Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, Hotpoint UK has been a subsidiary of Whirlpool for over 20 years. And unlike some domestic goods manufacturers you can buy from them direct and I believe they employ their own service engineers, Is that your situation? You bought direct from Hotpoint and Hotpoint sent out their own engineer?
    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Fred_Funk v NatWest


Fred_Funk
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1846 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Guys

 

I was hoping one or more of you may be able to offer me some advice.

 

It's like this... I put in a claim in February 2008 which, as you might imagine, was stayed pending the result of the test case. Clearly, this reached a conclusion some months ago now.

 

When my claim was stayed, the court ordered that: 'Unless the Court has given directions in the meantime [it hasn't], the Defendant shall upon notice to the Claimant apply for directions within 3 months of the ultimate determination of the Commercial Court litigation.'

 

Now, my reading of this is that NatWest/Cobbetts should by now have applied for directions.

 

Given I haven't heard anything, from anyone, can someone please confirm that I'm reading this right and, furthermore, exactly what 'applying for directions' amounts too?!

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 224
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Contact the Court Fred to clarify what is meant bud ;)

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contact the Court Fred to clarify what is meant bud ;)

 

Already contacted the court. Unfortunately, the person I spoke to knew less than me and was, frankly, rather less helpful than a chocolate teapot.

 

No matter, I have now heard from Cobbetts, shock horror, who have written to the court, making reference to the Supreme Court Case, and saying my claim has 'no prospect of success and should be struck out. In the alternative, the Defendant respectfully proposes that the Court orders the following case management directions.

 

IT IS ORDERED that:

 

The claim be stayed generally.

 

Either party may apply to remove the stay on application to the court. Such an application may be made by way of a letter (accompanied by the appropriate court fee). The application must state:

 

by reference to the decision of the Supreme Court the grounds upon which the application to remove the stay are based; and

 

wether, and if so, what attempts have been made to settle the claim.

 

If no application to remove the stay is made by 4pm on 30 November 2010, the claim shall then be struck out without further order.

 

I presume before the claim can be struck out, the court will write to me at which point I should point out that my claim did make reference to article 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 - which, as I understand it, could yet offer us a way forward - and that, this being the case, I object to this course of action.

 

Of course, I appreciate that in light of the Supreme Court decision I will need to submit amended Particulars of Claim, making particular reference to article 5(1) of the UTCCR 1999 and also s.140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

What I'm less clear on is why Cobbetts mention this option and what their motivation is for doing so. Why don't they simply ask that the claim should be struck out and leave it at that? Why do they bring the possibility of a further stay into the equation and, moreover, isn't it up to the court rather than Cobbetts to dictate the terms of any such stay or is it legitimate for them to do so?

 

Thanks in anticipation of your help and co-operation

Fred_Funk

cobbetts1a.pdf

cobbetts2.pdf

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fred

Though I'm not an expert on this process, I think the answers are within your above posts.

Basically you will need an amended POC, thereby taking your claim in a new direction, invoking different legal principles and arguments and I would not wait for any action from the other side to initiate that.

 

It seems Cobbetts simply want you to make that very clear as you do not appear to have changed your plea, they will ask for a Strike Out against your original case has that has now been decided by the SC.

 

By asking for a Strike out (if you don't contest it or ask for grounds to amend POC) or further stay, they are giving you the opportunity, should the Court allow, for you to re-apply and re-start your claim. Maybe they suspect they won't just get the strike out or it may be seen by the Judge as a bit heavy handed - who knows.

 

Dependant on what Cobbetts have already pleaded prior to and subsequent to the SC ruling, you would probably want to be able to use anything they have historically said against them, wherever possible.

 

It may therefore be better to ask to amend your POC rather than have to re-apply later.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fred , this is the usual mish mash of half-truths and mis-directions being applied by the banks solicitors......... they don't say anything about the Supreme Court advising that a claim under Regilation 5(1) and others may be successful ...........

 

 

I think I'd be inclined to write to the court , referring to the letter ......and agree to a stay until 30 November.... (funny , other courts have come up with this date recently too .....) .Inform them that , after taking further legal advice , you intend to submit amended POC's in due course to address the recommendations of the Supreme Court and would be grateful if the court would grant this stay to enable you to do so.

 

Send a copy to Cobbett's and then see what the court comes back with ......

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fred , this is the usual mish mash of half-truths and mis-directions being applied by the banks solicitors......... they don't say anything about the Supreme Court advising that a claim under Regilation 5(1) and others may be successful ...........

