|
I'm not sure how difficult it can be contacting car owners - surely people who's cars are under 3 years old will bother to get them serviced at some kind of garage or main dealer, or those over 3 years are subject to manditory MOTs every year, which means they are practically all contactable when the cars come in for service/MOT/any other work, even for tyres at a fitter.
In that case, why can't VOSA give all the details of their/manufacturers' databases of cars that need to be recalled (reg numbers/makes & models) to all these outlets (or ask them to check every one they see quickly via a similar data entry process as the DVLA's Car details/MOT check webpages) when the cars present themselves. Surely this could them be updated, as the DVLA page is for each car, with the relevant information, then the outlet can tell the owner they need to contact their local main dealer to arrange the fix, or at least have a duty in law (for safety-related recalls) to pass on the owner's address and car details to the relevant authorities should they decline to go ahead with any fix, so the Police can take the car and get it fixed, at the owner's expense, if needed.
|
pass on the owner's address and car details to the relevant authorities should they decline to go ahead with any fix, so the Police can take the car and get it fixed, at the owner's expense, if needed.
nooo, be careful what you wish for, the state needs no encouragement to take more powers upon itself.
|
|
|
|
A simpler solution would be that, if presented for an MOT with outstanding recalls, a failure notice is automatically issued, with a car being eligible, once and once only, for the old MOT to be extended by a month to allow the recall work to be carried out.
The carrot approach has consistently failed with recalls - writing to owners through the DVLA database has a horribly low response rate. A stick might just do better.
|
|
|
to pass on the owner's address and car details to the relevant authorities should they decline to go ahead with any fix, so the Police can take the car and get it fixed, at the owner's expense, if needed.
That sounds like something from Stalin's dictatorship, whatever next? Imprison people for not checking their tyre pressures or their oil level?
I would like to think that it would be the dealership who sold the car who would be responsible for contacting the owner and arranging for the work to be carried out FOC.
You have to remember that a large portion of the motoring public are just not that interested in cars, it's just something they fill with fuel and use to get from A to B.
|
to pass on the owner's address and car details to the relevant authorities should they decline to go ahead with any fix, so the Police can take the car and get it fixed, at the owner's expense, if needed.
That sounds like something from Stalin's dictatorship, whatever next? Imprison people for not checking their tyre pressures or their oil level?
I would like to think that it would be the dealership who sold the car who would be responsible for contacting the owner and arranging for the work to be carried out FOC.
You have to remember that a large portion of the motoring public are just not that interested in cars, it's just something they fill with fuel and use to get from A to B.
Please read my post carefully before making such rash remarks. I never said anything about checking for minor issues - just significant safety recalls that could mean a car being dangerous even if all the normal checks are done by the owner (its not as though the owner can fix them, unlike checking your tyre pressures, which would be a fail item [good suggestion RobJP BTW] and can be asily checked and rememdied by the owner, and SHOULD be).
I'm not arguing for some state-controlled, bureaucratic system that delves into every aspect of our lives behind the wheel ( we shouldn't be just arguing in baclk and white terms of nothing or everything, but to meet specific needs with the right controls) - just to make sure critical safety recalls are carried out so that people don't needlessly get injured or die because of laziness or incompetance.
How is this any different to ANPR cameras sending your details to Plod if you have no tax or insurance so they can arrest you/confiscate your car if you've been driving illegally (not that much different) and would have no cover (or would likely flee the scene) in the event of having an accident? Such things are of particular importance for taxi drivers and people in positions of responsibility, who transport children, the elderly or disabled people, when they are specifically responsible for their safety when those the carry may not be able to save themselves in the event of an accident.
|
Please read my post carefully before making such rash remarks.
I did and your thinking is flawed.
|
Please read my post carefully before making such rash remarks.
I did and your thinking is flawed.
Ditto
|
Please read my post carefully before making such rash remarks.
I did and your thinking is flawed.
Ditto
Have you really thought what would happen if the police take a persons car for a forced repair and then the owner of that car finds out that the recall work had been carried out prior to it being re 'repaired' by force? Tax payers paying for huge compensation bills is what.
|
Please read my post carefully before making such rash remarks.
I did and your thinking is flawed.
Ditto
Have you really thought what would happen if the police take a persons car for a forced repair and then the owner of that car finds out that the recall work had been carried out prior to it being re 'repaired' by force? Tax payers paying for huge compensation bills is what.
Exactly how would this situation arise? The manufacturer has a database of all their cars VINs, which would be linked to the registration data held by the DVLA. If a car HAS been fixed, then it doesn't appear on the 'to do' list that they and VOSA would hold - the garage/dealership owner would look their car up and, once the fix is complete, the system is then updated (along with the details of who has done the fix and on what date, plus the car owner's basic contact details, and it goes back to VOSA's system so that it automatically comes off the to do list in the 'inactive area'.
Only cars that, in a reasonable amount of time after the owner is either informed by their dealership/garage or is contacted directly via the manufacturer (or VOSA/DVLA, if they hold the right contact details), then the Police would get involved (unless the car was SORNed or proven scrapped [similar details to be taken if done so as before to take it off the database entirely]), as they do with uninsured/taxed vehicles, and tow it away, get the work done, taking the funds (to pay for all the Police's work/time) as a fine as they do for standard motoring offences, plus a deterrant fine as with other motoring offences that could go to some good cause.
