What's up with the new statutory write-off laws?

I'm in QLD and looking for a ford ranger for towing purposes so I've been keeping an eye on salvage auctions for both a repairable and a stat writeoff and finally two came up that looked suitable. The stat in QLD and the repairable in NSW, 2 days after.

The stat was won quite cheaply. It's a flood affected vehicle from the recent Cyclone Debbie storm but it didn't have any panel damage so it looked like a good donor car.
The repairable one was pulled from the auction on the morning of auction day as it was listed incorrectly, turns out it was actually also a stat.

So now I have the one stat and am keeping an eye out for another repairable one, but it seems crazy that this stat is a stat.
Water came up and lapped across the seats but it has now been stripped bare and cleaned. The electronics under the dash were not affected and all the wiring plugs that showed corrosion have been repaired. The only module that was affected was the tow assembly under the passenger seat. The engine so far seems fine, gearbox also fine.

Wovi have told me that any part can be re-used from a stat, that the chassis and shell (or sections of it) can be re-used if I have a repairable ranger that is crumpled.
It seems like madness that the same chassis and shell can't remain with the rest of the vehicle - which has no structural damage - but it can be cut up to repair a different car that has considerable structural damage.

It seems like such a waste. The laws appear to have changed since the last time I got a flood-affected car from the auction but it is what it is I guess.

Can anyone tell me if I've understood it correctly? That the chassis/shell/whatever component really, can be taken from a flood-affected-but-undamaged stat and put into a completely crumpled repairable, but components from a repairable can't be put into a flood-affected-but-undamaged-stat?

I'm told by wovi that if I have a repairable and the damaged section is the bit that the VIN is stamped on to... that I can take the same section from another car and then receive a surrogate VIN to be used in place of the two VINs from the original car and the donor. But that it only applies to cars which have structural damage to sections with identifiers so that doesn't apply to me.

If another repairable one doesn't come up, worst case scenario is that this car could be sent off to NZ (with disclosure of its history, of course) for sale so that's no biggy really, but it would be nice to hear if anyone has found their way through the legislation to use majority of the components from a stat.

[CobraJet351]

You're making to much sense which is borderline illegal.

I'm not trying to break any laws, I'm just trying to find out if there's a way to skirt around them really closely...

[Tassie f100]

It would appear that you could buy 2 stat writeoffs and swap the bodies on the chassis and all would be well,if you have interpreted what the authorities have told you correctly

Originally Posted by Tassie f100

It would appear that you could buy 2 stat writeoffs and swap the bodies on the chassis and all would be well,if you have interpreted what the authorities have told you correctly

Yeah I thought so too, but when I asked if that meant you could effectively use components from two stats to make a car, I was told no, that a repairable still had to be in the mix somewhere. And even though there's no minimum % of parts required from the repairable, it's not enough to just stick a headlight from a repairable on to the other car created from two stats.

I'm confused. According to what I've been told, it sounds like it should be do-able but apparently it is not.
So I thought I'd ask around here to try and get some input from others to see if anyone has found a way.

[Pedro]

Originally Posted by Tassie f100

It would appear that you could buy 2 stat writeoffs and swap the bodies on the chassis and all would be well,if you have interpreted what the authorities have told you correctly

No - if a stat has the VIN on the body then you can't use it.

But apart from that, Why does a flood affected vehicle have to be automatically classed as a non registrable stat? Why not have it classed as a flood affected vehicle with a standard attached "no recourse" notice to any prospective purchaser of the inherent risks involved. It's then up to the purchaser to decide if they agree to take those risks.

Originally Posted by Pedro

No - if a stat has the VIN on the body then you can't use it.

But apart from that, Why does a flood affected vehicle have to be automatically classed as a non registrable stat? Why not have it classed as a flood affected vehicle with a standard attached "no recourse" notice to any prospective purchaser of the inherent risks involved. It's then up to the purchaser to decide if they agree to take those risks.

