Question: Some insurers ask customers to pay a vehicle inspection fee in order to obtain coverage. Insurance is required by law. Motorists also have to pay an annual fee to get a certificate of fitness. The certificate is required by law. The Island Traffic Authority (ITA) certifies the roadworthiness of vehicles. This is done at examination depots across the island. Insurance companies are authorised to transact motor insurance. The Financial Services Commission, another organ of the state, issues licences to these companies. Insurers do not always accept ITA certificates as evidence of roadworthiness. The duplication is a waste of time and money. It is also a form of double taxation. Is there a sensible explanation for this foolishness?

Answer: The root cause of your problem is C-O-R-R-U-P-T-I-O-N. Dishonesty in all sections of this society was the subject of recent articles written by Martin Henry and Ian Boyne in The Sunday Gleaner. More to the point you raised, my hands are not entirely clean in obtaining certificates of fitness.

On one occasion, I obtained an 'off-premises' certificate. The vehicle never saw the examination depot. After that, I went through legal channels. My car was always taken for inspection and 'physical abuse' by employees at the depot. The vehicle was examined and tested six times over the course of two days one year. However, for the personal intervention of a senior examiner, I would have had to eat more buckets of salt.

VIP attention

I surmised that the vehicle was roadworthy from day one. My 'mistake' was to protest the VIP attention that an examiner gave to a motorist who arrived at the depot after me. He (the first examiner) and his cronies decided to teach me a lesson for the protest. Fast-forward to three weeks ago: A certificate was offered to me free of any hassle, a visit to the depot or any stress on my vehicle. I politely refused the offer!

Paul Clemetson, the new ITA head (and formerly of the transport ministry's road safety unit), and I discussed your question. What were the reasons for the double taxation? My aim was to find out if, based on your experience and mine (which I did not disclose), I had drawn the wrong conclusion about sleaze in the system. Here is what he said:

corruption in the issuing of certificates

"The fact which is beyond dispute is that too many vehicles have been observed with defects having been relatively recently issued with certificates of fitness ... . Processes and procedures have already been put in place to minimise/eliminate (the) irreg-ularities. These, however, being essentially manual, make them capable of being circumvented, hence, they are being implemented to create a necessary initial barrier to any underhanded practice and a transitional control measure."

In other words, Clemetson seems to have admitted that there is corruption in the issuing of certificates. He also recognises that loopholes still exist (which, presumably explains the offer I received).

It is planned to change the vehicle-testing process in the very near future. Mr Clemetson said that instead of depending exclusively on the subjective opinions of exam-iners, as is now the case, the new process would rely on "diagnostic equipment that is IT-driven". The new facilities "will be equipped with dynamometers for back- and front-end testing, brake testing, side drift and Bean testing devices.

"At least one prototype will be established within the next fiscal year. It will be replicated throughout the island in successive years. With these and imposed methods of executing manual inspections, the Island Traffic Authority will not only be carrying out world-class fitness testing of motor vehicles, but will also be effecting such examination routines that will be second to none and will restore integrity and confidence in the testing process. When these come on stream ... we will categorically state that an engineer's report will be totally unnecessary since it only creates additional economic burden to the motoring public," Clemetson concluded.

'runnings' at the examination depots

Insurers are not ignorant of the 'runnings' at the examination depots. This is why they ask that vehicles be examined indepen-dently of the official system. They pay special attention to vehicles 15 years and older. Why vehicles in this group? I am yet to get a sound explanation. I did a quick Google search on the subject and came up blank.

The inspection of vehicles by independent 'motor engineers' is, in my opinion, a complete waste of time. It provides no assurance that a claim would be paid if a vehicle was unroadworthy when an accident occurred. A vehicle could have a valid ITA certificate of fitness and/or was certified as being in sound mechanical condition by a motor engineer at a certain point in time and be defective at the time of an accident. Frankly, given the way motor policies are written, I have never understood the fuss about motor engineers' report. Like you, I look forward to the day when the beast of corruption loses one of its many heads - at ITA's depots across the island - and these reports are things of the past.

Cedric E. Stephens provides independent information and advice about the management of risks and insurance. If you need free information or counsel to help you solve a problem write to The Financial Editor or contact Mr Stephens directly at aegis@cwjamaica.com.