|
Also, why a full MOT? If you are stopped by plod and given a VDRS, usually the MOT station will charge for testing the item in question only, not do a full MOT. All the MOT station has to do is see if the glass is ok, not do a full check.
|
MOT station is unable to check light transmission levels, they don't have the equipment.
The law is that for any car built since '85 the windscreen must transmit 75% of light and the front side windows 70%. It's 70% for both front and front side.
IF you have have the vehicle from new and it has the standard glass, approach Land Rover for an explanation. I'll bet you anything you like that the roadside team got a faulty reading IF you have factory glass.
|
Sorry, that should be 70% for both for pre 1985 cars.
Didn't I used to have an edit button to stop this?
Oh yeah, I gave it back didn't I.....
|
Oh yeah, I gave it back didn't I.....
I thought that was Reggie?
|
I haven't seen the kit that VOSA are using but the reflection and transmission coefficients are dependent upon the angle of incidence. Even nominally clear glass behaves as an excellent mirror if you get the angle right (or being more pedantic beyond a critical angle).
Knowing the technical level of expertise of most VOSA inspectors, I think this *may* be asking too much of them.
Number_Cruncher
|
An almost identical problem occurred with a member of my car club who was stopped by a patrol and told to remedy it.
He was not the first owner of the car. However the supplying dealer was convinced that the windows were NOT tinted and the vehicle was as factory supplied, and he was too.
He went through hoops and hoops with the manufacturer trying to find out the details of the amount of light the oem glass transmitted, even trying to get sight of the original type approval documents etc.
It took a lot of sorting, but in the end it transpired a previous owner had indeed fitted a VERY expensive and VERY subtly done tinted film to the glass which it took an expert to detect and remove.
Is there perhaps any chance something similar has happened?
|
|
Your friend. Wasn't driving a blue Lexus GS by any chance?
|
Assuming that's aimed at me; yes indeed, although the word "friend" or even "acquaintance" would not be true. I try to avoid that L word in every post otherwise it will take on the repetitious nature of word like, ooh I don't know, Mondeo TDCi.
|
I read his tale of woe here:
www.lexusownersclub.co.uk
|
Nothing wrong with Mondeo TDCi's. If bland is your thing. ;op
ANYhow..... back to the subject. There are more and more cases like this coming up. It's only a matter of time before there is an appeal, with all the press coverage that will entail.
If the Landy in question proves to have original glass, this could get interesting.
|
It is as VOSA states visual transmission of light not less than 75% front windscreen 70% side windows. (MV Con and Use Regs 1986 Reg 32(10) Table II.)
As stated not an item subject of annual MOT but see later..
Under Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended an Authorised examiner - includes VOSA as well as certain Police Officers, can test a vehicle on a road to ascertain that Con and Use Regs requirements are being kept to.(Sect 67)
If on inspection defect found and unlikely to be fit for service then can issue an immediate prohibition (PG 9)on use on a road or issue prohibition to come into force at such time not later than 10 days after date of inspection as seems appropriate by the examiner. The prohibition can be made to be irremovable in the case of a vehicle that is subject to MOT until such time as new MOT issued. Written notice must be given to this effect .(Sect 69(3))
By virtua of the The Road Vehicles (Prohibition) Regulations 1992
Section 69A(3) of the 1988 Act enables a prohibition to be imposed on a vehicle which is subject to the MOT testing scheme making it irremovable until it has been inspected and an MOT test certificate issued. Persons who can then remove the prohibition and the requirements which have to be complied with where a prohibition has been imposed with a direction under section 69A(3) where a vehicle examiner has issued a relevant test certificate, the prohibition may be removed by?
(a) the vehicle examiner who issued the certificate, or
(b) a person who has been authorised for the purpose by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and to whom the certificate has been produced.
The prohibition may also be removed by a person who has been authorised for the purpose by or on behalf of a chief officer of police and to whom a relevant test certificate has been produced at a police station.
