Safe Speed Forums

I'm afraid that just isn't going to be possible as there are far too many "variables" to take in to account (eg, somebody driving the "other" vehicle on their own insurance, motor traders who can drive anything, etc).

i am a part time trader and carry trade insurance this allows me to drive most cars (as long as they belong to me) the only exceptions being high performance cars, kit cars etc.....however any cars i own for more than fourteen days have to go on to the motor insurance database, i have excel spreadsheets set up for just that purpose......i imagine most traders notify about cars as soon as they have bought them (i certainly do)

If it helps clarify the situation I'm certain that the car your driving on 3rd-party extension to your own insurance does not have to be insured by somebody else, just owned by them. How am I so certain? Well I had a non-fault accident whilst driving a friend of mine's car who was no-longer insured on it since he had bought a new car. I had borrowed it for the weekend since it was a fun motor, a Saab 900 Turbo.

Unfortunatly somebody ran up my chuff after the motorway began queing for roadworks. To make maters worse, the women who hit me was uninsured. To cut a long story short I was given a producer since I reported the accident at the nearest police station. I showed my own insurance - and remember, no other insurance was on the car. The police checked it and said everything was in order. I believe my solicitor even used my insurance company to try and identify an insurer for the person who hit me. Eventually they said they could find no insurance relating to the lady and intiated procedings with the M.I.B. Fairly quickly I recieved a cheque to repair the car. I'm suprised they sent me a cheque, I thought it was all done through approved garages.

I suppose the grey areas come when the vehicle is unattended. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the offence driving without insurance? Therefore if its unattended, although no cover is in existence, no offence is being commited.

I make a lot of use out of this 3rd party extension, although I know its only the bare bones of cover. Someone mentioned that you just have to register it in someones else's name to be covered, well thats not strictly true since the registereded keep is not neccissarily the owner - though obviously it usually is. Therefore someone else has to admit to owning a vehicle and taking reponsibility for it - plus it's quite correct that you can't tax a vehicle that way. All the time I use it its when having a go in my friends cars, as he is now a motor trader, under the strict instructions of "You bend it, you mend it". Although for some reason he said no to when he had a Ferrari 360 Spider - can't think why!

[quote="Capri2.8i"]
I suppose the grey areas come when the vehicle is unattended. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the offence driving without insurance? Therefore if its unattended, although no cover is in existence, no offence is being commited.
quote]


Sorry, I disagree,from -----http://www.girlmotor.com/Pages/information/laws/road-traffic-act.asp

"No person should “use” a car on UK roads without adequate 3rd party car insurance, it should also be noted that the owner of a vehicle should not allow others that they know to be uninsured to drive their vehicle(s) on the road.

Please note that the word “use” is not restricted to just driving it. The very presence on the road is termed as use as is towing a vehicle. Car insurance must be held by an authorized insurer who is defined in the Motor Insurance Companies Act, they must also be members of the Motor Insurance Bureau. "

Interesting defining the word "use".

I suppose if the car is parked and used as a wind break - then it needs to be insured?!?!?!?!

What about if the vehicle is being towed by another car? Does in need to be insured then?

And if it does, what about if the engine has been removed so that effectively it is a shell with wheels and a numberplate?

At what point is a mechanically propelled vehicle not a vehicle anymore???

These are just guesses

If it's somewhere public and/or you parked it there to use as a windbreak, I expect so. If it's on private land and isn't yours anyway, probably not.


Arguably it's still being used on the road so the driver still needs adequate cover.


Anybody remember that old Candid Camera stunt where they did exactly that? Took the engine out of a car and pushed it along the road onto a garage forecourt, but the guys pushing it stopped out of sight and let the driver freewheel it the rest of the way. A couple of very bemused looking at an empty engine bay and wondering how the hell he got it there. Still, it was being used on the road, so I imagine they still had to have insurance.


