Tax exempt rebuilds - definitive answers?

Hi,
If there's a quick and comprehensive FAQ or info. source somewhere
about this please point me in that direction and read no further.
I thought this would be easy to find out about but it seems it's not.
>From the DVLA page it looks like there's no way that you can do a coil
/ 5spd / modern diesel conversion to a pre-73 landrover and keep it's
tax-exempt status. But surely people do this? How risky is it? Or don't
you mention that on here!! ;-)
I want to get a Designa 88" coil conversion chassis for a IIA. I want
to keep the IIA body and bulkhead, to the untrained eye it will be the
same vehicle. The IIA already has a V5C. If I hadn't looked on the DVLA
website, I'd have just done the work, got it MOT'd, gone to the post
office to pick up my (free) tax disc and not thought any more about it.
Or would the MOT tester have pointed out that I need an SVA check?
Seems unlikely.
Having to tax it is bad enough but having to get a horrible Q-prefix
number is perhaps worse.
Can anyone put me to rights here? I thought this would be a
much-discussed topic in Landrover circles.
Cheers,
Ruaridh.

I am fairly sure that the only way to do it and say on the strictly legal
side
would be to use a complete early range rover as the donor for all the
mechanical componants, the body used has nothing to do with it, even
if it ends up looking like a series land rover it remains officially a
Range Rover. As for the chassis used it really dosn't matter, hence the
reason why a kit car can still retain the original vehicles identity.
If you build such a vehicle but keep it registered as a series vehicle
and some narky soul grasses you up, You may well end up with a
Q reg and a demand for unpaid road tax at the least and find your self
trying to explain why you are in possesion of a ringer.

In message <[email protected]>
"Ruaridh" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
> If there's a quick and comprehensive FAQ or info. source somewhere
> about this please point me in that direction and read no further.
> I thought this would be easy to find out about but it seems it's not.
> >From the DVLA page it looks like there's no way that you can do a coil
> / 5spd / modern diesel conversion to a pre-73 landrover and keep it's
> tax-exempt status. But surely people do this? How risky is it? Or don't
> you mention that on here!! ;-)
> I want to get a Designa 88" coil conversion chassis for a IIA. I want
> to keep the IIA body and bulkhead, to the untrained eye it will be the
> same vehicle. The IIA already has a V5C. If I hadn't looked on the DVLA
> website, I'd have just done the work, got it MOT'd, gone to the post
> office to pick up my (free) tax disc and not thought any more about it.
> Or would the MOT tester have pointed out that I need an SVA check?
> Seems unlikely.
> Having to tax it is bad enough but having to get a horrible Q-prefix
> number is perhaps worse.
> Can anyone put me to rights here? I thought this would be a
> much-discussed topic in Landrover circles.
> Cheers,
> Ruaridh.
>

Your interpretation of the DVLA page is quite correct. They have been
very clever in designing a system that allows you to have a good old
muck about with your motor, but not register a new vehicle as an old
one (by claiming to have replaced everything), for example to get
free road tax.

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

"Ruaridh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hi,
> If there's a quick and comprehensive FAQ or info. source somewhere
> about this please point me in that direction and read no further.
> I thought this would be easy to find out about but it seems it's not.
> >From the DVLA page it looks like there's no way that you can do a coil
> / 5spd / modern diesel conversion to a pre-73 landrover and keep it's
> tax-exempt status. But surely people do this? How risky is it? Or don't
> you mention that on here!! ;-)
> I want to get a Designa 88" coil conversion chassis for a IIA. I want
> to keep the IIA body and bulkhead, to the untrained eye it will be the
> same vehicle. The IIA already has a V5C. If I hadn't looked on the DVLA
> website, I'd have just done the work, got it MOT'd, gone to the post
> office to pick up my (free) tax disc and not thought any more about it.
> Or would the MOT tester have pointed out that I need an SVA check?
> Seems unlikely.
> Having to tax it is bad enough but having to get a horrible Q-prefix
> number is perhaps worse.
> Can anyone put me to rights here? I thought this would be a
> much-discussed topic in Landrover circles.
> Cheers,
> Ruaridh.

