Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • 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

Discussion- end compensation culture


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2464 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

According to reports the Tories will include a Car Insurance bill within the Queens speech to reduce the compensation culture which is making insurance expensive.

 

Whilst this is very welcome, i just wonder what more they can actually do via legislation ? Surely it would be up to the courts, if it got that far, to validate a claim and to assess the amount of claim. Most personal injury claims never get to court and any payout is decided between parties. Applying some limits via legislation, might just end up with court cases to look into the limit set.

 

Might it be more effective to remind people that submitting a bogus claim to Insurers is a criminal offence and Insurers might report any suspicions to Police for investigation.

 

People do see any accident as an opportunity to make money and it is not just restricted to Car Insurance. If people fall over on a pavement, they might be thinking who owned the pavement, is there any defect that caused the fall, can i claim for injury etc.

 

And there is the issue of what the government is doing to prevent accidents in the first place. E.g spend more on road safety, more restrictions on young/new qualified drivers, more spending on driver training. What about a compulsory driving course at own expense, if you caused an accident ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something else imported from the USA, isn't it?

 

I agree it should not just be restricted to car insurance - with a little more care, some accidents can be avoided.

 

This article from the Telegraph in 2013 - http://cag.tw/22pa

 

Axa chief Paul Evans said 'ambulance chasing' firms who have made a fortune from fraudulent or exaggerated whiplash claims were now turning to new injury battlegrounds such as 'stress' triggered by a road accident or 'deafness' caused in the workplace by too much noise.

 

And he warned the UK was at a risk of turning into the US, with soaring insurance premiums and companies or social groups too worried to stage events where someone could fall over and sue them.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

This article from 2015 though reckons that the USA is being blamed unfairly for this culture, citing incidents from as far back as 1870..

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/features/attitudes-claiming-compensation-culture-5136576

 

The US is rarely accused of creating any sort of culture, so it seems unfair to deny it this one, but insurer Aviva recently poured cold water on the idea. Their archivist Anna Stone found clearly frivolous UK claims dating back to the 1870s. They include:

 

•A merchant who got rice in his eye after throwing it at an 1892 wedding, was awarded the equivalent of £2,994*

 

 

•A Welsh artist blown over in an 1886 gale, managed to get up again to receive his £1,796*

 

 

•A Scottish merchant, having hurt himself in 1895 leaping out of bed to catch his fainting wife, received £2,575*

 

 

*All sums are in today’s money.

 

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something else imported from the USA, isn't it?

 

I agree it should not just be restricted to car insurance - with a little more care, some accidents can be avoided.

 

This article from the Telegraph in 2013 - http://cag.tw/22pa

 

Yes the UK and many others like Australia have adopted the US way of trying to make money out any situation.

 

It is the same with healthcare costs. As soon as you involve private companies and remove public capacity, you attract those seeking to maximise profits, which will not go towards better healthcare. The US Insurance based healthcare system is the most expensive in the world, yet does not deliver good healthcare to most people. Hospitals and Doctors lose their public service ethos and see that they can earn a fortune.

 

I can never understand why the UK always seems to follow what has not really worked in the US.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also a growing problem with claims relating to holidays ruined by sickness. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40348282

 

I read that.

A few years ago getting sick on holiday was part of the package and people just accepted it as bad luck or their fault for stuffing themselves at the all inclusive buffet and bar.

I see lots of holiday makers eating and drinking to such excess that it is almost inevitable reaching the end of the holiday without being sick.

I'm also surprised that such claims exist: how can someone prove that the food eaten in the resort was the cause of their sickness.

Occasionally you hear about a large number of people in one resort getting food poison and i understand that this is good evidence of their fault, but if you're the only one getting sick, how can you prove anything?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that.

A few years ago getting sick on holiday was part of the package and people just accepted it as bad luck or their fault for stuffing themselves at the all inclusive buffet and bar.

I see lots of holiday makers eating and drinking to such excess that it is almost inevitable reaching the end of the holiday without being sick.

I'm also surprised that such claims exist: how can someone prove that the food eaten in the resort was the cause of their sickness.

Occasionally you hear about a large number of people in one resort getting food poison and i understand that this is good evidence of their fault, but if you're the only one getting sick, how can you prove anything?

 

It's not just a case of being "sick" though.

 

If you've not left your hotel and only eaten their food and developed food poisoning, then clearly the hotel is at fault for not cooking the food properly, not fully reheating it or using poor hygiene methods.

 

Food poisoning can easily be detected by your GP with a stool sample etc to prove that it is a genuine claim and not fraudulent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just a case of being "sick" though.

 

If you've not left your hotel and only eaten their food and developed food poisoning, then clearly the hotel is at fault for not cooking the food properly, not fully reheating it or using poor hygiene methods.

 

Food poisoning can easily be detected by your GP with a stool sample etc to prove that it is a genuine claim and not fraudulent.

