S2C Forum Archives
Main Section => Workshop Wisdom => 602's Musings => Topic started by: w3526602 on January 17, 2023, 12:17:07 PM
-
Hi,
I still ponder about building a battery powered Series, which I guess would cost somewhere between £10,000 to £20,000.
Google says that a new vehicle adopted for disabled use may be VAT EXEMPT, but it will be expected to have considerable welding ... which suggests "modification" of the bodyshell. Hmmm!
Can anybody suggest what parts can be cut off, or welded on, to a Series chassis without invoking an SVA?
602
-
I'm going to jump onto this quite quick before it gets blurry.
IVA and SVA requirements have been hotly debated for over a decade. In this time we've seen dozens of opinions and views on different interpretations of what is allowed and what isn't. Some people quote precedent (like "Mark Evans did it to his 100" on TV) others have different views of what you can do and what you can't. It was historically so hotly debated that some forums actually banned the topic entirely.
The information on what constitutes a radically altered vehicle are detailed on the government websites. However they fail to go into specifics on what constitutes a modified chassis and typically assume a monocoque construction. This results in huge amounts of grey areas and the information is inconsistent within DVLA and VOSA (now DSVA).
What virtually all miss is that it was clarified at the time by a now defunct car club that focuses on custom vehicles, at the time called the ACE.
They had a long, very detailed interview - with follow-up with the inspection bodies and clarified specifically what you can and can't do. The ACE website closed years ago, but I copied the transcript before it closed.
Here it is for prosperity:
"Quote
Chassis and Monocoque Modification
VOSA Clarification on Body/Chassis points rules
Some of you will have taken the time to find the rules that govern how much you are allowed to modify your vehicle before its identity is called into question.
Whilst the 8 points system has been in place for at least 27 years (in its current form) DVLA have been sadly remiss in making the guidelines relating to car modifying known to those that it affects.
We will shortly be adding articles to show how the system works in relation to various vehicles but this is the description as published by DVLA.
Rebuilt vehicle 8 points system: -
An existing vehicle uses a similar system: -
The guidelines shown above are not specific about their application.
ACE have attempted to clarify certain areas that go to the very root of a car's identity, and how much you are allowed to modify the chassis or monococque, before you lose the 5 points it represents.
We have been liasing with both DVLA and VOSA to clarify this area.
Initially we received this reply from DVLA:
"When assessing a modified/rebuilt vehicle, DVLA's main interest is to establish whether the original identity has been compromised by the changes made. If a vehicle has been modified from the original manufacturer's specification or if not enough of the original components have been retained in the build, the vehicle identity will change and IVA will be required to register with an alternative registration number.
Due to the very nature of rebuilding or modifying vehicles from their original manufacturer's specification, DVLA assesses each vehicle on its own merits based on the documentary evidence provided and a physical inspection of the vehicle.
The INF 26 information leaflet, and the information given on the website, is issued as a guideline to the registration of rebuilt, radically altered or kit converted vehicles. They are not meant as technical guides. However, both clearly indicate that if modifications are made to the chassis or monocoque bodyshell, or if the build does not include enough original, major components (as listed) the identity of the vehicle will change.
The information on www.direct.gov.uk is regularly reviewed to reflect changes in legislation
VOSA have provided the following response to your questions;
Chassis.
Q) What is classed as chassis? Is it purely the outer longitudinal rails or are the crossmembers between these also a part of the chassis?
A) Chassis should be taken to include crossmembers.
Q) We know that cutting or shortening a chassis is classed as modification but is this relative to the vehicle wheelbase i.e. the chassis must remain uncut between the 2 axles but anything forward of front or aft of rear suspension mounts can be removed?
A) Chassis includes the full original length of the longitudinal members including to the front of the front axle and to the rear of the rear axle.
Q) Is it acceptable to remove bodymounts, which contribute no strength to the chassis when changing a body to a different style /make?
A) Yes, providing they are additional to and are not an integral part of the chassis structure.
Q) Is it acceptable to strengthen a chassis by the addition of boxing plates a process that involves turning a 3-sided open chassis rail into a fully enclosed 'box' chassis?
A) Yes, providing the original structure remains unchanged.
Monococque.
Q) What is the definition of a monococque ?
A) A design in which body and chassis are all one unit.
Q) Why does cutting into a monococque affect the vehicle identity if it retains the same shape /profile as before.