You can't use the VIN, you can still use the body that the VIN is attached to.

As for why a flood affected is a stat... I was told it was because some cars have majority of their electronics in the footwell so it just became policy to then stat write-off ALL cars that had water higher than the sill.
This one did have water higher than the sill but the only electric module affected was under the passenger seat and $200 for a new one from Ford.
Seems crazy, yeah.

[Tassie f100]

So you effectivly could have a repaired writeoff with 2 different VIN numbers,1 on the compliance plate and a different number on the chassis.Obviously only on a ute/truck type vehicle with a separate chassis.This used to happen quite often in the HQ-WB Holden era because he chassis rails bent quite easily and were replaced with changeovers as part of the repair process

Originally Posted by Tassie f100

So you effectivly could have a repaired writeoff with 2 different VIN numbers,1 on the compliance plate and a different number on the chassis.Obviously only on a ute/truck type vehicle with a separate chassis.This used to happen quite often in the HQ-WB Holden era because he chassis rails bent quite easily and were replaced with changeovers as part of the repair process

Yes, apparently so, though when you get it inspected you supply all the VINs of the cars whose parts you used, and they will then give you a surrogate VIN which is used for the car's registration.

[LG17]

Buy one stat and one repairable. Make sure you get a stat one like the one you missed out on. Cut out the chassis where the numbers are and swap them over.
No?

Originally Posted by LG17

Buy one stat and one repairable. Make sure you get a stat one like the one you missed out on. Cut out the chassis where the numbers are and swap them over.
No?

Yes, but first I'd like to see if there's another way with the stat I already have. I don't want to cut it up now that I've seen there's nothing wrong with it. It's worth more being rebuilt and sold to another country and using the profit to buy two more, a repairable and a stat with both structural damage.

[Vesper Martini]

You have to understand if you manage to fix up one of these cars and somehow get it registered.
There's the potential you could sell it to the none the wiser, then they encounter problems, that you didn't quite fix properly..

In other words these laws are to stop the dodgy characters that frequent Auctions looking for a quick buck at somebody's expense.

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

You have to understand if you manage to fix up one of these cars and somehow get it registered.
There's the potential you could sell it to the none the wiser, then they encounter problems, that you didn't quite fix properly..

In other words these laws are to stop the dodgy characters that frequent Auctions looking for a quick buck at somebody's expense.

Yeah I do understand that but I think they've gone a bit overboard.
I don't want one to sell on and defraud someone, I want one to replace my falcon as it's getting on in years and the ranger is more suited to towing than a falcon is.

My falcon was also a flood-affected write-off and I've had it for about 10 years now but back then, being flooded didn't automatically mean statutory.

Though I won't rule out shifting this one off to NZ with full disclosure of its history so that I can buy two with significant structural damage and repair them to stay within the (silly) rule.

[Pis-ton broke]

so you can re-register a repairable write off in Q.L? don,t think we can can in nsw.

[Tassie f100]

Don't know about NSW & QLD but I understand in both Vic & Tas repairable write offs can be re-registered,otherwise they wouldn't be tagged repairable.I thougt in NSW there were no repairable write offs on Stat writeoffs.Apparently the car manufacturers got in the ear of some halfwit pollie and convinced the Govt to write off every damaged vehicle so they could sell more new

[Mont5.0]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

You have to understand if you manage to fix up one of these cars and somehow get it registered.
There's the potential you could sell it to the none the wiser, then they encounter problems, that you didn't quite fix properly..

In other words these laws are to stop the dodgy characters that frequent Auctions looking for a quick buck at somebody's expense.

Would always be on a "repaired" register though, so just as much the buyer doing his Vin checks as is the seller to disclose.

2015 ford ranger XLT with 27'000KM on the clock, statutory write-off from hail damage.

https://www.pickles.com.au/damaged-s...-Cab/802063693

[Jastel]

I am in Qld and have repaired/reinspected/re-registered a few cars. I understand your frustration but can see why the Govt does it.