So it would seem if no other defects were present at initial examination it all hinges on the accuracy of the Opacity Meter. Other than Police or VOSA I know of no other avenue to explore to have a second opinion reading performed. Maybe Trading Standards have access or advise where such a test can be made. The only other options are to make contact with a Landrover Dealer and see what they make of the situation bearing in mind the windows were as standard fitted on purchase new and if they can provide a defence OR consider visiting a VOSA Test Station (ordinary MOT Station will not have a device ) on a clear day and ask for a second reading. Obviously if this differs from that originally quoted then it would appear there are grounds for arguement detrimental to a prosecution, the prohibition issued on incorrect grounds and a MOT therefore not necesssary.
Finally how does one issue a Test Certificate for a non-testable item. It will not show that the light problem has been addressed?
dvd
|
Forgot to add that there is an avenue of appeal through, not a Magistrates Court, but Sec of State for Transport.
dvd
|
So it really is Tony's stormtroopers then. 8-0
I'm astonished that they are able to act in this manner with no readily accessible route of appeal. Let's face it, SoS for Tran is hardly likely to resolve matters within 10 days, leaving you severely inconvenienced whilst it sits in the in tray. I'm astonished...... but I shouldn't be.
|
:: Devils advocate mode on ::
....Under Road Traffic Act 1988.......
...By virtua of the The Road Vehicles (Prohibition) Regulations 1992
I don't think the current lot were around then...
:: Devils advocate mode off ::
|
There was a change to the way the law was implimented last year.
I think that sits firmly in Tony's court.
|
Well I just had a chat with a very nice young lady at VOSA because I felt Rich has been very hard done by.
There may be some hope...
I was advised that there certainly should be no need for another MOT , there should be only a check at a VOSA station after glass replacement .Check with the officer who issued the prohibition as there seems to be a misunderstanding on this.
Any appeal should be via the VOSA issuing office in Richs area and the officer who issued the subjective prohibition.Contact him and request that a proper measured test is carried out rather than a subjective one. If he refuses ask to speak to his boss.
Get details if possible of the exact tint on the vehicle from the manufacturers before a retest is carried out .
Rich -if you have legal expenses cover see if they will take this up for you.
If possible get an expert on window tinting or a solicitor to accompany you to any retest.
My own opinion is that the officer issuing a subjective prohibition is on very dodgy ground and may back off if you come back with legal and technical backup.
|
Well done Helicopter.
dvd
|
|
You're a gent - thanks very much
|
The regulations appear to be designed for the usual range of mechanical problems that would have to be fixed before a vehicle could pass a MoT.
It appears the tinted windows problem has really come about since the regs were drawn up and this procedure is all VOSA can fall back on.
In reality it is a penalty charge of a visit to and the cost of a MoT. Even then it is deeply flawed as the data from the time that VOSA complained is not a lot of use to an MoT station.
If you just took it as it is to an MoT station and said is this OK? what would happen
Or even told the MoT tester that there are now more transparent windows would this ever be challenged.
|
read his tale of woe here:
>>
over at that forum,
www.lexusownersclub.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopi...3
it says
" ....
After much discussion, a sympathetic Enforcement Policy has been agreed between the Department for Transport and The Glass and Glazing Federation to ensure that all vehicle owners that have had tints applied in the past may be dealt with fairly. This applies in particular where the infringement is with respect to tints that do not pose a significant threat to Road Safety, despite being in contravention with the amended Regulations
......
|
"Above 30% Visible Light Transmission "
Don't they mean 30% attenuation?
|
|
Thinking a bit more about it, the reflection and transmission coefficients are usually also be functions of the wavelength of light used to perform the test. If the tint happens to filter light very effectively at the wavelength of light chosen, then you may get an odd result.
It is, however, possible that the meters used by VOSA consider this effect.
Number_Cruncher
|
If it hasn't been done already, I think it would be worth getting the use of a suitable device to see how borderline it is. If nothing else, it can't hurt to have your own measurement data to fall back on, especially if it's within the allowed limit.
Surely it's up to the authorities to prove their case?