A) Cutting is considered to be modifying the vehicle from its original specification. Any modification to the chassis/monocoque body is considered to render the vehicle no longer original specification or of original identity.
Q) Is it acceptable to modify a vehicle bulkhead and/or transmission tunnel when performing an engine change or fitting another make?
A) No, Assuming this is in relation to a monocoque structure. This would be considered a modification to the structure.
Q) Is it acceptable to fully weld sections that are spot-welded as part of the original construction methods, to increase the strength of the body?
A) Yes, providing the original structure is retained.
ACE felt that further clarification was needed from VOSA so we sent more questions.
The following responses are from the VOSA Press Office:-
The answers to our chassied vehicle rules queries seem mainly straightforward, However, we have further questions based on the answers supplied.
Q) As chassis strengthening is allowed, are we correct in assuming that additional crossmembers would also be allowed?
A) It is important that the original chassis structure is retained unmodified, and while it is acceptable to strengthen areas and include additional brackets or crossmembers, It would be limited to additions within the existing chassis frame structure. Additional chassis structures, i.e. extending the outward parameters of the original chassis structure would be considered a modification.
Q) It is the monococque rules that need the most clarification.
Your reply states that any cutting of the monococque" is considered to render the vehicle identity no longer original specification or of original identity ". This would suggest that any crash repairs necessitating cutting and removal of panels or chassis sections, or restoration work would call the vehicle's identity into question?
We presume that the point should really be that any cutting... other than in factory designed joining areas...would be the actual criteria?
A) In this respect it is necessary to differentiate between modification and repair. Any repair process that is in line with manufacturer's recommendations and that returns the structure to its original specification would not be considered to be a modification.
Q) Would the modification of wings to allow clearance for larger wheels fall foul of the regulations?
We presume not as the common fitment of sunroofs does not create issues as this is a non stressed item of the monococque, the same as wings?"
A) When considering a monocoque structure, it is necessary to consider what constitutes cosmetic panels that do not significantly add to the structural strength and which panels provide structural integrity. In general front wings modified in this way would not constitute a modification to the monocoque structure.
With reference to the further query, VOSA have advised that they would prefer the following statement:
What constitutes a monocoque is that of how an OEM manufacturer would view it. The chassis or `cage` assembly and all components that form it, less any cosmetic panels or infills that make no structural consideration to the monocoque or its component parts.
However, we must emphasis that this information is given for general guidance and each case will be judged on its merits.
Whilst none of this is definitive, and it contains the usual 'Judged on it's own merits' criteria, it does answer a lot of questions where the modifier has only been able to speculate in the past.
It means we are aware of what we can or cannot do and still retain the 5 points from the start of any modification process.
So, to summarise the above information:
Chassis
It is acceptable to box original chassis and also to add additional crossmembers but not to alter the existing chassis in any way to allow for their installation.
It is acceptable to remove NON STRUCTURAL body mounts and engine / gearbox mounts.
It is NOT acceptable to shorten, or lengthen the chassis, either in between standard suspension points or fore and aft of these.
Any additional items welded creating a longer overall chassis are classed as modifications. It would however be acceptable to bolt a reasonably sized additional subframe to existing mounting holes.
Any outriggers (as opposed to continuous chassis frame) fore or aft from the chassis would need clarification from VOSA as to their purpose before removal or alteration was accepted. This would be based on their purpose and whether they formed part of the vehicles original Type Approval.
Monococques
It is NOT acceptable for the bulkhead, or transmission tunnel area, to be modified.
The specification for a monococque will vary with each manufacturer and the decision on what are acceptable modifications will be based on those criteria for each vehicle.
It is acceptable for additional seam welding to be carried out.
Should there be any further questions relating the above information on specific vehicles ACE would be willing to assist in further clarification on an individual basis.
The above information relates to only 5 points (awarded for original unmodified chassis / monococque) of the 8 points system for retaining vehicle identity and we will be clarifying other sections in the future."
In basic terms, none of the government agencies really know - so the above is as close to precedent and technical details as we're ever likely to get (though it was not published by an official source) - so it will come down to each owner's interpretation of the above and whether they are willing to fight legally.
I wanted to avoid giving an opinion as I am absolutely no expert and have merely read the information, but it is probably unavoidable, so in Land Rover world: my very personal (and very risk averse) interpretation is this:
1) I wouldn't move/chop or modify any of the crossmembers or chassis rails.