A lot depends on the attitude of the MOT tester. If he (or she!) decides
that it's an old landy, then no probs unless a very knowledgeable plod
should pull you. If, however, VOSA carry out the rumour that they are to
introduce a "vehicle identity check" ammendment to the MOT rules then there
may well be issues. It is rumoured that there will be another question to be
answered on the dreaded computer, something along the lines of "has the
vehicle been obviously altered from the manufactured condition", this is
allegedly intended to catch out all the young chav's with their dangerously
lowered suspension and loose bodykits etc but it has obvious implications
for landy owners. The assumption is that if the answer is "yes", then it
will be a case of "refer to VOSA for SVA".
I have seen cars turn up for MOT and sent them away simply because they have
been modified to such an extent that they can't climb onto the ramps without
grounding, or rear springs that have been lowered to such an extent that
they unseat themselves when you jack the car up and don't automatically
reseat again - that is dangerous! That is just two examples of what the
alleged ammendment is designed to catch out, although current MOT rules
would fail the non-relocating spring anyway.
This is only currently a rumour, there was mention made in some of the more
trashy car mags (max power etc) about 9 months ago (ish), with the resultant
uproar from the chav fraternity.
Badger.

Ruaridh wrote:
> Hi,
> If there's a quick and comprehensive FAQ or info. source somewhere
> about this please point me in that direction and read no further.
> I thought this would be easy to find out about but it seems it's not.
>> From the DVLA page it looks like there's no way that you can do a
>> coil
> / 5spd / modern diesel conversion to a pre-73 landrover and keep it's
> tax-exempt status. But surely people do this? How risky is it? Or
> don't you mention that on here!! ;-)
> I want to get a Designa 88" coil conversion chassis for a IIA. I want
> to keep the IIA body and bulkhead, to the untrained eye it will be the
> same vehicle. The IIA already has a V5C. If I hadn't looked on the
> DVLA website, I'd have just done the work, got it MOT'd, gone to the
> post office to pick up my (free) tax disc and not thought any more
> about it. Or would the MOT tester have pointed out that I need an SVA
> check? Seems unlikely.
> Having to tax it is bad enough but having to get a horrible Q-prefix
> number is perhaps worse.
> Can anyone put me to rights here? I thought this would be a
> much-discussed topic in Landrover circles.
> Cheers,
> Ruaridh.


As an ex-MOT tester I had a fair few Land Rovers coming through
that had coils on with tax exempt status. as I was only there to test the
vehicle the tax had bugger all to do with me. I think you'll find most
testers are the same.
You could modify the chassis to incorperate coils thus keeping its original
identity or fit a new chassis and say it's the original thats been modified
you would probably get away with free tax but if you get caught, you may have
to pay the back tax that they think you should have paid and a fine BICBW

--
Andy

SWB Series 2a ( dressed as a 3) "Bruce"
It's big, it's mean it's really, really green

Badger wrote:
> A lot depends on the attitude of the MOT tester. If he (or she!)
> decides that it's an old landy, then no probs unless a very
> knowledgeable plod should pull you. If, however, VOSA carry out the
> rumour that they are to introduce a "vehicle identity check"
> ammendment to the MOT rules then there may well be issues. It is
> rumoured that there will be another question to be answered on the
> dreaded computer, something along the lines of "has the vehicle been
> obviously altered from the manufactured condition", this is allegedly
> intended to catch out all the young chav's with their dangerously
> lowered suspension and loose bodykits etc but it has obvious
> implications for landy owners. The assumption is that if the answer
> is "yes", then it will be a case of "refer to VOSA for SVA".

