Undercover Sting Cars & MVC Violations–Things to Avoid!
We get a lot of phone calls at our offices. And when we hear from a member cited by state officials (whether it is DEP, MVC, DOL, Weights & Measures, or otherwise), we roll up our sleeves and get to work. In doing so, we try to reduce their exposure and limit their liability. And though results are never guaranteed, we frequently think through the member’s experience and wonder what could have been done differently, and how other members can learn from their mistakes.
Two weeks ago, we heard from a member who was cited by an undercover MVC “sting car” for an inspection violation. We ended up assisting the member at an informal hearing with state officials, and learned a few things we thought to highlight for other members to avoid.
Our member's violation stems from two very different origins – one was squarely on the shoulders of the shop manager; the second was on the inspector himself.
In this situation, an MVC sting car arrived at the shop asking for an inspection. We now know that the sting car was wired a certain way to throw off the inspector, possibly leading them to overlook something or fail to catch an issue. However, the inspection was never actually started; which gave the MVC official driving the undercover sting car enough justification to issue the violation.
That said, the violation was not entirely the inspector's fault. Rather, the shop manager had a hand in setting up a scenario that naturally led to the citation. So, what happened? Put simply, the shop was a victim of its own success and the shop manager did not communicate clearly enough with the inspector.
When the undercover MVC official arrived with the sting car and asked the manager for an inspection, the shop was already in a flurry of activity. There were lots of customers waiting for their vehicles, and the impromptu stop only added additional stress to the short-staffed shop.
Rather than explain to the inspector that the customer was there for an inspection, the shop manager said “Can you please check out the vehicle?” and handed the inspector the customer’s paperwork. The inspector did so, pulled several diagnostic codes, and reported that he wouldn’t pass inspection due to the codes. At no time did the inspector actually speak to the “customer” (who was obviously the undercover MVC agent, watching this all play out from the sidelines).
The technician was later written up by MVC and was handed both a fine and an inspection license suspension.
What did he do wrong? Well, he did not officially start or complete the inspection. What’s more, since the technician “checked out” the vehicle before the inspection was undertaken, it was technically “pre-inspected” using a handheld OBDII scanner; which also violates MVC procedures.
During our hearing, we explained what had occurred to MVC officials. The auditors were sympathetic to the confusion, but could not altogether drop the violations against the shop and the inspector since a vehicle was presented for an inspection that was never completed.
That said, we were able to reduce the initial suspension time and overall fines, in exchange for the technician submitting to retaking the NJ INL Emission Inspector Class and retaking the state’s in-class/”written” exam.
What’s the take-away from this experience? From a general perspective, a series of small mistakes led to the violation, but it could have been avoided altogether.
First, the shop manager should have made the actual substance of the customer’s visit clearly known to the inspector. Had he done so, the technician wouldn’t have “checked out” the vehicle, but would have begun/completed/ended an actual inspection.
Secondly, the technician should have been “clued in” that the vehicle was there for an inspection once the shop manager handed him the customer’s documents/credentials (license, registration, etc).
If either of those were done, and better communication were exercised, it could have saved a lot of time and frustration for our member and his employees.
That aside, it should also be noted that while the ultimate fines/violations were reduced and revised, it still cost the shop owner money AND time. Not to mention that the technician has to take two days away from work (on the shop owner’s dime) to get retrained/retested.
Have you had a similar encounter with MVC or been written up for this kind of violation? Let us know and outline how the matter was resolved/what you learned from the experience. Sharing such details can help a fellow shop owner avoid a pitfall and learn from someone else’s mistakes. Feel free to email Nick at nick@njgca.org or call 732-256-9646.
.jpg)