Not exactly rocket science, and BTW, this would be a similar system as is used by the aviation industry, which I'm sure you would want to rectify problems of a serious safety nature (which is what I'm asking, not minor items).
I'm not asking Big Brother to keep tabs on every aspect of car ownershiip, just those that ensure people are safe - if it just were lazy drivers who were solely affected, then I'd leave them to kill themselves via an unsafe car, but that isn't ever the case - someone else is always affected.
|
|
|
|
I would like to think that it would be the dealership who sold the car who would be responsible for contacting the owner and arranging for the work to be carried out FOC.
You have to remember that a large portion of the motoring public are just not that interested in cars, it's just something they fill with fuel and use to get from A to B.
But selling garages (or at least manufacturers or the importers) ARE doing that.
Currently, when a recall is issued, the manufacturer writes to all the registered keepers on the DVLA database (they are given access to the database for this purpose) informing them of the recall, and what action to take next.
Even allowing for changes of ownership, cars 'in the trade' and sitting on forecourts, owners failing to ensure details are correct, etc. those recalls will be reaching 80% or considerably more of owners.
lots of them, unfortunately, just file them in the bin.
Refusing an MOT on cars with outstanding recalls would probably be the only way of ensuring compliance
|
|
<< But selling garages (or at least manufacturers or the importers) ARE doing that.
Currently, when a recall is issued, the manufacturer writes to all the registered keepers on the DVLA database >>
Twenty or more years ago, the maker's documents issued with a new car included return-postage cards for recording changes in ownership. I think many later buyers didn't bother to return those, so the maker's database was out of date. Maybe that database is what they rely on to contact owners, and don't involve DVLA ? It should be easy enough to contact the first owners of new cars ?
|
|
That still happens - but is totally irrelevant for VOSA mandated safety recalls, where the relevant information from the DVLA database is made available to the manufacturer / importer.
|
|
This shows how well the government can manage it........
www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/apps/recalls/default.asp
HTTP Error 503. The service is unavailable.
|
This shows how well the government can manage it........
www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/apps/recalls/default.asp
HTTP Error 503. The service is unavailable.
They seem to do a far better job at the DVLA regarding vehicle details and MOT results.
|
|
|
|
I would like to think that it would be the dealership who sold the car who would be responsible for contacting the owner and arranging for the work to be carried out FOC.
They do but people ignore them.
How would you improve the way it works?
To me a fail on an MOT due to a recall would be a perfectly valid way for it to work as the works needs doing and without it the car is unsafe...not sure why you think it makes it like a Satlin style dictaorship?
|
I would like to think that it would be the dealership who sold the car who would be responsible for contacting the owner and arranging for the work to be carried out FOC.
They do but people ignore them.
How would you improve the way it works?
To me a fail on an MOT due to a recall would be a perfectly valid way for it to work as the works needs doing and without it the car is unsafe...not sure why you think it makes it like a Satlin style dictaorship?
I never argued that RobJP's suggestion of the MOT was wrong, it is a perfectly suitable solution.
My arguement is to Engineer Andy's thinking of having the police take peoples cars and have them repaired. That is Stalin like and likely to cause alot of difficulties when the system gets it wrong and then the car owners engage legal battle against the system.
|
My arguement is to Engineer Andy's thinking of having the police take peoples cars and have them repaired. That is Stalin like and likely to cause alot of difficulties when the system gets it wrong and then the car owners engage legal battle against the system.
It is hard enough to get the police when you need them as it is. They haven't got the time or person power to do that sort of thing. More likely the govt would contract it out and whoever is the highest bidder would get the job to do a particular district. I could see that being a great deal worse.
The fact is that most accidents are not caused by mechanical failure either because of a missed recall or otherwise. They are caused by driver error and there are a lot of drivers out there who need a recall to have their nut tightened.
|
My arguement is to Engineer Andy's thinking of having the police take peoples cars and have them repaired. That is Stalin like and likely to cause alot of difficulties when the system gets it wrong and then the car owners engage legal battle against the system.
It is hard enough to get the police when you need them as it is. They haven't got the time or person power to do that sort of thing. More likely the govt would contract it out and whoever is the highest bidder would get the job to do a particular district. I could see that being a great deal worse.
The fact is that most accidents are not caused by mechanical failure either because of a missed recall or otherwise. They are caused by driver error and there are a lot of drivers out there who need a recall to have their nut tightened.
Please show me where I said get the Police out to 'enforce' EVERY recall? I said ONLY for the most serious of safety issues, such as those that imminently cause an accident or, in the case of one mean that safety systmes on the car would fail to activate or not work properly, or cause secondary major issues such as fires or explosions when they should never do so. Some people are taking my words WAY out of proportion in some 'Orwellian' consipracy theory to keep tabs on their (mostly uninteresting) lives.
The whole point of the system would be that it would be self-financing, whereby Police (or civillian staff acting on their behalf, similar to bailiffs) would do the work when it was needed, and would multi-task to do other work as well. I would hope that eventually the message would get through (given enough people getting big fines to cover the cost - BTW I'm not talking about the rectification work, which would STILL be paid for by the manufacture as now) and staff could be redeployed as required to other work, like any public servant enforcing rules and laws.
|
|
This Subject was covered on Rip off Britain yesterday.
Link for anyone interested www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08rbhv1/rip-off-bri...2
|
|
|
|
|
|
