Yippee!

My local shutterspeed provide a service where they produce 'proper' prints from a CDR, would that look proper enough for them?

I suppose the only worry they have is that you have altered the picture to make things look better or hide stuff. Hell, that's what they made hammerite for!

I hope mine goes through that well when its rebuilt

As for hiding things on photos I agree thats why they invented hammerite and on that note id get in touch with your stock market guys at the bank I am predicting an increase in WD40 and Hammerite :-)

I take it then that you would rate Adrian Flux I may give them a ring in the near futur to get my s3 covered but for time being it cant go anywere well it can its go no brakes so staying there may be a problem :-) any other suggestions for a good open minded insurance company mine is a tow truck model with the harvery frost crane on the back which im planning on keeping as its going to be used at motorsport events and never know when it will be needed, that the high cost of equipment on board I can see most companys having a no comment aproach.

All the best

Paul

We have just got the lightweight insured for £116.25 with Footman James - unlimited mileage, agreed value, Bruce and myself to drive. Ha dto provide two photo's - not polaroid, which I took with our digital camera. As my printer has been playing up recently I took the memory card into Asda, and got them to print me off the two required pictures.

|| || I take it then that you would rate Adrian Flux I may give them a || ring in the near futur to get my s3 covered but for time being it ||

Yup, I would rate them - friendly and helpful on the phone, and sounded if they knew what they were talking about (and it was a gurl too ;-) TBH, when I got that price I didn't look further, so I can't say they were the best deal - just that I was quite happy.

I insured my 101 with footman James, and sent them some digital photos which i'd printed out on normal paper myself. They accepted them.

Makes it a whole lot easier using digital pics!.. I dont actually think i ever got around to sending off my real pics to sureterm for my landy insurance.. Took me ages to even find a real camera!

I dont see why they dont accept digital ones. If you have them properly printed can you even tell the difference?

HI Rich, What does a "detailed modified vehicle report" entail?

Is it expensive?

Ed

To reply, remove my appendix

|| || HI Rich, || What does a "detailed modified vehicle report" entail? || || Is it expensive? ||

It only involves filling in about 3 A4 pages detailing the mods carried out - and as the report is a condition of the acceptance of the insurance, you need to be honest and accurate. Took me about 20 mins. No cost.

|| I insured my 101 with footman James, and sent them some digital || photos which i'd printed out on normal paper myself. They accepted || them. || || Makes it a whole lot easier using digital pics!.. I dont actually || think i ever got around to sending off my real pics to sureterm for || my landy insurance.. Took me ages to even find a real camera! || || I dont see why they dont accept digital ones. If you have them || properly printed can you even tell the difference?

These were quite good photos, printed on Epson glossy photo paper. I'd trimmed them properly so that they looked "professional" - the only difference was that the paper was a little lighter in weight than you'd get from a photo developer. The images were all in excess of 1.5MB, so there was no pixellation visible. I guess the paper gave it away. I spose it's down to a single-use camera and crappy quality, but if that's what they want...

Nope, you dont need reflectors if you dont have position lights.

Theres no reason to disconect them, but if fitted they count as 'additional stop lights' and are testable and must work. However, if they do not work, and the vehicle presenter says that they are disconnected, the he must be given the benefit of the doubt, and the lights are ignored!

||| To continue the recent thread about MoT requirements, the only ||| essentials are reflectors, ||| || Nope, you dont need reflectors if you dont have position lights.

You are right - it must have been push-bikes I was thinking of ;-)

|| ||| number plates and mirrors. I have fitted brake lights (and ||| feel a lot safer with them) but was advised to disconnect them or ||| blank them off for the test. When I queried this (quoting the ||| manual - brake lights are not a requirement when position lights ||| not fitted, but there's nothing to say you can't have them) the ||| tester said he'd look it up, and then went ahead and passed it with ||| them anyway. ||| || Theres no reason to disconect them, but if fitted they count as || 'additional stop lights' and are testable and must work.

That was my understanding. The guy doing the test disagreed, but said he would check the manual and then forgot. I think the confusion comes where position/headlights are fitted but not working - for the vehicle to pass the test for "daylight use only" the lights must be permanently disconnected, painted over or masked off, not just non-functional. He thought that applied to brake lights, but my reading of the manual is that the rule doesn't apply to these.