I had a wet (freshwater only) stat FG2 XR6, unbolted and cleaned literally everything and put it on my old 500000kms+ registered ex Taxi chassis...then threw the slightly damp FG2 chassis with 60000kms in the dump.

Sensible No...Legal Yes.

It is ok for you, you know the cars history, the Stat writeoff VIN is to protect the next and subsequent purchaser after you sell it...legally you must inform them of the vehicle history...even on a repairable w/o this kills most sales dead unless the price is adjusted downwards a lot.

They (insurance) dont take chances on water damage...what looks ok at the repair date can rust/corrode/wear out prematurely a year or so later. For example in my XR6 I just had to replace a Torque Converter, the shaft had rusted and ruined the seal leading to a leak, it wasnt underwater, no water in the box, but had been damaged from the initial incident. This was only a few hours work for me, using parts I had...to Joe Public this would have cost around $1000 probably.

That is why they have these rules.

Originally Posted by Jastel

I had a wet (freshwater only) stat FG2 XR6, unbolted and cleaned literally everything and put it on my old 500000kms+ registered ex Taxi chassis...then threw the slightly damp FG2 chassis with 60000kms in the dump.

Sensible No...Legal Yes.

That's very interesting. Did the XR6 have any impact damage at all to the chassis? Are you saying that you put the body of a flooded stat-writeoff.... whole... in one piece... on to the chassis of another car and successfully registered it?

If so, may I ask what year you did this? What was your explanation to the inspection department as to why you put the body of the flood on to the chassis of the taxi? Did you need to provide anything else from the taxi, other than its chassis?

[Mont5.0]

Originally Posted by leesa

That's very interesting. Did the XR6 have any impact damage at all to the chassis? Are you saying that you put the body of a flooded stat-writeoff.... whole... in one piece... on to the chassis of another car and successfully registered it?

If so, may I ask what year you did this? What was your explanation to the inspection department as to why you put the body of the flood on to the chassis of the taxi? Did you need to provide anything else from the taxi, other than its chassis?

No he used all the gear from the write off onto a High mileage car. Falcons aren't like a 4WD where you can seperate the body from the chassis.
Thats the way i read it.

[Mont5.0]

Originally Posted by leesa

2015 ford ranger XLT with 27'000KM on the clock, statutory write-off from hail damage.

https://www.pickles.com.au/damaged-s...-Cab/802063693

Hail damaged vehicles come into a whole new level. Most can still be reregistered as its cosmetic not structural. Check the legalities in QLD. I know in NSW and VIC there is an actual hail damage clause.

Originally Posted by Mont5.0

Hail damaged vehicles come into a whole new level. Most can still be reregistered as its cosmetic not structural. Check the legalities in QLD. I know in NSW and VIC there is an actual hail damage clause.

I did. In QLD you can only apply for a hail damage exemption if you were the registered owner of the car immediately before it was damaged.

Originally Posted by Mont5.0

No he used all the gear from the write off onto a High mileage car. Falcons aren't like a 4WD where you can seperate the body from the chassis.
Thats the way i read it.

How come he had to get it re-inspected and re-registered? I wouldn't have thought that would be necessary if he just bolted on to his taxi all the unboltable bits from the XR6?
Or do you think his first paragraph wasn't related to his second paragraph?

[Mont5.0]

Originally Posted by Jastel

I am in Qld and have repaired/reinspected/re-registered a few cars. I understand your frustration but can see why the Govt does it.

I had a wet (freshwater only) stat FG2 XR6, unbolted and cleaned literally everything and put it on my old 500000kms+ registered ex Taxi chassis...then threw the slightly damp FG2 chassis with 60000kms in the dump.

Sensible No...Legal Yes.

It is ok for you, you know the cars history, the Stat writeoff VIN is to protect the next and subsequent purchaser after you sell it...legally you must inform them of the vehicle history...even on a repairable w/o this kills most sales dead unless the price is adjusted downwards a lot.