 

I disagree.

 

What of someone on a cruise ship (again a closed environment).

Another passenger comes aboard incubating norovirus (the 'winter vomiting' bug), and is symptomatic, contaminating one of the loos in a common area of the ship. They don't tell the ships staff, just going back to their cabin. So, a closed environment, so "it must be the holiday company's fault, right?"

Except it isn't ; where is their breach of duty of care?

The same for the "all inclusive hotel" : there might not be any breach of duty of care, depending on the circumstances.

 

As for "Food poisoning can easily be detected by your GP with a stool sample etc to prove that it is a genuine claim and not fraudulent."

It is hard enough getting samples when in the UK (as most people don't go to their GP with acute diarrhoeal illness, as they don't want to leave the house!)

How likely are they to submit samples while on holiday?if they do, is the laboratory abroad suitable accredited to give a result a U.K. Court will accept?

If they send a sample once back in the UK, will it still be positive?

 

What if it is viral food poisoning? That won't show on routine tests by (which looks for food poisoning bacteria)

Or food poisoning from a toxin, (the bug may have grown, formed the toxin, and died) where again specialist tests would be needed to avoid a "negative result".....

 

It isn't quite as clear cut as at first glance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.

 

What of someone on a cruise ship (again a closed environment).

Another passenger comes aboard incubating norovirus (the 'winter vomiting' bug), and is symptomatic, contaminating one of the loos in a common area of the ship. They don't tell the ships staff, just going back to their cabin. So, a closed environment, so "it must be the holiday company's fault, right?"

Except it isn't ; where is their breach of duty of care?

The same for the "all inclusive hotel" : there might not be any breach of duty of care, depending on the circumstances.

 

As for "Food poisoning can easily be detected by your GP with a stool sample etc to prove that it is a genuine claim and not fraudulent."

It is hard enough getting samples when in the UK (as most people don't go to their GP with acute diarrhoeal illness, as they don't want to leave the house!)

How likely are they to submit samples while on holiday?if they do, is the laboratory abroad suitable accredited to give a result a U.K. Court will accept?

If they send a sample once back in the UK, will it still be positive?

 

What if it is viral food poisoning? That won't show on routine tests by (which looks for food poisoning bacteria)

Or food poisoning from a toxin, (the bug may have grown, formed the toxin, and died) where again specialist tests would be needed to avoid a "negative result".....

 

It isn't quite as clear cut as at first glance.

 

The way to deal with illness claims is to require a Doctors assessment at the time of suffering an illness. The Insurers have a helpline and if people called it, they would be told to get a Doctor or Nurse to visit the accommodation where they are staying, if they are too ill to get to a Doctors surgery or Hospital. Proper assessment and quick treatment might stop the condition getting worse.

 

Insurers are tightening up their claims processes and also policy terms detailing what they require people to do, if they want a claim to be considered.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.

 

What of someone on a cruise ship (again a closed environment).

Another passenger comes aboard incubating norovirus (the 'winter vomiting' bug), and is symptomatic, contaminating one of the loos in a common area of the ship. They don't tell the ships staff, just going back to their cabin. So, a closed environment, so "it must be the holiday company's fault, right?"

Except it isn't ; where is their breach of duty of care?

The same for the "all inclusive hotel" : there might not be any breach of duty of care, depending on the circumstances.

 

As for "Food poisoning can easily be detected by your GP with a stool sample etc to prove that it is a genuine claim and not fraudulent."

It is hard enough getting samples when in the UK (as most people don't go to their GP with acute diarrhoeal illness, as they don't want to leave the house!)

How likely are they to submit samples while on holiday?if they do, is the laboratory abroad suitable accredited to give a result a U.K. Court will accept?

If they send a sample once back in the UK, will it still be positive?

 

What if it is viral food poisoning? That won't show on routine tests by (which looks for food poisoning bacteria)

Or food poisoning from a toxin, (the bug may have grown, formed the toxin, and died) where again specialist tests would be needed to avoid a "negative result".....

 

It isn't quite as clear cut as at first glance.

 

With respect you're wrong on most counts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect you're wrong on most counts.

 

Which counts?

 

The fact that it would be possible to argue no breach of duty of care?

I'm happy to discuss that (noting that it would be different if it was a group of people who a case-control study demonstrated that there was one dish which was contaminated, leading to a point source outbreak, where breach of duty of care wouldn't be hard to show, or if the venue had ignored an obvious outbreak)

 

The fact that not all labs would be accredited? Happy to discuss.

 

The fact that samples aren't always tested for viral causes or toxins, rather than just cultured? Happy to discuss.

 

The fact that if tested on return from holiday rather than time of illness a sample might have become negative? Ditto.

 

If you want to discuss individual 'counts' to back up your assertion that I'm wrong on "most counts" : feel free to try to justify that unwarranted assertion.