I know Blair and his shower are keep on destroying the presumption of innocence, but it ain't gone yet...
|
|
If they are Type Approved which they must be if they are OE. The light transmission factor will be etched into the glass near the the maker's name and Euro comlpience data.
|
If they are Type Approved which they must be if they are OE. The light transmission factor will be etched into the glass near the maker's name and Euro complience data.
>>
Provided the tint has not been supplemented with another layer.
as was stated earlier
>>Dipstick
>>It took a lot of sorting, but in the end it transpired a previous owner had indeed fitted a VERY expensive and VERY subtly done tinted film to the glass which it took an expert to detect and remove.
|
|
Sorry I missed that one...
|
1) I was surprised to see the VOSA rules make use of two figures differing by only 5%, bearing in mind the accommodation of the eye. The benefit of the 5% complication are negligible.
2) One stop down on a camera is 50% of the previous light through the lens in the same light conditions -- two stops down reduces light to 25%.
3) The light adaptability of the eye is many stops but, of course, when light is poor you want as much of it as possible
4) There are still many light meters about, of which the Weston meter used to be very reliable and the calibration did not change much with time. In this case, to do a check on your glass, absolute calibration does not matter, just the ability for the meter to show a stop change in its reading reasonably accurately.
Using (4) you should be able to make an approximate measurement of the light loss of your glass. For the side windows you could roll the window down while holding the meter steady. This is far more accurate that holding the meter outside and then inside the car.
This will not be accurate enough for a court case, but it could, for instance, show you a stop change, or best part of one, in which case, there would be little chance of your glass passing an official test. And you can test at other light levels elsewhere on the meter.
Finally, don't be too surprised if you find the measured loss of the tint is much more than you expected because the eye compensates, the meter does not! Thus a slight dimming seen by the eye can turn out to be much more on the meter.
|
|
|
|
Thanks - yes they had some sort of magnetic device that they used to measure the light transmission.
|
Sorry if this is buried somewhere in the thread, but why not take the vehicle to the local VOSA test centre and ask them to retest? It's likely to be a less adversarial relationship than exists at a road-side check and they may just say the mobile tester was talking rubbish.
Perhaps the MOT thing is just a way of 'suspending' the cars MOT to ensure it shows as un-MOT'd in the event of any future roadside check?
|
My understanding after my chat with VOSA it is that Rich can only appeal to get the prohibition lifted by going back to the officer who issued the prohibition at his local VOSA centre.
As I said above after talking with VOSA , if he has some evidence from manufacturers that it is the original glass and he has an expert with him to contradict the issuing officer on technical / legal grounds then they may be forced to back off but not necessarily so.However if they have the legal power to issue a prohibition then they can rescind it..
I would take the 'treat sympathetically' approach.
I would explain to the officer that the glass is original and how you feel the prohibition is harsh and ask what right of appeal you have and to whom at VOSA. Go up the chain of command to his boss.
However - I am not an expert or a solicitor. I would suggest a solicitor / tinting expert accompany you for a re-test.
Being honest about it , this may cost you more than replacing the glass so its up to you Rich as to how far you want to take it and how much you want to spend.As i say , the legal expenses insurance may cover this.
Good Luck whatever happens.
|
So my suggestion (of asking for a 're-test') is based on the assumption that the mobile operator has got it wrong. Hopefully a retest would show all is OK. If it doesn't then everything gets much more complicated and I'd start by having words with Land Rover.
It might not be practical to go back to the issuing officer as he could be based elsewhere. Even if he is local, it might be better to get another (or a more senior) officers opinion.
|
Bill - I am assuming that the issuing officer will be based at the VOSA office local to rich.
rich will no doubt have the necessary paperwork to tell him where and who to contact.
|
I'd go along with AR-CoolC view. Mobile Vosa testers see hundreds of windscreens every day, a good screen passes unnoticed, a bad one sticks out like a sore thumb.
I wonder how many other motorists were issued with a similar prohibition notice at the same place and time.
|
|
|
|
|