They (insurance) dont take chances on water damage...what looks ok at the repair date can rust/corrode/wear out prematurely a year or so later. For example in my XR6 I just had to replace a Torque Converter, the shaft had rusted and ruined the seal leading to a leak, it wasnt underwater, no water in the box, but had been damaged from the initial incident. This was only a few hours work for me, using parts I had...to Joe Public this would have cost around $1000 probably.

That is why they have these rules.

I highlighted the bit which i think answers your question.

Originally Posted by Mont5.0

I highlighted the bit which i think answers your question.

So if we compare that to the 4WD which does have a separate shell sitting on the chassis.... and you can apparently use both the shell and the chassis from a stat write-off... why can't I put the shell from a stat on to the chassis of a repairable? I can't understand why that's a "no"? Have I misunderstood something?

[Mont5.0]

I would say its because the "Body" contains the VIN number, and the Vin number is recordered as the stat write off. so you can use every panel,interior,motor etc from that vehicle, as long as the VIN isnt used. So if you were to use a repairable write off as your base (vin not on stat records) then every part of the stat vehicle could be used, to fix the repairable vehicle. If that makes sense.(except for the part where the VIN number is literally)

So why not change just the VIN area you say?- because that would be considered REbirthing.

Originally Posted by Mont5.0

If that makes sense.(except for the part where the VIN number is literally)

What you're saying makes sense but it conflicts with what wovi have said.
They've said that the body and the chassis can be used despite them having identifiers on them. That those identifiers can be removed, put on the repairable, supplied to wovi for inspection and then a new surrogate vin will be supplied by wovi and given to the car.

So, what is the difference between giving a repairable writeoff a section (ANY section) of the body from a stat, versus giving a repairable the ENTIRE body from a stat? To me there should be no difference but apparently you can do the former but not the latter.

I'm going to contact someone about the ADR and find out exactly.

[Mont5.0]

You can probably google it.

[Jastel]

Sorry I could have been clearer.

The XR6 was a wet stat, the ex taxi was a pretty sad 500000kms but still registered privately and roadworthy.
I put wiring, doors, panels, interior, suspension, engine and gearbox onto the old taxi chassis or "shell". Had to replace the diff cradle as that part was wet. Basically I got a 2014 FG2 XR6 with the nicer screen and interior and newer mechanicals for $1250 and a lot of work.

I went to Transport and just changed the engine number, nothing else changed. Looking at the car its a FG2 2014 XR6, but it is still legally a FG1 2010 XT on the old original VIN. This can cause problems when selling.

That car didnt need re inspecting obviously.

But I have re inspected other cars, and currently have 2 Black XR6's, one stat (again wet but runs fine), one repairable damage (but only has 3 wheels) currently, that I will make into one car. The 3 wheeled damaged chassis/shell is allowed to be fixed and will be the base for the "new" car, but the undamaged wet one has to be thrown away, but it will supply 90% of the parts for the "new" car. Both of these cars are pretty similar kms so will pick the best bits and keep the rest for taxi parts.

I have not done a real 4wd type chassis or got a new VIN.

I have a re registerable "shell" and fix it with bits from a stat or my shed. But as you know you do need to prove where the bits come from and the repairs were done properly etc. The reinspection companies are usually Manheim or Pickles who sold the wreck in the first place anyway so they do know what was wrong with it and what bits needed to be repaired. If you have your paperwork in order its half the battle.

Thanks Jastel yes that does make sense.
I think what I'll end up doing is waiting for a repairable one with a crumpled body but straight chassis, lift the body off and put on the body from the stat. Though I'm not sure that will fly with wovi as technically the footwell has still been full of water. They're pretty upfront with explaining whether something has no hope of passing inspection so I'll ask and see how I go.

Last week I watched a 2016 ford ranger auction off for $17'000 as a stat-writeoff with impact damage front and back. It was insane.