I expect it stops being a vehicle when it can't be moved anymore. Leave the engine in but take the wheels off... it's not going anywhere so why would it need insurance? There's supposed to be a few wheel-less old Series Landies kicking around on farms running agricultural plant off the PTO, and I can't imagine them having had insurance for years. Okay, they'll be on private land, so they wouldn't need it anyway as long as they stayed there. But presumably the same sort of thing applies when someone declares SORN on a car?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I don't tell the insurance company anything, primarily because there is no requirement for me to do so.

As for the actual cover, your insurance policy sounds incredibly restricted to me for a so called "traders policy".

My traders policy allows me to drive any motor vehicle or motorcycle regardless of who actually owns it so long as I hold a driving license to drive a vehicle of that class (which I do).
ALL of my employees are also covered to drive ANY vehicle that is in my care or control providing I have given the OK to do so (again, they need to be a full license holder for the class of vehicle they are driving/riding).



No it doesn't.

The law defines a motor vehicle as 'Motor Vehicle, is a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road'

If 'push came to shove' and you ended up in court, the prosecutions case would be that although the engine was removed, the vehicle was intended to be used as a Motor Vehicle.

Of course any half decent brief would argue that since the engine has been removed, it is no longer mechanically propelled and therefore is not subject to any current act.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

You could also have a laugh with defective tyres too {NOTE: I do not condone or invite anyone to take to the roads with baldies - this is a notional example of how the law can be circumnavigated!}.

Minimum depth of tread is now 1.6mm across 3/4 of the width of the tyre, visible tread on the reast of it??? (I'm sure someone will quote verbatim exactly what the law requires.... But this only applied to pneumatic tyres).

I wonder what would happen if the bald tyres were inflated with water?!?! (How? Inflate with a footpump in a bath - it draws in water rather than air to push into the tyre).

I know I'm being mischievous here but would a prosecution case for bald tyres fall apart if a defendent brought such a bald tyre into the courtroom which was inflated with water and then proceeded to let some of the water rush out of it by pressing the valve release down???

From my understanding of DfT regulations, if a car is on a public highway it must have valid tax, insurance and MOT (with the exception being that you are allowed to drive/ride without tax/MOT if you are going to/returning from an MOT station, or without tax if you are going to a post office). Therefore unless its on private land and SORN it must be insured. Yes you can DRIVE it on a third party extension, but as soon as you park it, it becomes the responsibilty of the registered keeper. (I'm sure there are probably exceptions on trade policies etc)

PaulF This still applies to a vehicle being towed or pushed on a public highway. (owning lots of old skanky bikes with no tax or MOT you soon learn these things! )


And as for basingwerk's comments about youths being 'crappy drivers'. Yes I will admit that the boy racers cause a problem, but there are boy racers who aren't that young.
The reason young people are 'bad' drivers is that we have no experience. Learning to drive doesn't give us the experience we need to be 'good' drivers - a failing in the system which is another topic in itself. So how exactly do you propose that we gain the experience we need to be 'good' drivers if we can't get insurance to be able to drive?!? Raising the age limit will increase the maturity of the driver, but I've seen plenty of 'crappy' drivers who are in their 40s! (line the bloke I saw the other night with his fog lights on just because it was raining.) Good judgement comes from experience, nowhere else, and you can't teach that. Therefore we have a paradox. I am young and apparently inexperienced, therefore I have to pay £500+ a year for insurance (TPFT when I got my first car). I currently have 1 years no clames - no mension of the fact that I did over 20,000 miles in that year in all conditions and on all types of road.
You cannot say that youths and drunk drivers are the same thing! Its someone's choice to get into a car when they've been drinking, but I don't CHOOSE to be 24 and ripped off for insurance!!

I'd love to come and live in your perfect little world basingwerk, I just wish I knew where 'simplelife town' was...

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

I do sympathise with youths who cannot find a cheap car to run. But the costs realistically reflect what actuaries predict. The answer is not for good drivers to subsidise poor risks, but for youths to choose humble models, or choose a different payment model, such as pay-as-you go, which is available now. I think the actuarial system is the fairest, and I also think that we will replace paper, plate and card based record keeping systems with biometrics, in all areas of life, in future. That is because, in the PC era, it has become easy to forge stuff like cash, credit cards, certificates, passports, insurance papers, MOTs, and what have you. Identity theft is, in a sense, a result of the home computer craze, and computers also provide the solutions – this will not roll back, JT.

