utt61

What is it about their DB that you feel is "inaccurate" now? There is no requirement for a pre-1973 vehicle to be classed as an Historic Vehicle, it is merely a concession. If I chose to tax my 1954 Series 1 Land-Rover as PLG I am not doing anything wrong, just something mildly stupid. If I used it for business purposes however I would have to tax it as PLG, since taxing it as Historic would constitute tax evasion and be an offence. The default class is PLG (or the appropriate non-concessionary class) unless the owner requests the change to Historic and declares that the vehicle is legitimately eligible.

Not all vehicles pre-'73 will qualify as to be taxed as Historic vehicle, so a search based simply on this criterion would not work. Besides, why should they bother? If it isn't historic, there will be tax revenue earned from it and the owner will be paying this tax - if that isn't motivation for the owner to instigate the reclassification, then I don't know what is. DVLA/the government is unlikely to expend time and energy to reduce their own tax income when they don't actually have any obligation to do so.

If the landlord is an absentee, is the property let through a letting agent? If so, the letting agent should be able to deal with issues like this on behalf of the landlord. I really do suggest that you try to solve this by legal means before resorting to illegal methods.

Have you a link to an official site for this, I searched and could not find one. You may well be correct, but it would be nice to know which legislation says this is so. Unfortunately not, I don't have a link at the moment (assuming that you mean the 3.5 tonne limit, not the thing about Land-Rovers). I suspect that it may be C&U '86 (as amended) but would need to find my copy and read it to check (as has been discussed before in this forum, there is unfortunately no online copy of the C&U regs). It is one of those things that I have "always known" but now I am asked how, I don't know! I must have read it somewhere probably about 35 years ago, certainly well before the era of type-approval and all that malarky. The law relating to trailers has changed extensively as a result of the influence (interference?) of European regulations and it is possible that the situation has changed. Searching quickly online now I find reference to things like "Type 2 trailers" which is a new Euro-thing and I have no idea what it means. However, to the best of my knowledge it is still the case that a ball has a legal max of 3.5 tonnes and so do over-run brakes. When I get the time I will try to find out more.

"Resurrection: Salvaging the Battle Fleet at Pearl Harbour" by Daniel Madsen, a fascinating account of what was possibly the world's largest wreck recovery operation.

3.5 tonnes is the maximum weight which can legally be towed with a towball coupling, it is also the max weight which can be towed using over-run trailer brakes. In the early days Land-Rovers used to be rated to tow 4 tons gross but to do this required jaw/pin coupling (or an appropriately rated NATO type coupling) plus power brakes on the trailer. Interesting that a 2286cc petrol Series II can legally tow 4 tons, but a brand-new Defender 90 only 3.5 tonnes!

Exactly what I was thinking, good question. If there is now a requirement for the car itself to be insured, that is a fundamental change to the law. In the past I have re-taxed vehicles belonging to other people by producing an insurance certificate in my own name which shows D.O.C. ("driving other cars") cover, although I understand that this has not been possible for some time and now the insurance proof provided to tax a vehicle must explicitly identify the vehicle being taxed. It seems to me that once again we are being clobbered by an ill-conceived and inoperative "solution" to a problem - the real problem is the huge number of uninsured motorists on the road and I cannot see how this will help at all! It will just make life more difficult for the law-abiding community. Stop the world, I want to get off!

Not strictly related to buried Jeeps but relevent to some of the subsequent posts, a mystery which has occupied me and a (small) number of like minded people fir years is what happened to two important railway cranes at the time of the fall of Singapore. In the 1930s Ransomes and Rapier of Ipswich supplied two 100 ton capacity rail mounted cranes, at the time the largest built in Britain, to the military in Singapore. One was metre gauge (shown below) and one standard gauge, and they were amply photographed before despatch. One of the reasons for their supply was apparently to handle the guns being commissioned for the defence of Singapore. It is believed that with the surrender imminent they were both shoved into the sea in order to deprive them to the Japanese invasion forces, but no-one seems to know. Were they blown up or dumped in the sea, and were they recovered by the Japanese. The latter seems unlikely as there is no postwar evidence that they reappeared anywhere. These were massive cranes and it is surprising that they disappeared so completely. We have been unable to find any documented fate in any of the written material about the fall of Singapore. In the unlikely event that anyone can shed light, please do - it would be fascinating to solve this puzzle!

I see from the site linked above that it uses a complete Mini front subframe at ther rear; does this mean that 4-wheel steering would be practical? It certainly looks a lot of fun!

Just come across this short video of a British GSB (General Support Bridging) set in action - three unipower M series (one ABLE and two BVs in the set). Most impressive, bridging the easy way.

Breathtaking!! I wonder where it is now.

I think that the Bluebell's clearance (Imberhorne cutting?) is actually funded with a grant paid from monies raised through the dreaded Landfill Tax. If so it is about the first evidence of something useful coming from this tax.

That doesn't surprise me in the least. Very useful information, thanks.

Off at a slight tangent, but still relevent. I was talking earlier this evening to a local farmer who offered his services to the County Council today to help clear some of the minor roads round here of snow. The council turned him down, since they insist that to do this he must a) have substantial public liability insurance and indemnify the council and b) use taxed fuel not red in the tractor whilst so doing, since it isn't agricultural activity. There are times when I hate what the world is becoming.

Agreed, sorry Tugger, I should have included this. Do you have to notify HMRC in advance, though? ISTR that during the last tanker drivers' strike HMRC relaxed their stance so that you could sort out the tax restrospectively?