 

 

I think I'd be inclined to write to the court , referring to the letter ......and agree to a stay until 30 November.... (funny , other courts have come up with this date recently too .....) .Inform them that , after taking further legal advice , you intend to submit amended POC's in due course to address the recommendations of the Supreme Court and would be grateful if the court would grant this stay to enable you to do so.

 

Send a copy to Cobbett's and then see what the court comes back with ......

 

johnnymitch

 

Thanks for your input which pretty much tallies with what I thought.

 

A couple of things though:

 

(1) At this point, Cobbetts have merely copied me in on a letter they've sent to the court. That being the case, should I write to the court now requesting a further stay or should I wait for the court to write to me in response to Cobbetts' letter (I'm assuming the claim can't be struck without the court doing this)?

 

(2) Why do Cobbetts bring the question of a further stay into the equation? How do the benefit from this? Why don't they simply request that the claim is struck out? I'm guessing that they must think they glean some advantage from this but I'm unclear what it is.

 

Thanks again

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of things though:

 

(1) At this point, Cobbetts have merely copied me in on a letter they've sent to the court. That being the case, should I write to the court now requesting a further stay or should I wait for the court to write to me in response to Cobbetts' letter (I'm assuming the claim can't be struck without the court doing this)?

 

(2) Why do Cobbetts bring the question of a further stay into the equation? How do the benefit from this? Why don't they simply request that the claim is struck out? I'm guessing that they must think they glean some advantage from this but I'm unclear what it is.

 

 

1. I'd say go ahead and write to the court anyway , just in case a 'strikeout ' sneaks through accidentally ... that way the court will know you're aware of the application and it may save them time by going straight to a letter of agreement to the stay ........

 

2. My thoughts on this is that it may be a legal requirement, or jst to make Cobbett's look reasonable instead of the 'Big Bad Wolf' approach for 'a Strikeout and nothing else will do .... ':rolleyes:

 

But maybe I'm just an old cynic lol! :D

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes...don't lose sleep over their tactics FF, best get your letter in before a strike out is accidentally granted.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

My claim that was stayed has been lifted wuth Cahoot, I have to get all my paperwork to them by 26th July.

 

Do I now need to change things, can I change things. I dont want this to fall apart as it will be going on the original argument that was being used in 2008...

 

Thanks

 

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

:confused: Are you kidding Bob?

Do I now need to change things, can I change things.

Of course you do, this is the whole point. If your argument has not changed and you are still using the old bank charges POC then you can expect to lose as the SC has ruled against it. I must ask where you've been in the last ten months when all this was being thrashed out.

 

I dont want this to fall apart as it will be going on the original argment that was being used in 2008...

It most certainly will if you don't make changes to your pleas. Look into these threads in detail and you will come away with much clarity on how you ought to position yourself.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/248873-post-test-case-amended.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/248268-sheriff-puts-bank-scotland.html

 

...and of course the templates...

 

The Consumer Forums - Bank charges templates (consumer)

Hope it helps.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

by BTM : I must ask where you've been in the last ten months when all this was being thrashed out.

 

I'd say that's none of your business BTM .... apart from being downright rude .... Bob came on here to ask for help,,,, which I know you can supply in abundance.... without the superior sounding "I know and you don't attitude"

 

Lighten up mate ! :)

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks guys.

 

Had alot on for the last year, made redundant, lost a second job, and seperation.

 

I will get stuck back into it now and let you know the outcome.

 

Cheers

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I am going to get it printed off. Now the court has said I need to send copies of all paperwork to the defendant (Cahoot) by 26th of July.

 

I was going to send in the spreadsheet I sent 2 years ago, but updated with the more recent charges that have gone on. Do I also send a copy of the post test case amendment aswell as to the court?

 

Thanks in Advance..

 

Bob

 

PS I have my own thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cahoot/262874-bobsp-cahoot.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read and printed off the form. There is a new problem and it asks for the first and last date you are claiming from, not a problem, but it also asks the amount, I can not confirm this as Cahoot have deactivated my online account, so can not see the charges from Jan 2009. I have called them and they are not prepared to tell me over the phone, they have told me I will have to write a letter requesting, I suppose like a SAR.

I have to get this off to the court asap as the hearing date is 9th August and all paperwork is to be sent to the court and defendant by 26th July. There is no way they will get back to me with the remaining charges by then.