At present if the tester enters the vehicle data and it is different to that
held on record then I believe the vehicle needs a VIC before it can be taxed
It can still be tested on the 'wrong' data
The problem is that a SVA isn't a MOT the vehicle will still need a MOT
after having a SVA. I tested quite a few imports that had been to SVA
and then needed a MOT before being registered



> I have seen cars turn up for MOT and sent them away simply because
> they have been modified to such an extent that they can't climb onto
> the ramps without grounding, or rear springs that have been lowered
> to such an extent that they unseat themselves when you jack the car
> up and don't automatically reseat again - that is dangerous! That is
> just two examples of what the alleged ammendment is designed to catch
> out, although current MOT rules would fail the non-relocating spring
> anyway.
> This is only currently a rumour, there was mention made in some of
> the more trashy car mags (max power etc) about 9 months ago (ish),
> with the resultant uproar from the chav fraternity.
> Badger.

I had a few turn up that couldn't get across the brake rollers I insisted they
drove the vehicle across is they wanted it tested and all damage was their
responsibility
--
Andy

SWB Series 2a ( dressed as a 3) "Bruce"
It's big, it's mean it's really, really green

"ANDREW SMALLEY" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>You could modify the chassis to incorperate coils thus keeping its original
>identity or fit a new chassis and say it's the original thats been modified
>you would probably get away with free tax but if you get caught, you may
have
>to pay the back tax that they think you should have paid and a fine BICBW

The other risk that hasn't been mentioned is that your insurance may be
invalid, something you may not find out unless you have an accident and they
send a loss adjuster to look closely.
Greg

Thanks very much to all who replied. This looks like a good newsgroup:
well informed and articulate - you don't find that much on t'internet
these days!!!!
The pre-73 RangeRover suggestion is a good one, I hadn't thought of
that. (Although one might be hard to come by?) That would probably give
the best chance of proving you had used enough of the old vehicle even
if using a new galv. chassis.
Otherwise, as it seems to be common knowledge that it shouldn't be done
and things are only getting stricter, I don't think I'll chance it. The
insurance issue is always there, might never be a problem esp. with 3rd
party but you can bet if there was an incident where an assessor was
involved they'd jump at the chance to not pay out which could be nasty.
If I go with coils etc. and get an SVA and pay the tax, it seems a bit
pointless to not just build up a 90" defender type seeing as bulkheads
etc. are much cheaper.
So I might just use a leaf-spring chassis after all, it won't be that
bad!! Might seem extreme to go to these lengths to avoid road tax
but I really want an old landy where it doesn't matter if it lies for a
couple of months at a time not getting used much - kind of hard to
justify if it's sitting there with a full tax disc.
Thanks again,
Ruaridh

On or around Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:50:13 +0100, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>Your interpretation of the DVLA page is quite correct. They have been
>very clever in designing a system that allows you to have a good old
>muck about with your motor, but not register a new vehicle as an old
>one (by claiming to have replaced everything), for example to get
>free road tax.

yeah, but it gets involved, doesn't it...

My SIII has a relatively iffy chassis, for example - I've just replaced the
off-side front, with the spring hanger, which of course has the chassis
number stamped thereon... I stamped the number on the new bit, and I still
have the old bit, should anyone care to inspect it, but there's no way top
prove that it actually came from the chassis on the vehicle. The number
matches the plate on the bulkhead, but of course that could be removed and
riveted to a different one.

now consider the next stage, I miraculously end up solvent and decided to
replace the chassis and bulkhead... now you can replace a chassis, it's in
the rules, with another of the same design. fair enough, and presumably the
old chassis number gets stamped on the new chassis (and I suppose it's
possible that the chassis manufacturer does that) and in theory they could
require the old chassis returned. But then the old chassis is already "not
proven" so to speak. Now, I change the bulkhead and remove the plate and
rivet it to the new bulkhead...