2) If I were so inclined, I would be comfortable in removing and fitting different ancillary brackets (engine mounts and mounting tabs).
There is a well publicised issue with a Mini EV conversion that I'd guess you've read recently, where they pulled the owner up for drilling a hole in the battery tray of a mini chassis. As ridiculous as it is, it isn't something I would have done as its technically removing material from the shell that isn't a standalone ancillary bracket.
Beyond the above, there isn't a lot more information out there - the only real test is to find people who have had issues flagged and to see their experience of how DVSA have handled the issue. The only one I'm aware of is the unfortunate chap with the mini.
Our VRO may have far more insight than I.
-
Very helpful to have "official" answers to those questions - particularly as regards engine mounts and the like.
I'll suggest the Club retains that info alongside the Historic MOT stuff.
Thanks ! :first
-
Please bear in mind that the above was never issued by government, so not official-official - but its as close as we're likely to get.
I've seen the debate on dozens of threads over the years and no-one seems to reference the ACE clarifications. Unfortunately I don't have the date of the interview or any other information on who they spoke to - so I doubt it would constitute a legal defence. I stick to it and keep my head down.
I agree that it should be recorded and that it may be helpful for all forums to simply point enquiries towards it to avoid the huge and circular debates that inevitably ensue.
-
Given the recentlt reported DVLA attitude to a classic mini with an extra hole drilled in the battery box in the boot floor I would suggest that the information above is out of date. I will make enquiries with the Federation of Historic British Car clubs and I will report back but it may not be a speedy resonse.
I know that when Emrys Kirby recreated the 100" prototype last year or the year before he based it on a Range Rover chassis and he neither welded any extras to it nor removed any of it. He used existing holes to bolt brackets to support the modified land rover bodywork and it kept its Raange Rover registration
Peter
-
Peter - that would be very helpful to both this club and to the wider LR community. I would agree it is certainly out of date - it's at least 5 years old, possibly more - unfortunately when I copied it (when the ACE website said they were closing) I failed to write down the date.
I spotted exactly the same thing with Emrys' vehicle, I thought it was quite clever.
-
Hybrids made up of multiple vehicle and genre parts seem to have inconsistent allocation of vehicle origin.
Coil sprung range rover based, latterly when range rover stocks depleted and prices rocketed. Adorned with series panels, the only apparent contribution, and yet using the series logbook, reg and so on potentially for the tax and mot exemptions.
I guess it all relates to when they were built.
Discuss the vehicle in this link as a case study.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/325476683530
I have heard reports of new owners having logbooks withheld by the dvla.
-
2286, you are right, I know of vehicles that have had the V5 witheld and i have also been asked by DVLA to comment on vehicles in the past.
Depending on the seller being able to provide evidence of when it was "built". I suspect that any purchasor would lose it if there is a flag on it at DVLA
It is people like this who spoil it for the rest of us
Peter
-
Peter
Is it for the new owner to prove rather than the DVLA to disprove when a vehicle was built.
Land rovers are a bit like a snowball in that they have things bolted on when they are in vogue or become available.
I am a purist, and agree that vehicles like this spoil it, if you were being lenient and the vehicle was built for the tastes and requirements of the originator. Its when they get 'passed off' as the vehicle the original reg relates to and priced based on that original vehicle.
I am sick of seeing coil sprung 80 tdi being valued like it were HUE166. Described as very original!
2286
-
For the owner to prove
Peter
-
There are some nightmare historic ones including one owned by a good friend of mine. It was a Range Rover Classic 2 Door. About 30 years ago, he scrapped the RRC body, fitted a 200Tdi and 5 speed box and rebuilt it as a 100" high capacity pickup using all 2A body parts (apart from the rear tub).
So now, we have a nice looking high capacity pickup which looks like a late 2A (maltese grille, lights in wings, 2A bulkhead and so on). On the V5C, its says (and has always said) "Land Rover Twin Axle" - nothing more. I owned it as a RRC (one of my 37!) and in my ownership the logbook always described it as a Land Rover, not a Range Rover. That was common to all the 70's RRCs I've owned and I know that because I have kept photocopies of every log book.
That in itself made building coil sprung hybrids so easy. Never in 30 years have we had any issues with DVLA with this vehicle, nor have we had problems insuring it. It raises the question as to how such a vehicle might be dealt with if it came under scrutiny now.