 

Meanwhile, I'm glad I've found an expert on testing for food poisoning: what do you feel is the main information (often missing from sample requests) that would lead to use (or not) of TCBS, and what might you or I miss (if as a result, TCBS wasn't used) ....

(This was something highlighted to me by a "food examiner" in a case I was involved with ....... so I'm glad we can rely on your expertise to clarify that and the "most counts" I've apparently got wrong ......)

 

I'm happy to discuss where I might have got something wrong. I can't do so with the vague assertion of "most counts".

Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't the thread for discussing holiday sickness claims. It's the motor insurance sub forum.

 

You can either take it at face value that I know what I'm talking about or not. It's up to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't the thread for discussing holiday sickness claims. It's the motor insurance sub forum.

 

You can either take it at face value that I know what I'm talking about or not. It's up to you.

 

I'm aware you are a solicitor.

I'm aware you probably know more about motor insurance and it's law than I do.

 

I just doubt that you are correct that I'm "wrong on most counts" about investigation of food poisoning and its effect on those compensation claims, which is what your answer referred to (regardless of which forum it was posted in, [which doesn't show on my smartphone, BTW]).

So, if you want to persist in claiming that I'm wrong, I am happy to discuss it, rather than just taking it "at face value".

 

I don't doubt your knowledge & expertise (at least not for motoring insurance law)

I just doubt it more for the area (food poisoning and its claims) you've doubted me on, rather than those areas I have no grounds to doubt you on ......

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have debated health issues with Bazza on a number of occasions and he has come back with a lot information, which seems well researched. Same on legal issues with Ganymede, where the information provided in very useful. I think there is an issue with these claims being made and it might be resolved in due course. A court case is currently ongoing, where a Hotel is suing a British visitor for false food poisoning claims and the Hotel is seeking loss of revenues. If the Hotel is successful and the amount involved is considerable, i should imagine it might put many off making dodgy claims and tighten up the process for people to collect medical evidence.

 

In regard to Motor Insurance claims, i can't see how the Government can reduce number of dodgy whiplash claims. People do seem to get medical evidence and if the amount that can be claimed is capped, then this will also catch genuine claims as well. I suffered from whiplash during a rugby match and it was one of the most painful things i have endured. It took weeks to recover.

 

I think educating the country about responsibility in making only genuine claims and limiting it to what is necessary, might be best way forward. If people were made aware that the value of claims made was increasing insurance costs for everyone and they would increase to potentially unaffordable levels, then it might make enough people think. As premiums increase, people will think they have more entitlement to claim to get a return on what they are paying.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting case

 

Mother who said garage tripped her up ordered to pay £70,000

 

http://dailym.ai/2t0VmrO

 

In my earlier post i mentioned a hotel suing a guest for an alleged false food poisoning case. The hotel are suing the guest for £170,000 for reputational damage. If the hotel is successful, then the person concerned faces life changing consequences.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that whiplash claims should be fully investigated by independent authorities, not by doctors paid by whomever is claiming (or their solicitors).

I always rage when I think about how a woman claimed fraudulently from my insurance.

My wife was reversing out of a parking spot, saw this car and stopped.

The woman driving it stopped and signalled with her hand out of the window for my wife to carry on.

My wife moved by 4 inches and this woman drove her scrap car into my wife's, lightly touching it.

No damage on my car, not even a scratch.

Her car was a rotten scrap and had dents, bumps and rust everywhere.

Immediately she came out of the car and demanded £250 cash for the non damage.

My wife told her to get lost.

I spoke to her on the phone a couple of hours later and she still wanted £250 cash to repair her car.

I asked how she knew the price of the damage there and then, no explanation.

I told her to go to a repair shop and get a quote.

She called me ten minutes later claiming that the repair was (you guessed it) £250.

I told her to get the car booked in and I would pay the garage the same day.

She refused to even tell me what garage it was and continued to ask for the £250.

I refused and contacted my insurance.

I made them aware that this was a sc@m and provided them recordings of the telephone calls in which she asked for the £250.

A few weeks later renewal comes up and I am informed that she's been paid £4900 for whiplash.

Apparently she produced medical evidence that she wouldn't be able to work for 6 months.

I pointed out to my insurance that she has a shop down the road and she never stopped working.

They said that they don't investigate any claim below £5k because it costs more (?!?!?!).

So the insurance took a biased doctor's word for granted and paid up immediately in this case of clear insurance fraud.

I made one mistake at the time.: I should have obtained CCTV evidence from the car park owner (Lidl) so to prove that she had signalled my wife to reverse and then deliberately bump into her.

But I doubt it would have made any difference.

Sad!

Link to post
Share on other sites

British tourists who faked hotel sickness claims face PRISON

 

http://dailym.ai/2uqRg9W

 

There is definitely a concerted effort now to stop fraudulent claims. If you make a claim which seems to be dodgy, you might well face investigation and it might end up with a prosecution.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...