OK, some stuff has dates cast or stamped into it. But everything *can* be
replaced, and legally, at that, one bit at a time, on the same vehicle - so
I could end up with a SIII which was registered in 1971 and which has 1982
axles (fitted second hand), a new chassis and bulkhead, a recon engine and
gearbox...

now there would be a link all the way through, but it'd not be the same
vehicle that was built in Solihull in 1971.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
0123456789112345678921234567893123456789412345678951234567896123456789712345
1 weebl: What's this? | in recognition of the fun that is weebl and bob
2 bob: it a SigRuler! | check out the weebl and bob archive:
3 weebl: How Handy! | http://www.weebl.jolt.co.uk/archives.php

On or around 14 Aug 2006 16:12:31 -0700, "Ruaridh"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>The pre-73 RangeRover suggestion is a good one, I hadn't thought of
>that. (Although one might be hard to come by?) That would probably give
>the best chance of proving you had used enough of the old vehicle even
>if using a new galv. chassis.

IIRC on the points system you have to use the chassis and one major
component. You can't get enough points without the chassis. summat like
the components add up to 5 and the chassis is 5 points, but you need 6
points to keep the identity.

The grey area is when you do that and then replace the chassis 'cos it's
rotten with a new one. I believe that if you buy a new chassis from land
rover they want the old one back, otherwise you can't have the same chassis
number. Dunno if other makers operate the same - it's what I'd do if I were
making the rules - trouble is, implementing it could be a pain - I'd not,
myself, start a chassis-up rebuild without having the new chassis already on
site.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Confidence: Before important work meetings, boost your confidence by
reading a few pages from "The Tibetan Book of the Dead"
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

Apart from building on a very early Range Rover, you might be able to
adapt a 90/110/Defender with a Series-style windscreen. The elements
that come to mind as needing a bit of work are the windscreen hinges,
and replace the roof. AFAIK, the hard-top sides are identical, and the
top of the rear door has the same shape.

I'm less certain how a canvas tilt would match up.

Once you have the vehicle, a registration-mark transfer could give you a
suitably-dated number, but not tax-exempt status.

--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

"I am Number Two," said Penfold. "You are Number Six."

Austin Shackles wrote:

> now there would be a link all the way through, but it'd not be the same
> vehicle that was built in Solihull in 1971.

And if you were prepared to work that hard just to save £170 a year
I'd say you deserved it

Greg

In message <[email protected]>
Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> On or around Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:50:13 +0100, beamendsltd
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >
> >Your interpretation of the DVLA page is quite correct. They have been
> >very clever in designing a system that allows you to have a good old
> >muck about with your motor, but not register a new vehicle as an old
> >one (by claiming to have replaced everything), for example to get
> >free road tax.
>
> yeah, but it gets involved, doesn't it...
>
> My SIII has a relatively iffy chassis, for example - I've just replaced the
> off-side front, with the spring hanger, which of course has the chassis
> number stamped thereon... I stamped the number on the new bit, and I still
> have the old bit, should anyone care to inspect it, but there's no way top
> prove that it actually came from the chassis on the vehicle. The number
> matches the plate on the bulkhead, but of course that could be removed and
> riveted to a different one.
>
> now consider the next stage, I miraculously end up solvent and decided to
> replace the chassis and bulkhead... now you can replace a chassis, it's in
> the rules, with another of the same design. fair enough, and presumably the
> old chassis number gets stamped on the new chassis (and I suppose it's
> possible that the chassis manufacturer does that) and in theory they could
> require the old chassis returned. But then the old chassis is already "not
> proven" so to speak. Now, I change the bulkhead and remove the plate and
> rivet it to the new bulkhead...
>
> OK, some stuff has dates cast or stamped into it. But everything *can* be
> replaced, and legally, at that, one bit at a time, on the same vehicle - so
> I could end up with a SIII which was registered in 1971 and which has 1982
> axles (fitted second hand), a new chassis and bulkhead, a recon engine and
> gearbox...
>
> now there would be a link all the way through, but it'd not be the same
> vehicle that was built in Solihull in 1971.