BTW: Tax disks are easy to forge if you get mum to run them through the sewing machine to make the perforations!

_________________
I stole this .sig

No it doesn't.
If I lend you a car, you are solely responsible for it until such time as you give it back to me.


It doesn't matter what car a 17 year old chooses, they get bent over regardless.
My nephew (who is just coming up on 18) has had his license for 10 months now. Last week he purchased a 1996 Peugeot 306 Diesel (a sensible car I am sure you will agree).
No matter how hard we have all tried, the cheapest quote we could get for him was £1500. He simply cannot afford to pay this no matter what, so the simple answer (for him anyway) is that he is now employed by me and driving a car on my instrctions and is therefore covered by the company insurance.
Not all youths are as fortunate as my nephew, and if insurance companies are going to insist on ripping the kids off in this fashion, then it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that more & more of them are driving without insurance at all.


Having a forged tax disc these days is a pointless exercise as all the old bill have to do is a simple vehicle check and this will confirm whether the vehicle is taxed or not.
If you get caught using a forged tax disc, then not only do you get done for no tax (which is a pissy civil offence), but you also get done for fraud (which is a criminal offence).

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

From my books on the subject.

Meaning of the term " mechanically propelled vehicle”

The term mechanically propelled vehicle is not defined in the Road Traffic Acts. It is ultimately a matter of fact and degree for the court to decide. At its most basic level it is a vehicle which can be propelled by mechanical means. It can include both electrically and steam powered vehicles.

Do not confuse the interpretation of the term "mechanically propelled vehicle" with that of "motor vehicle" which has a narrower meaning. (Motor Vehicle; a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road)


Many of the more recent traffic offences use the term "mechanically propelled vehicle" in preference to "motor vehicle" which makes certain offences easier to prove;
(e.g. a scrambler motor cycle is a mechanically propelled vehicle whether or not it is intended for use on a road ).

The problem area is when the mechanical propulsion system is either not working or has been removed. The main test is set out in McEachran v Hurst 1978. In that case it was decided:-"unless the motor car in question has reached the stage where there is no reasonable prospect of it ever being made mobile again as a mechanically propelled vehicle for its life".

NOTES:
(i) If there is any doubt as to whether a vehicle is a 'mechanically propelled vehicle', it is important to make some enquiries as to the state of the vehicle, in particular the condition of the controls such as steering, braking and lights.
(ii) Whether an engine is fitted or in working order is also important. It is up to the prosecution to prove that it is capable of being repaired and not for the defence to prove that it cannot be. (Reader v Bunyard 1987). Seek a second opinion from an experienced traffic officer if in doubt.

McEachran v Hurst

H was found riding a moped along a main road. There was no petrol in the machine and the engine was not in working order. He was using it as a pedal cycle. When questioned he admitted having bought the machine for five pounds, that the engine had never worked whilst in his possession and he was taking the machine to get it repaired. The machine was not taxed or tested.

H was charged with using the vehicle without tax or test certificate. The justices formed the opinion that the moped was no longer a mechanically propelled vehicle and dismissed the case. The prosecution appealed.


HELD

Appeal allowed. The case was remitted to the justices with a direction to convict.

It was the construction of the machine that mattered and not the use to which it was being put. The moped was constructed as a mechanically propelled vehicle and remained one until it reached the point where there was no reasonable prospect of it being mechanically mobile again. Since H was taking the moped to be repaired, all the evidence pointed to the fact that the machine would remain a moped as it had been originally constructed.

Notes
The court approved the test laid down in Binks v Department of the Environment 1975 RTR 318. That test being - unless a vehicle has reached the stage where there is no reasonable prospect of it ever being made mobile again as a mechanically propelled vehicle, then it will remain a mechanically propelled vehicle for its life.



Reader v Bunyard 1987

R was a disqualified driver who was sitting in the driving seat of a car which was being towed by another vehicle. The car had no engine or gearbox, but the brakes and lights worked. He was charged with driving whilst disqualified and using the vehicle without insurance. The justices were told that the vehicle was going to be:

• scrapped;
• dismantled for spares; or
• reconstructed with parts from another vehicle.