Therefore what should I put for the amount, I don’t want to guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they won't send you the info you need in time for the court appearance , you should ask the court to change the date to enable you to form a full and proper case....

 

You are missing information which they are required to provide .... they cannot withhold it , but they'll probably play silly beggars and treat it as a SAR ..i.e. 40 days to reply ...... therefore you should write to the court office and explain that you need time to evaluate the info which the bank have not yet provided.......

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I will contact the court. I have all the amounts up to Jan 09, and as I said they have been still charging the account monthly, but want to get all the charges on the claim. I will write a letter this afternoon.

Thanks

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an afterthought bob , it might be an idea to ring the court office first , ask them for advice , then confirm any agreement by letter ......

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be grateful if someone here could me some guidlines etc regarding a claim from Bryan Carter Solicitors on behalf of the Lowell Financial group.It involves a a build up of late payment charges charged at £22 per late payment. The originator was Clydesdale/Barclaycard loans for supplying a loan to purchase a car.At the end of the term of payments,charges of £303 were outstanding which related to a build up of late payments. A refund of the late payment charges were requested and the originators sent a statement of payments and charges. Nothing developed from there except that the loan company put the matter into the hands of debt collectors. All along the way, the collectors changed hands several times and this latest claim has arrived via Northampton Court with a total amount of £730. Any suggestions please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi neddyseegoon ,

 

You've left this a bit late I'm afraid if it's got to court .... but you could try the DCA with a reduced Full & Final Offer (somewhere about 1/3 to 1/2) and see if they accept ..... they may prefer to get something , rather than have to go to court for it .......

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay... I've now received a General Form of Judgement or Order from the court saying that my claim has been stayed until 4pm on December 7, when it will be struck out if no application has been made to remove said stay.

 

While I'm happy with this course of action, can someone explain to me why the court has, of its own volition, stayed the claim rather than asking me if I have any objection to Cobbets request for it to be struck out?

 

I may be reading too much into this but it seems to me that if the court though bank charge claims were dead in the water it would make more sense to write to me saying it was going to strike out my claim (unless I could come up with a good reason for it not to do so).

 

What do you guys reckon?!

stay140710.pdf

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an afterthought bob , it might be an idea to ring the court office first , ask them for advice , then confirm any agreement by letter ......

 

Ok I have a list of all the charges, nearly 2K of them, and have listed them, but not the interest as i am changing the POC. I intend to send the list in with the amended POC to the court and Cahoot today, as it has to be done by 26th July. Is that the way ahead?

 

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay... I've now received a General Form of Judgement or Order from the court saying that my claim has been stayed until 4pm on December 7, when it will be struck out if no application has been made to remove said stay.

 

Right Fred , that gives you breathing space to see if better POCs come along .....in the meantime, just watch that the bank doesn't try to sneak in another application to lift the stay/strike out ....... they have been known to give courts the impression that you have agreed to such a move and the court takes their word for it .....

 

While I'm happy with this course of action, can someone explain to me why the court has, of its own volition, stayed the claim rather than asking me if I have any objection to Cobbets request for it to be struck out?

 

I may be reading too much into this but it seems to me that if the court though bank charge claims were dead in the water it would make more sense to write to me saying it was going to strike out my claim (unless I could come up with a good reason for it not to do so).

 

What do you guys reckon?!

 

I reckon that the courts are getting a bit cheesed off with the banks using the judicial system for their own ends ...... and they are aware that several cases are pending, so they're prepared to extend stays until the way ahead is clear ........ I'm sure they're also aware that the Supreme Court left the door ajar for claims under a different Regulation from the OFT one......

btw , have you seen the latest from the Scottish angle .... I'll add the link in a minute for you .... quite encouraging ...... taken with Vince Cable's statements yesterday I think ........ and the thing is , it has nothing to do with Scottish Law , this is Nationwide stuff ......

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/248268-sheriff-puts-bank-scotland-new-post.html

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also do I still use the zip file below? I ask as it states penalty charges all over it, when is is now referred to as “Unfair Terms in the Consumer Contracts Regulations1999 “ (UTCCR)

 

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/48-bank-templates/119-basic-court-bundle

 

Thanks

 

Bob

Sorry bob :oops:, I didn't realise I was usurping your thread in my answer to Fred there ....

 

Don't use the phrase 'penalty charges' ......it was decided by a judge a while ago now that they aren't as such ....you could describe them as 'Disputed Charges' I suppose , unless someone has a better (still acceptable):roll: description................

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1846 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...