That's about whether it gets a Q plate or not, and is nothing to do
with the points system. The points system is about changing specs
of things - chassis, suspension, transmission, etc. Keeping an
original part, e.g. the chassis *retains* 5 (I think it is) points,
keeping the suspension retains something like 2 points, and the
engine is 8 points. You add up the points retained, and if it's
less 11, or whatever it is, your vehicle keeps it's identity, if
not it has to be re-registered. The upshot is you can change
either the engine, or everything else - change the engine too
and you fail to retain enough points - by one!
Changing a leaf sprung chassis for another, new, one won't make
any difference to the points - the chassis supplier will help
with the paper work. If you change it for a coil sprung version,
you have retained 2 points less (or whatever it is), but that
doesn't matter because you are still retaining all you other
points. If the chassis is supplied as a modified replacement,
then again the supplier can sort out the paperwork, and you
won't necesserily need a Q plate. If you fit a s/h chassis,
or a new one without the paperwork, you will need to get a
Q plate.

At least, that's how I read it - I wanted to check but the
DVAL web site has turned into complete mess and I can't
find it any more!

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

I don't want to start posting text from the DVLA site but in a
nutshell.....
There are slightly different rules for kit cars, "radically altered
vehicles" and rebuilt vehicles.
Rebuilt vehicles don't use the points system, they just need the same
spec. chassis and 2 major components from the original. Note that front
& rear suspension together count as 1 component. The key thing is the
replacement chassis must be of the same specification and have
paperwork from manufacturer.
For RAV the total points required is 8, and the chassis retains 5.
Everything else retains 2 except the engine which gets 1. But even if
you make up the 8 points with mechanicals and running gear, if a
second-hand or modified chassis is used an SVA will be required and a
Q-plate issued. So by my interpretation there's no way that a landrover
with a modified chassis (new coil conversion, shortened s/h range-rover
etc.) which is running on a pre-73 plate can possibly be legal (unless
the conversion was done before 1973!!)
(There are further rules for kit cars which I won't go into).
I guess because of the unique nature of Landrovers with extreme
longevity and high interchageability of parts, there was largely a
blind eye turned to all of this in the past, also because they are
fairly slow and safe on the roads. However we can't stop the march of
technology and it looks like hybrid builders are incresingly going to
fall foul of this in the near future, because of the computer MOT.

In response to the comment about all the work to save the road tax, in
my case I was going to be doing the work anyway, the free tax is just a
bonus. But you're right if it starts involving too many donor vehicles,
expense and hassle then it's not worth it which is why I've decided to
just to a straightforward rebuild.

As regards numbers from reg. dealers; I don't fully understand SVA /
Q-plate rules but I'm guessing the date of registration will be after
the SVA inspection. Therefore assuming the rules are still like they
used to be, i.e. a vehicle was only allowed to carry a private plate
that was older than it's registration (to stop people making cars look
newer than they are), it would technically be possible to put an 06
plate on your hybrid!! Somehow I don't think the DVLA would wear this,
you get into "certificate of newness" territory for that. Which I think
is why repaired write-offs, specials etc. that get issued Q-plates have
to keep them. BICBW.

what point though would an original chassis become unoriginal, after you
have had enough repairs to it. I would guess it is possible to replace
enough of it over time to render the original status debatable.

Its all ridiculous anyhow. The continuity over time with a series of small
changes ought to outrank a serios radical all at once replacement job of
practically everything.

--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes



"beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:29edc6564e%[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>
> Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On or around Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:50:13 +0100, beamendsltd
> > <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
> >
> > >
> That's about whether it gets a Q plate or not, and is nothing to do
> with the points system. The points system is about changing specs
> of things - chassis, suspension, transmission, etc. Keeping an
> original part, e.g. the chassis *retains* 5 (I think it is) points,
> keeping the suspension retains something like 2 points, and the
> engine is 8 points. You add up the points retained, and if it's
> less 11, or whatever it is, your vehicle keeps it's identity, if
> not it has to be re-registered. The upshot is you can change
> either the engine, or everything else - change the engine too
> and you fail to retain enough points - by one!
> Changing a leaf sprung chassis for another, new, one won't make
> any difference to the points - the chassis supplier will help
> with the paper work. If you change it for a coil sprung version,
> you have retained 2 points less (or whatever it is), but that
> doesn't matter because you are still retaining all you other
> points. If the chassis is supplied as a modified replacement,
> then again the supplier can sort out the paperwork, and you
> won't necesserily need a Q plate. If you fit a s/h chassis,
> or a new one without the paperwork, you will need to get a
> Q plate.
>
> At least, that's how I read it - I wanted to check but the
> DVAL web site has turned into complete mess and I can't
> find it any more!
>
> Richard
>
> --
> www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
> RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
> Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> what point though would an original chassis become unoriginal, after you
> have had enough repairs to it. I would guess it is possible to replace
> enough of it over time to render the original status debatable.
>

