the mainstream used-car-import industry, almost all collectible vehicles are imported by keen amateurs—individuals who search the world for their marque, put it on a ship, and begin the joy and pain of restoring it not merely to roadworthy condition, but to as close to as-new condition as they can afford.

Very few do it for profit, and most operate on tight budgets. They need every dollar and every hour of their time to go into making the vehicle better, not into triggering a specialist repair certification process that can cost $15,000 even when there is no evidence of structural damage requiring such intervention.

In most cases, the owners who get caught out have already completed a major restoration, only to be told the structural restoration must be undone.

The First Entry inspection costs $700. If the car fails, it must be repaired within 28 days (far too short for specialist repair certification) or the certification lapses. That doubles the paperchase cost to $1,400. But that is only the entry fee.

The specialist repair certifier is held liable for their certificate, so to protect themselves they often require all underseal and some topcoat paint to be blasted off and holes to be cut in structural members for inspection, with a typical cost to restore the vehicle to finished condition of around $15,000.

That cost adds nothing to the value of the car, but for the typical collector it is a drop-dead cost. As a result, the restoration industry contracted and due to the drop in business, some of the best restoration shops closed or were tipped into liquidation. The VIRM created collateral damage to the collectible economy.

Other Problems with VIRM – deregistration

At one time, insurance claims that resulted in the write-off of a vehicle were a good indicator that the vehicle was unsafe for road use. More recently, however, with the cost of body repair becoming much higher, both due to health, safety and emissions regulations affecting panel beaters and the rising cost of repairs, insurance companies are writing off vehicles that are structurally safe, but whose market value is lower than the cost of repair. These vehicles, as well as vehicles where the owner has allowed the registration to lapse, become caught in the $15,000 specialist repair certification trap.

The problem here relates to an apparent unofficial policy to get old cars off the road in NZ. Anecdotally, industry insiders are saying that NZTA has added an environmental mandate based on the belief that old cars are bad because they pollute more and offer less protection in the case of a serious crash.

This is a legitimate safety concern when focused on “old bangers,” which tend to be purchased by inexperienced or high-risk drivers, but the collateral damage to the collectible car economy is neither justified nor appropriate.

A further problem: A lack of qualified inspectors

Repair Specialist Certifiers are generally trained on the approximately 20 manufacturers of late-model vehicles, all of which have similar engineering design. Very few will have experience of the 1,000 makes of vehicles imported or reregistered as collectibles. The answer is not train certifiers in obscure cars, but to ask why third-party certification is necessary when statistics show it is not a problem.

The problem comes with a collectible, where signs of fresh repair, rust prevention, acid wash or under-sealing are all perfectly safe, and in most cases are signs of a restoration rather than an unsafe condition. Adding the adjective “fresh” does not address this, and it is likely a case can be made the whole rule is ultra vires.

Solution

The immediate, interim solution is to revise VIRM 3-4 repaired damage to revise the words to exclude collectible vehicles. This could be based on year of manufacture, or an exclusion list maintained by a respected organisation such as the NZ Vintage Car Club which is already recognised by NZTA. See below:

 

Amending VIRM 3-4 Repaired Damage

Question to NZTA Regarding VIRM Section 3-4 – Repaired Damage

The empowering legislation governing entry certification establishes that the purpose of the inspection process is to ensure vehicle safety. In the case of collectible vehicles, visible evidence of prior repair and rust prevention is common given the age and history of such vehicles. Indeed, a freshly restored collectible vehicle, even when restored to a high standard, will almost inevitably display visible evidence of repair to parts of the vehicle structure while remaining structurally sound and safe for road use.

VIRM section 3-4 Repaired Damage states:

“A vehicle must be referred to a specialist repair certifier if signs of repair, rust prevention, acid wash, or under-sealing to any part of the vehicle structure are evident.”