-
I wouldnt like to speculate Mark
Peter
-
I'd think that one would be OK as it was constructed prior to the current regime coming into force, and these remain kosher as I understand it.
-
I would hope so but it is the burden of proof that counts
Peter
-
I would hope so but it is the burden of proof that counts
Peter
Sounds like there's a lot of background provenance for this one tho.. I'd think it'd be fine unless someone rocked the boat by trying to do some mad stuff and started changing lots of things on the log book..
Usually best to let sleeping dogs lie!
-
I agree... I'm tempted to buy it back off him at some point. Quite fancy something as practical and sensible as that.
-
I think issues tend to come to light when ownership changes.
If it was built long ago and has been continuously owned for a lengthy period of time and not bought to make a fast buck or avoid tax and test through blatant misrepresentation it may be treated differently by the powers.
Brian adams had a factory built 100" by land rover, and there were of course prototypes and factory mules. There were some done for the swiss army.
I remember looking at a 2dr rrc that had been basterdised to accept l322 front and rear lights, it had tdi engine and box courtesy of a deceased disco (no problem with that). The owner wanted stupid money due to the build year, which had it been correct would have made it a suffix a and an earley one at that.
The chassis number on the logbook and the reg belonged to a series 2a!
-
Actually to be clear, Bryan Adams' 100" was also based on a Classic rolling chassis. I don't think it was actually factory built, but they did have factory support. The issue being that to get it in to Canada, they had the 25 year rule (or something similar).
-
Diffwine I will consider myself told off re brian adams factory built, I took it as gospel from off road international article about 30years ago.
The 25yr rule similar to usa but does that not require stricter adherence to bog standard vehicle than uk?
-
Where do you start here
The case for the defence and prosecution.
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/325505130037?hash=item4bc99e1e35:g:ByIAAOSwWqZjyVJf&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAAoP4l4kCSYNItJ0nI1hqRzcpL3UEfrjjve06G%2F4IYgZBUmHzuo5IXkpHhh%2BpFJ4weZyPW5PJyRm8zWsZHe%2BWD1UMCVr%2BtET3drxYfBxtvVmnxZqwMkENrb4x0QE06Cz1keD9oS360S%2FgzRD4pFSKmyW9lXIOH3tLNGNCO6UjaWHKqJ0uu%2B4UJjfUZjkLb9vFRQcDJFgQckCfp5SNzcbzmZlo%3D%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR8Cnlva5YQ
-
Hi,
I have scanned most of the previous replies, but not the reply previous to this one ... it
hints of being serious reading
1) I wouldn't move/chop or modify any of the crossmembers or chassis rails.
2) If I were so inclined, I would be comfortable in removing and fitting different ancillary brackets (engine mounts and mounting tabs).
I'd be happy to work within those parameters. even if it means adding extra brackets, without removing the originals. I reckon I could, (but don't intend to) fit Jaguar IRS suspension/axles, front and rear, hung on subframes that would, in turn, be hung on the original four original leaf spring locations at each end of an unmodifed chassis. It would almost be fun doing it ... Roll on LOTTO.
Government Departments tend to refuse giving advice. Instead the say that "Interpretation of the Law" can only be achieved by "The Courts". As far as I am aware, that means by The Court of Appeal, or even higher courts, with the winner being the side prepared to spend the most money on barristers, backed up by determination, ever deepening pockets ... and friends in High Place?.
602
Did Prince Phillip's 4x4 hearse have any interesting modifications ... as far as anybody is aware?
-
Mark, I would have thought the RRC would be fine even if it was modified more recently. It sounds like you have the necessary 8 points via the chassis, axles, steering and suspension, meaning it’s still a RR on its original chassis no.
I think we all agree, it’s the RR’s or defenders that have a series ID added to an incorrect chassis that get us stewing (especially if they’re asking silly money or giving incorrect descriptions) and lead to new owners getting in the mire.
Jon
-
Good point Jon - I hadn't thought of it that way. We aren't actually hiding anything.
-
On points allocation a dakar kit car should be on donor id not a q reg as some were?
-
Hi,
Thanks for everybody's input. I think I will print it all off, and store in a pocketed "display folder" for future reference.