The "same broom" argument: i.e. "Look, this old yard broom has had six new
heads and three new handles, bit it's still the same old broom". I'm sure
we can all read and interpret - one way or another - the rules, but has
anyone actually put any of this to the test and put their hand up saying
"yep, I've coil sprang my SIIA and mated an SD1 engine to the old gearbox"?
Or are the majority of these tax-exempt conversions that crop up on eBay
highly dubious and/or previously owned/built by people who have quietly kept
their heads down about the changes?

Steve

In message <[email protected]>
"Larry" <[email protected]> wrote:

> what point though would an original chassis become unoriginal, after you
> have had enough repairs to it. I would guess it is possible to replace
> enough of it over time to render the original status debatable.
>
> Its all ridiculous anyhow. The continuity over time with a series of small
> changes ought to outrank a serios radical all at once replacement job of
> practically everything.
>

The points system does add up over time - you always work from the
original spec, so if someone changed the engine a few years back
you've already lost those points, even if it wasn't declared.

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

In message <[email protected]>
"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Larry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > what point though would an original chassis become unoriginal, after you
> > have had enough repairs to it. I would guess it is possible to replace
> > enough of it over time to render the original status debatable.
> >
>
> The "same broom" argument: i.e. "Look, this old yard broom has had six new
> heads and three new handles, bit it's still the same old broom". I'm sure
> we can all read and interpret - one way or another - the rules, but has
> anyone actually put any of this to the test and put their hand up saying
> "yep, I've coil sprang my SIIA and mated an SD1 engine to the old gearbox"?
> Or are the majority of these tax-exempt conversions that crop up on eBay
> highly dubious and/or previously owned/built by people who have quietly kept
> their heads down about the changes?
>

In a word - yes! There was a serving Policeman hereabouts who had
such a vehicle (NOT Lee!), a coil sprung V8 theoretical SII. He
genuinely didn't know about the points system - the vehicle was
sold shortly after finding out!

> Steve
>
>

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

On or around Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:29:51 +0100, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>In message <[email protected]>
> "Larry" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> what point though would an original chassis become unoriginal, after you
>> have had enough repairs to it. I would guess it is possible to replace
>> enough of it over time to render the original status debatable.
>>
>> Its all ridiculous anyhow. The continuity over time with a series of small
>> changes ought to outrank a serios radical all at once replacement job of
>> practically everything.
>>
>
>The points system does add up over time - you always work from the
>original spec, so if someone changed the engine a few years back
>you've already lost those points, even if it wasn't declared.

ah. does that apply if the engine was replaced by the same spec, or only if
you change to a different engine?
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Pereant qui ante nos nostra dixerunt"
(confound the men who have made our remarks before us.)
Aelius Donatus (4th Cent.) [St. Jerome, Commentary on Ecclesiastes]

Wouldn't the age of the engine have a bearing on this, for instance changing
the engine for a contemporary but reconditioned one still from the tax
exempt era?


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes


"beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:901930574e%[email protected]...
> In message <[email protected]>
> "Larry" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> The points system does add up over time - you always work from the
> original spec, so if someone changed the engine a few years back
> you've already lost those points, even if it wasn't declared.
>
> Richard
> --
> www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
> RISC-OS - Where have all the good guys gone?
> Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive