Ask an expert


sarah_e_mcdonald

Hi,

I have a 2004 Mitsubishi Colt Sport with tinted back windows. I have had the car since 2008 and had the car tested for WOF at VTNZ stations every year with no issues. However today the car failed at a VTNZ because of the level of tint in the rear windows. When I challenged this result, the staff were unable to explain what had changed and claimed that they were not factory standard tints therefore they were illegal. I have not made any modifications to the car and purchased it directly from the Mistubishi dealer so I would assume that they would not sell me a car with illegal tints.

Are you able to give me any advice as to where I stand legally? Can I go to an independent garage to get the car tested or is there a register which means that if I try to get the car tested elsewhere that the fail will be flagged and I will be failed again?

Thanks for your help?

ABayliss

Nothing has changed in the regulations, but if your windows are tinted to less that 35% VLT (Visual Light Transfer) then the vehicle will fail a WOF. It could be that previous WOF inspectors have not noticed the tint or not specifically tested the VLT.
You are entitled to go elsewhere but obviously, you will need to pay for a second WOF. While the failed inspection is logged in the system, the second inspector can override that.
Ultimately, if the VLT is less than 35%, you will be required to remove the tint film overlay.

mark

My car also failed a WOF at VTNZ, after passing previously at other testing places. Cost to remove tint was $25 per window. A lot of imports have tint VLT at 24% which is allowable overseas but not in NZ.

christinebb

I had exactly the same problem today. I bought my car in 2013 from a dealer, and it has an AA Safety Certified sticker on the windscreen (whatever that means), and got my first WOF done at VTNZ. Every year since then I've had my WOF done at a highly respectable business without problem, but today went to a different VTNZ who failed it. I was informed my rear window tint is 10%, so I can't understand why this hasn't been picked up over the past 5 years.