Please explain how the presence of “signs of repair, rust prevention, acid wash, or under-sealing” indicates a safety risk, specifically where there is no evidence that the repair has affected the vehicle’s structural integrity or safe operation. In particular, please explain the safety rationale for requiring mandatory referral to a specialist repair certifier—an invasive and often very costly process that can run into five figures—based solely on the presence of these visible indicators, and how such a consequence is proportionate to the safety risk identified, if any, given that the statutory purpose of entry certification is to assess vehicle safety.

The Hierarchy of Law, Rules and Requirements

Vehicle certification in New Zealand operates under a clear legal hierarchy. At the top sits the Land Transport Act 1998, which sets the overall purpose of the transport regulatory system. The Act requires that the land transport system operate in a way that is safe, effective, and efficient.

Under the Act, the Government issues binding secondary legislation known as Land Transport Rules. The rule relevant to vehicle certification is the Land Transport Rule: Vehicle Standards Compliance 2002. This Rule establishes the legal framework governing how vehicles enter or re-enter the New Zealand vehicle fleet, including both entry certification and repair certification. Unlike manuals or guidance documents, the Rule has the force of law.

The Vehicle Inspection Requirements Manual (VIRM) sits one level below the Rules. The Vehicle Inspection Requirements Manual – Entry Certification is an operational manual used by vehicle inspectors when applying the Rules. It explains how inspections should be carried out and what inspectors should look for. However, the VIRM is not legislation. It is an administrative document and must remain consistent with the Act and the governing Rules.

Because the VIRM is administrative guidance rather than law, it can be challenged if it goes beyond what the statute or the Rule allows. In legal terms, this is known as acting ultra vires, meaning beyond the authority granted by legislation. A challenge may also arise if the manual misinterprets the Rule, substitutes a different test from the one established in law, or applies a policy that defeats the statutory purpose.

Administrative Route

Before taking a dispute to court, it is normal in New Zealand to first approach the regulator directly. The usual first step is to write to NZTA, asking the agency to explain the legal authority for the provision in question and how it aligns with the governing legislation and Rule. At the same time, a request can be made under the Official Information Act 1982 seeking internal documents that explain how the policy was developed, what safety evidence was relied upon, and when particular wording was introduced.

If the agency cannot demonstrate that the manual is supported by the legislation or the Rule, it may choose to revise the manual without the need for litigation. Agencies sometimes correct manuals when a credible legal concern is raised.

Judicial Route

If the issue cannot be resolved through dialogue, the final step is an application for judicial review in the High Court of New Zealand. In such a case the Court does not rewrite the Rule itself, but it can declare that an administrative interpretation is unlawful and require the agency to reconsider its policy.

This process ensures that administrative manuals remain aligned with the law passed by Parliament and that the vehicle certification system continues to operate in a way that is safe, effective, and efficient, as required by the Land Transport Act.

Ministerial Route

While most rules are agency-initiated, there is a second pathway, Minister-Initiated Rule Change.

The Minister can direct officials to begin work on a rule change where a policy issue has been identified.

This type of initiative may arise from:

• public concern
• submissions from industry or community groups
• recommendations from advisory bodies
• government policy priorities.

When the Minister asks officials to review a rule, the regulatory agency then undertakes the same formal process of analysis and consultation before an amendment is issued.

The recent change to the Warrant of Fitness regime for older vehicles illustrates this pathway. After concerns were raised by historic-vehicle groups, the Minister directed officials to review the inspection regime. That process ultimately resulted in vehicles 40 years and older requiring annual WoF inspections rather than six-monthly inspections.

Transportable Motor Vehicle

Transportable motor vehicle (transportables) means any motor vehicle used for transport and utility purposes, including transport of people or goods, but excludes collectible motor vehicles.

Collectible Motor Vehicle

A vehicle qualifies as a collectible vehicle if two or more of the following criteria apply:

1. 1. It is 25 years or older.
   2. It is recognised as collectible by the Vintage Car Club of New Zealand.
   3. It qualifies as a Special Interest Vehicle or Left-Hand-Drive collectible import under NZTA rules.
   4. NZTA has determined it to be of collectible or historic significance.
   5. It is maintained primarily for preservation, restoration, display, or enthusiast ownership rather than routine daily transport.

 2026 – Public Domain