An idiot (worse than me) chopped the roof off an early Ford Escort. It sagged in the middle. :thud
A 1965 Reliant Scimitar GT was rolled by, I think, Don Jones, proprietor of the garage in Tycroes, near Ammanford. A mate, Don Tovey, chopped the roof of the fibreglass body, with no drama, then sold it to my mate Gabe (Reg Gen Shipping) in the Swansea Valley. Gabe bolted a home-brewed tow-bar onto the rear chassis out-riggers, then towed a heavy caravan to the Royal Welsh Show, where he was exhibiting what could be done with honey, etc. By the time he arrived home, the rear outriggers had sagged, as there was no roof to keep the back end of the body in place. The doors became prone to opening at inconvenient moments.
I owned it for a spell, then gave it to my vet (Clive Adams in Ammanford).
Years passed, then Gabe found the car in a scrap yard in South Wales. I reported it to RSSOC, which started a discussion about it being a "factory" car. Apparently, experimental cars were always had an odd chassis number. This was chassis 17 (I think), but I know it wasn't a prototype.
The Scimitar GT, and Coupe (and Barbara's Sabre Six GT ... 361WYD ...Google might find a picture ... now a historic racing car) had 7ft 6in wheelbases, which is only 2" longer than a Land Rover 88", and had 16" wheels, with a removable body shell. You can (I assume) guess where this is going.
I am struggling to control my strange urges.
602
-
An idiot (worse than me) chopped the roof off an early Ford Escort. It sagged in the middle. :thud
That does not surprise me! I recall once being asked to do a complete interior trim swap on a Ford Sierra hatchback. This was seats, carpets, door cards and so on. Two of us working in a completely empty interior when suddenly the windscreen cracked. 4 open doors and a boot lid open. No seats bracing the floor pan and apparently this causes so much flex that the screen cracks. Does make you wonder about some modifications.
-
Hi,
Going OT, but did any 81" Series Ones make it into Civvy Street?
I believe LR made 50 with LR engines, and 50 with RR (Champ?) engines, for the army to test before placing an order.
602
-
Yes one was offered to me in the early 90’s but I thought it was too much money. It had the RR engine and was rebuilt to a very high standard by a friend of mine.
-
There was one with the Land Rover Register display at Malvern the other week. I think they said it was the only one in private hands.
-
Did Peter Galilee of LRO own one of these ?
-
Hi,
I believe the Champ 2.8 engine is two thirds of a "four and a quarter" Bentley. My DVLC mate compared the engine bits from my discarded Champ engine, with his Bentley bits, said they appeared to be interchangable (big end shell bearing, rather than white meta, in the con-rods) ... but being a purist, he didn't try.
On he other hand, he bought the Old Vicarage, in a dilapidated state, in the early 1970s, I think for sub-£20,000, and sold it about 20 years later for a "straight million".
Which reminds me ... in the very early days of DVLC, that mate was departing his tent (on a holiday camping site) every morning in business suit, carrying a brief case. :tiphat
602
-
Not sure where I read it but apparently nearly 100 'new' Champs where sold off in the late '90's.
Think they had the standard engine. Possibly from a Standard ? 😁
-
It appears to have been a modified 2.6 litre 4 cylinder Austin Atlantic engine which was tuned and fitted to Austin Healeys. I can't imagine Austin fitting a Standard engine.
-
Not sure where I read it but apparently nearly 100 'new' Champs where sold off in the late '90's.
Think they had the standard engine. Possibly from a Standard ? 😁
I thought they were ex civil defence Austin Gipsys that had been mothballed when new.
-
Alan is rigt, the few civilian champs that were sold had Austin engines instead of RR
Peter
-
Found the Ad', it was from Bonhams.
"The Gipsy used broadly the same BMC 2199 cc petrol engine found in the Austin A70, although with compression ratios that made it far more accepting of low octane fuel."
This particular Gipsy or is it Gypsy (?) was sold in 1997 by the Home Office being ex Civil Defence (AFS).
I wonder do the Powers that be have more vehicles stashed, just in case ?
I do know back in the late Eighties my elder brother was in the RAOC (MT) and one of his roles was putting Trucks into 'plastic bags'.
One depot was in Aschurch the other, he was not specific about but somewhere in Wales ???
-
Hi Shed,
OT (sorry), but do you know if the "Brown Jobs" (Army) had a rank that is equivalent to " Junior Technician" in the RAF? JTs wore a single inverted chevron (stripe) on their sleeves.