No it's classed as "land to which the public has access" or something along those lines, and some of the provisions of the RTA apply (a bit like a Tesco car park really - privately owned, but some RTA provisions apply). You would under normal circumstance still be able to drive a vehicle which is not road legal at such a show and run it on red. Clearly you could not legally drive such a vehcile to the show. Generally HMRC can dip tanks wherever they please if they have reason to think an offence may have been committed (in fact HMRC have more powers including powers of entry than any other organisation - they can enter and search your home without warrant, something the Police cannot do), so I very much doubt whether you could stop them dipping tanks at an MV event. If the vehicle dipped has a road fund licence, irrespective of how it got to the show, it is illegal to have red in the tank. Even vehicle which are Ag registered can only use red when carrying out ag-related work, and attending a show isn't. It doesn't matter that it wasn't driven there. If it is capable of being driven legally on the road, it cannot use red. If you had a vehicle that wasn't road registered and was transported to the show, it could use red.

I *think* that the law on Adverse Possession changed a decade or so ago so that the claimant now has to be able to show that he/she has made a reasonable attempt to identify and contact the rightful owner before claiming AP; if this cannot be established, then no legal title is established. This was, I believe, done to avoid people using stealth to claim AP on property where the ownership was not actually in doubt. (I may however be wrong, and anyone intending to try an AP claim would be bonkers to do so without proper legal advice). In the old days when a railway was closed the land was usually offered for sale to local farmers etc and generally, if structure-free, sold. Tunnels, and bridges which crossed public rights of way, generally were not sold, and a surprising number of such structures are still owned by British Railways (and yes, I do mean BR) - BR Residuary Ltd - a company set up when the network was privatised specifically to own such redundent assets. It is sometimes possible to buy major structures such as tunnels and viaducts for purely nominal sums (eg £1) but you will get the maintenance liability as well! A major viaduct needs continual maintenance to keep it safe, but the demolition bill could be millions, so no wonder BR®Ltd would like to be shot of as many as possible. If a line was closed post-privatisation, or was considered a strategic route, then the route may be protected. Many former railway routes have been sold to organisations like Sustrans as cycle routes (and this can make life a nightmare for anyone attempting to reopen the route as a railway, as many heritage groups will testify).

Correct. If it is taxed as Historic Vehicle and is roadworthy and otherwise legal for road use, it CANNOT use red on private land. If you want to be able legally to use red on private land you must SORN it beforehand thus rendering it legally incapable of running on the road. Clearly if you do this, then before returning it to road-legal status you must flush out all traces of red from the fuel system and refill with taxed fuel.

See the "MOT Special Notice" at http://www.dft.gov.uk/vosa/repository/SN%2005-2009%20Dual%20purpose%20Vehicles%20Emission%20Book%20V1.0.pdf This makes it clear that the amendments are to the Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulations only and cannot have any effect whatsoever on speed limits.

And I see that it refers (in A4) to "dual purpose vehicles .... where they weigh more than 3.05 tonnes unladen" which is paradoxical since the C&U Regs define a DPV as weighing a max of 2040Kg UW! Interesting thought that there is absolutely no mention of DPVs anywhere else in the document, although the situation with respect to PCVs (which are also included in A4 quoted above) is expanded upon considerably. Confusion reigns!

Surely a Hummer was too heavy to be a DPV anyway (ie over 2040KG UW)? If it was over 3500 GVW it couldn't be driven on a Cat B licence ever (it would need Cat C1 or C).

I believe that what was to be removed was the specific exemption to the MOT testing regulations that permitted dual purpose vehicles to be exempt from Class 7 testing under certain circumstances. As far as I am aware (which may not be very far!) there was no change to the C&U regulations, and therefore the definition of a DPV is unchanged. (There have incidentally been well over 200 amendments to the C&U regs, and it is not possible to obtain a single current document stating the cumulative effect of these). For Land-Rover drivers the situation is now even more obfusc. Until recently, vehicles like the Defender 110 Double Cab pickup were 2010Kg UW and could be taxed as light goods vehicles and travel at car speed limits by virtue of being DPVs. Now LR have increased the UW to 2050Kg which means that they (probably) are not DPVs. So what speed limits apply? Is a DC a goods vehicle or a car? The situation is now almost surreal in its complexity. I don't think anyone really knows the answers any more, and there will need to be a court case to establish some case law.

IIRC the requirement is that it must be possible "to obtain an adequate view to the front without looking through the windscreen" for wipers to be not required. This is generally taken to mean that the windscreen must fold down or hinge up. Don't forget also that if you have wipers you must also have washers - wipers on their own will not pass an MOT. When I was nearing completion of a rebuild of my Series 1 86" I took it for an MOT with no windscreen, doors, wipers, washers, seat belts, and only the drivers seat in place. The MOT only took about 10 minutes, and most of that was the tested trying to decide whether or not it could pass without doors.

I know it is moving away somewhat from the original topic, but when I tried to insure my 1961 Iron Fairy crane for travel on the public roads I had enormous difficulty finding anyone who would cover it. I didn't want lifting or crane insurance, simply RTA cover so I can move it from one part of the site to another along 400 yards of pubic road. All the insurers I tried who advertise cover for classic plant refused cover (even those who proudly claim to cover any type of plant), and only one (classic car) insurer in the end came up with the goods. Ever they record it as a "van" despite a) having photos, and b) the fact that every time I correspond for whatever reason with them I point out that it is a mobile crane not a van. At least they can't say they were't told. I haven't tried insuring an odd-ball (no offence intended) MV eg tracked armour since I do not presently have the good fortune to own one. Is it as difficult as a mobile crane?

With more training and experience, the Lowestoft team might graduate onto advanced demolition techniques like these Beijing professionals:- Eat your heart out, HSE !