The justices convicted R on the grounds that he had not proved that the vehicle was no longer a mechanically propelled vehicle with no likelihood of it being used as such again. R appealed on the grounds that it was up to the prosecution to prove that the car was a mechanically propelled vehicle and not for him to prove the reverse.

HELD

Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.

A motor vehicle remained a mechanically propelled vehicle unless the evidence showed that there was no reasonable prospect of it ever being made mobile again as such. The onus was on the prosecution to prove their case, in this instance the justices had erred when asking the defendant to prove the opposite.

Requirement for third party motor vehicle insurance

Sections 143(1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provide that users of motor vehicles on roads or in public places must be insured against third party risks. It is an offence to use (see meaning below), or cause or permit to be used, a motor vehicle on a road without such insurance. They state:
143(1) It is an offence for a person to use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of Part VI of this Act.

143(2) It is an offence for a person to cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of Part VI of this Act.

143(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves –

(a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, AND
(c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned above .

Notes
(i) "Policy of insurance" includes a cover note.

(ii) There is a common term in insurance policies which usually states something along the lines that the driver is covered if s/he holds or has held a driving licence to drive the vehicle (i.e. that class of vehicle) and is not disqualified. We are assuming everything else in the certificate is in order. If this term is in the certificate of insurance (and the driver is not disqualified by a court), s/he is coveredby the insurance whether or not s/he does or does not hold a current UK/foreign/provisional licence for that class of vehicle, as long as s/he held one in the past.
(Above based on Edwards v Griffiths 1953)
However, the term can vary on occasions, so it is worth reading the certificate carefully.

(iii) By virtue of section 143(4) this section does not apply to invalid carriages.

(iv) This section is directed at persons who use motor vehicles on roads or in public places without being insured against, amongst other things, the risk of third parties being injured or suffering damage to their property. Users of motor vehicles are required to be insured against certain 'third party' risks, with insurers required, subject to certain exceptions, to satisfy judgements against persons insured by them in respect of such risks. The liabilities which have to be satisfied are restricted to those covered by the policy.

(v) For those who suffer loss or injury in a road traffic accident, but who are left without a remedy because the person responsible is uninsured (or untraced), recourse may be had to the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB). The MIB was established to meet unsatisfied judgements in respect of the liabilities required by statute to be covered. Under the latest agreement in respect of uninsured drivers, compensation is provided for damages to property as well as death and bodily injury. There are restrictions upon the circumstances in which the MIB will provide compensation, and claims are subject to certain notice requirements. In any case where there is doubt as to whether the defendant is effectively insured, notice should be given immediately to the MIB of any intention to institute proceedings.

(vi) "Use" has a far wider meaning than drive. It means 'have the use of'.

(vii) A car parked on a road that cannot be moved but, owing to its condition, cannot be driven is 'used' on the road within the meaning of the present provisions. A vehicle which is parked on the road, stationary and unattended is being used even if it is jacked up for repair. It has been held that the owner of a vehicle was using it even though it was in the possession of another so that it could be repaired. A vehicle which had its tyres deflated, the rear brakes seized in the 'on' position and the gearbox was without oil because of a leak, was also being used. Provided that a vehicle is a motor vehicle, and is on a road, the owner has the use of it on a road whether, at the material time, it can be moved on its wheels or not.

(viii) The courts have said that it is impossible in law or in common sense to justify the proposition that a motor vehicle which is in good condition, but which has been immobilised to prevent its wheels from rotating, does not require insurance, whereas the section does apply to a vehicle which is in poor condition and without certain important parts, if the wheels can rotate. Such a distinction would be artificial and unfair, even more so if the obligation could be avoided by immobilising a vehicle to the extent that the wheels would not rotate. The one was neither more nor less of a hazard than the other when stationary on a road.

Plumbien v Vines

P purchased a car in full working order. He parked it on the road outside his house and didn't drive it again. Over a period of seven months the test certificate expired, the insurance was cancelled, the tyres went flat, the back brakes seized and all the oil leaked out of the gearbox.

