Transport Malta has been slammed for making “substandard” random checks on cars that have passed the VRT.
“If Transport Malta expects a certain level of seriousness in the way VRT tests are conducted, it cannot then conduct post-VRT checks in such a substandard way that does not match the standards imposed on the operators,” the Administrative Review Tribunal said.
The tribunal was hearing an appeal over a decision taken by Transport Malta (TM) to penalise a VRT garage after a vehicle it had passed was found to have deficiencies that should have failed it. The tribunal revoked the penalty.
Chaired by Magistrate Charmaine Galea, it heard that Albert Gauci tested a car on September 17, 2012, and issued a VRT certificate.
In a random test on the vehicle on September 25, known as a post-VRT inspection, two TM inspectors found a number of faults that should have failed it.
The windscreen washers were not working, the wiper blades were worn out, tyres were worn beyond the minimum permitted thread depth and the left headlamp dipped beam was not working either.
Post-inspection test results can have serious consequences on VRT stations as it could lead to licence suspension or criminal action
So the authority penalised the VRT station 135 points.
But Magistrate Galea heard the two inspectors, Lino Abela and Noel Buhagiar, give dissimilar versions of the post-VRT inspection, which is a “visual test”.
While Mr Abela said the windscreen washers were not functioning, he admitted he had not checked whether there was water in the storage tank.
Neither had he tried the windscreen wipers with water to see whether they were up to scratch. He also said they had not checked the tyres, but just relied on what they saw.
Mr Buhagiar said the windscreen washer fluid tank was empty and he had checked the tyre thread with the tip of his pen. He admitted they had not jacked the car to inspect it from underneath, as is usually done.
In her judgment, Magistrate Galea noted that the post-VRT inspection was carried out eight days after the actual VRT test and anything could have happened to the vehicle in the meantime.
“The authority must understand that the results of a post-inspection test can have serious consequences on the VRT stations as it could lead to the suspension of the licence or criminal action. The authority must be as equipped as VRT stations to carry out these spot checks.”
She added: “The tribunal believes the authority could not impose penalties if the post-VRT test was not as rigorous as it expected from the VRT stations.
“It therefore believes the penalty ought to be revoked.”