Higher ranks ... Corporal Tech (2 stripes), Senior Tech (3 stripes) and Chief Tech (3 stripes and a crown), but all with inverted stripes. I have no recollection about Master Technicians (I never met one) having anything to differentiate them from Warrant Officers, who had a coat of arms (Lions and Unicorns, etc) on their cuffs.
By the time I was entitled to wear two inverted stripes, somebody had decided that J/Ts should wear four bladed propellors on their sleeves, and higher ranks should wear regular stripes. Not exactly a morale booster ... nothing to differentiate us from the regular "Shiny Asses" (from polishing their office chairs.)
My Sergeant (Why not a Chief Tech?) at RAF Sharjah was a black Jamaican ... I assume he had come over during the war, to fight for the Mother Country. He was an "AMI Mech E".. We called him "Jim". On one occasion, my Flight Sergeant (driver) was giving me a hard time. Jim suggested that he "Go forth and multiply!", but in fewer words.
602
PS My dark skinned Caring Ladies are shocked when I tell them that the Arab labourers addressed Jim as "Sambo". No offence intended, nor taken.
-
One stripes a lance corporal 2 a full corporal
Equivalent ranks to private were often different, sapper if an engineer, craftsman if REME etc but I can’t remember lance corporal being called anything different.
-
What was a fitter one in the RAF?
Peter
-
Alan is rigt, the few civilian champs that were sold had Austin engines instead of RR
Peter
Most of the Austin Champs had Rolls Royce engines made my Austin under licence from RR. I think they had unified fixings rather than Whitworth on the RR ones
-
Yes Austin built a lot of RR engines of different sizes under licence, I could never get my head round them not using the engine they built for the military in the civvy champs, especially since they sold so few
Peter
-
Austin Champs started with a 2838cc 4 Cylinder B40 engine manufactured by Rolls Royce with BSF threads and a alloy head. Next came a UNF version with a cast iron head also made by Rolls Royce this engine was then manufactured by Austin. For the civilian market a version of the Austin A90 Atlantic engine was fitted and these were mainly sold in Australia and South Africa. The B40 was the 4 cylinder derivative that shared components with the B60 6 cylinder (fitted in Ferrets etc) and the B80 8 cylinder (fitted in Saladins, Stalwarts, Saracens and some fire engines)
-
The reason for the failed experiment with the B40 and the 81" land rover was because the MOD wanted to standardise on spare parts and the RR Bseries engines had most parts in common with each other.
Peter
-
Hi Shed,
OT (sorry), but do you know if the "Brown Jobs" (Army) had a rank that is equivalent to " Junior Technician" in the RAF? JTs wore a single inverted chevron (stripe) on their sleeves.
Higher ranks ... Corporal Tech (2 stripes), Senior Tech (3 stripes) and Chief Tech (3 stripes and a crown), but all with inverted stripes. I have no recollection about Master Technicians (I never met one) having anything to differentiate them from Warrant Officers, who had a coat of arms (Lions and Unicorns, etc) on their cuffs.
By the time I was entitled to wear two inverted stripes, somebody had decided that J/Ts should wear four bladed propellors on their sleeves, and higher ranks should wear regular stripes. Not exactly a morale booster ... nothing to differentiate us from the regular "Shiny Asses" (from polishing their office chairs.)
My Sergeant (Why not a Chief Tech?) at RAF Sharjah was a black Jamaican ... I assume he had come over during the war, to fight for the Mother Country. He was an "AMI Mech E".. We called him "Jim". On one occasion, my Flight Sergeant (driver) was giving me a hard time. Jim suggested that he "Go forth and multiply!", but in fewer words.
602
PS My dark skinned Caring Ladies are shocked when I tell them that the Arab labourers addressed Jim as "Sambo". No offence intended, nor taken.
Sorry 602 no idea of the ranking system. My own experience was a short tenure in the TA (RCT)
My Brother, sadly no longer with us, reached the dizzy two stripe heights on a few occasions. His propensity to argue with orders he did not agree with saw him demoted on a seemingly regular basis ! Though his proudest moment was being made Provost Corporal. Not sure how long that lasted but our Mum had his photo' proudly displayed with him, side arm, side-burns and dodgy 'tache !
I do wonder if poacher turned gamekeeper was the idea ???