He was subsequently summonsed for 'using' a vehicle on a road without a test certificate or insurance and was convicted at Magistrates Court. He appealed on the grounds that a vehicle immobilised to that extent ceased to be 'used' for the purpose of the legislation.


HELD

Appeal dismissed. Conviction upheld.

Provided the vehicle is a motor vehicle for the purposes of section 185 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road), the owner has the use of it. The fact that the wheels would not rotate does not prevent it being a motor vehicle, otherwise an individual would only have to deliberately lock up his brakes to avoid his responsibilities. The same principle applied to the other defects with the vehicle, all of which were relatively easy to rectify.

This is the latest in a long line of cases which determine whether a vehicle is a motor vehicle for the purposes of 'use' on a road. Each case has to be judged on the nature of the vehicle defects. Generally, a vehicle ceases to be a motor vehicle if it has decayed (or been damaged/dismantled) to such an extent that only extensive restoration would re- create a working mechanically propelled vehicle. For example, a missing engine which is repairable or replaceable is not, on its' own, sufficient for a vehicle to cease to be mechanically propelled.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

OK, I started this. I've read through all the reponses and I have to say they seem to have ranged far and wide with a few 'side issues' being discussed.

Now, my intention at the outset was to 'provoke' just this sort of discussion - and I quite deliberately chose ANPR as the 'trigger' rathern than scameras to try and avoid excessive emotionalism. The underlying factors I was trying to bring out were: "What other options are there to address issues surrounding road safety".

It would seem I've managed to achieve that to some extent. As far as I can see, there seems to be some consensus regarding applying VED as an element in the price of fuel, rather than todays system. At least that gets us away from being able to evade it. It also addresses some of the other issues surrounding 'pay per mile' in effect, since, if you drive (heaven forbid) a Smart car, you will pay significantly less per mile than if you take the Roller out for a spin. Also, if you use the roads for (say) 30,000 mileas a year (as I did in my last job) then you will pay more than the old dear who does 3,000 a year pottering to the shops. EDIT: (unless of course she's in the Roller )

Seems fair to me. I would guess that basingwerk has an element of choice in where he chooses to live - so can't really complain too much, though I do accept he will pay more (as I would).

As for the insurance element being added fuel, I'm not so sure. We currently (as I understand things) effectively have this through the MIB fund (which baled me out once when shunted in the rear by a driver who had insurance but refused to notify his insurer, then left the country at which point his insurer refused point blank to even consider a claim on his policy!). Therefore, the cost of this fund is added to everyone's insurance. I don't know what the figures are, but I suspect it will be percentage based. Could we really trust the insurance companies to remove that surcharge element if it were applied centrally through fuel prices???

As for ANPR. I have to say I am not an out and out advocate of technology and firmly believe there is nothing better than the BiBs for sorting out these types of problem. However, if used as an AID then it can be useful. Reliance (total and blind as per the scameras) is not the way to go. The idea of all patrol cars having it installed (as was mooted earlier) seems reasonable since it is then acting as an aid (or 'trigger') to the trafpol to draw his attention to something which may (or may not) be 'hookey'.

Just a few thoughts. I will now don my fully protective suit and duck!



Cheers, Chris B

_________________
Stultus est sicut stultus facit - a known fact
Stercus accidit - a truism!

Hey, that's more swish than my car! Is there nothing more humble than that? What about a Reliant Kitten, or is that a cult classic now?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Just seen this one from Ian. There seems to be some semantics at play here. Most insurance policies say 'drive', while the law appears to refer to 'use'. Would these two terms (in a court of law) be deemed to be synonymous? Or would drive be seen as applying the insurance only when the vehicle is actually on the move?

Could be a tricky one. It strikes me that this is where the answer to the earlier series of questions regarding whether there needs to be another policy (in the name of the owner) in force or not.

Ian, do you have a definitive answer to that? Would you, for example, consider proceedings if you encountered such a vehicle parked outside the shops?

Cheers, Chris B

_________________
Stultus est sicut stultus facit - a known fact
Stercus accidit - a truism!

I know someone who once rallied a Reliant Kitten. It's mega-lightweight fibreglass body meant it had a phenomenal power to weight ratio, and could outbrake and out corner virtually anything else competing! He only used it once or twice as he was concerned about the consequences of crashing it, given it's size and construction, and bearing in mind that it's amazing performance made such an evenuality seem quite a strong likelyhood.

All things considered, the 306 diesel would probably be just a tad more sensible for a young learner...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Hi Chris,

My own understanding is that most standard policies will state 'drive' rather than 'use' in this context.

I've checked my own previous and current policies, and for 'third party use of someone elses vehicle my policy states

Drive is much narrower than use, which has the wider interpretation as detailed above, therefore I'd contend that if I drove a vehicle which was not mine with permission of the owner, then that owner would be reponsible for the vehicle when I stopped driving. My driving of the vehicle would be legal, but if I and parked the car overnight on the roadside intending to drive it the next morning, then that would be the responsibility of the owner. I seem to recall that there may be case law on the point of stopping on the roadside to jump into a shop for a paper, but I can't find it.

IIRC, this option of third party driving of someone elses car was brought in as an option many years ago to allow a person to drive someone elses car when the normal user was for some acute reason unable to drive him/herself. At least that's my understanding, but I'd be happy to be corrected.

I feel that the use of 'drive' in this clause rather than 'use' may be an effort on the part of insurance companies to tighten up this clause.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

To quote IanH:

(vii) A car parked on a road that cannot be moved but, owing to its condition, cannot be driven is 'used' on the road within the meaning of the present provisions. A vehicle which is parked on the road, stationary and unattended is being used even if it is jacked up for repair. It has been held that the owner of a vehicle was using it even though it was in the possession of another so that it could be repaired. A vehicle which had its tyres deflated, the rear brakes seized in the 'on' position and the gearbox was without oil because of a leak, was also being used. Provided that a vehicle is a motor vehicle, and is on a road, the owner has the use of it on a road whether, at the material time, it can be moved on its wheels or not.

I think that's pretty clear cut. Put it this way, I wouldn't chance it.

As for the 306 diesel, if its the NA version fine, but my Rover 418SLD has the Peugeot 1.8 intercooled turbo diesel in it (as fitted to the 306 TD) and it goes like something brown of something shiney. Oh yeah, and its a higher insurance group than my 1.8 petrol Golf was....

Before you say "why have a group 10 car when you're 24 and complaining about insurance?" I have to be able to tow my 960kg MAM boat trailer with it - I bought it for purely for utilitarian porposes. As I tell everyone who asks me about my car, I have a 650cc bike, if I want to have fun I don't use the car!

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

Gixxer wrote:

i am a part time trader and carry trade insurance this allows me to drive most cars (as long as they belong to me) the only exceptions being high performance cars, kit cars etc.....however any cars i own for more than fourteen days have to go on to the motor insurance database, i have excel spreadsheets set up for just that purpose......i imagine most traders notify about cars as soon as they have bought them (i certainly do)

I don't tell the insurance company anything, primarily because there is no requirement for me to do so.

As for the actual cover, your insurance policy sounds incredibly restricted to me for a so called "traders policy".

my trade insurance is so limited as i dont really need any more cover than that (though it does insure anyone test driving one of my cars if i am with them), i dont need to drive other peoples cars so why pay to be able to do it

i notify my insurance company about the cars as they send me letters with lots of bold text telling me its a criminal offence with a fine of up to £5000 if i dont...... i dont know if thats true or not perhaps the Bib could confirm or deny

if it would help i could scan some of my insurance paperwork and e mail it to paul (i have no idea how to attach scanned documents to here)

oh and how do you get the forum to quote in thse neat little boxes and colours?

That's true - the paper system is futile, and an electronic one can be used. Even so, a tax disk forged on a modern PC is a heck of a lot more convincing than the traditional equivalent - a Guinness label!

_________________
I stole this .sig

the answer is using the new legislation no insurance, tow it away