Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
    • Hi DX - quick question, what is the bank likely to do when they get my letter of change of address ? also what is the worst they can do? thanks J1L
  • 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

mcuth v NatWest ***WON***


mcuth
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6167 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

Sent off a DPA request today for charges on an old current account. I'm pretty sure it's within 6 years anyway, but I've asked for details since inception :D

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Sending the following reminder shot across the bows today:

 

Data Protection Controller

National Westminster Bank PLC

135 Bishopsgate

London

EC2M 3UR

 

By Royal Mail Special Delivery

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Section 7 DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 – SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST

Account number XXXXXX/XXXXXXXX

(currently with Allied International Credit (UK) Ltd – ref XXXXXXXX)

{mcuth}

 

LETTER BEFORE ACTION

 

At the time of writing, you have failed to comply with my Data Protection Act (‘Data Protection Act’) S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) dated 12th June 2006. You are reminded that under the DPA, you have 40 days from receipt of the SAR to provide the requested information – the 40 days expires on Saturday 22nd July 2006, as advised in my SAR.

 

I am willing to extend this deadline by 7 working days (i.e. to Tuesday, 1st August, 2006) to allow you further time to provide the requested information. Should you still have failed to comply by that time, I shall seek a Court order obliging you to do so, together with damages at the discretion of the Court, and without any further notice.

 

I should note that the cheque I sent with the request has not yet been banked – since I made my SAR, the account I issued the cheque on has been closed. Thus, I enclose a Postal Order in the sum of £10 to cover the statutory fee.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

{mcuth}

I should note that Allied International Credit are already in default of a CCA request for the above account, the balance owing is in dispute, and they have been reported to Trading Standards for this (last communication was over 3 months ago) :D

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Filed a DPA section 7 SAR non-compliance complaint with the IC today - figured I have a bit of time on my hands and an N1 can always come later....:D

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Spoke to the ICO yesterday - apparently they're now dealing with cases submitted on 12th July :eek: So, in another month they may get around to this....:rolleyes:

 

I did check whether this process would exclude me from taking court action, and it doesn't :D

 

I'll let it run its course for a while and see what happens....

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Received a reply from the ICO stating that although they don't believe a formal investigation is required, it's clear that NatWest's failure to comply within 40 days is a breach of the 6th Data Protection Principle ("Personal data shall be processed win accordance with the rights of data subjects under this Act").

 

The ICO will be informing NatWest of the outcome of their assessment and instructing them to respond to my SAR in full with immediate effect.

 

Not quite sure how long this gives NatWest to comply, but the ICO case is now closed as a result of this :rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Spoke with the chap at the ICO today, as I've not heard anything from NatWest since his letter of 12th September, when he'd written to them requesting immediate action.

 

We had a chat about the upsurge in SARs, and I told him I was a member of CAG, so I was aware of this, but at the same time RBoS & NatWest are the only organisations that have failed to respond to a SAR out of all the requests I've made. He said they're most likely overworked - in which case, I said, I could understand a response being late by a few days, but not taking 4 months with absolutely nothing received! Quite frankly, I said, they're taking the p**s as Data Controllers.

 

In his letter of 12th Sept, he also asked them to reply to him explaining why I didn't get a response to my request, and gave them 4 weeks to reply to him. So I think we're going to wait & see what they come back to him with first before deciding next actions. I have a feeling that eventually 2 N1s are going to be raised - one to supply the information, and the other as an estimated charges claim for £5000 :D

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Had another chat with the nice man at the Information Commissioners Office today.

 

NatWest have now replied to him, saying they received my Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) on 14th April (really? A whole 2 months before I sent it? :rolleyes: We suspect they got a little confused here) and ordered my statements on 23rd June. Then they apparently re-ordered my statements again at the end of July after my LBA.

 

In reply to the Information Commissioners Office's letter, NatWest said that they'd again ordered the statements, so let's see if they turn up this time - he received the letter today, so we're giving them until the end of next week.

 

I had a nice long chat with the Information Commissioners Office man, all about how I hadn't heard a thing out of NatWest since my request back in June - he thinks that the banks are swamped by our requests, but again I said that NatWest & RBoS are the only ones of my set that have gone over 40 days. I said that 40 days is reasonable anyway, but even 60 or 90 might just be acceptable under extreme circumstances & with communication.... I pointed out that we're now over 120 days and I haven't heard a peep out of them - no acknowledgement, no nothing - in fact, the DCA collecting for NatWest (and therefore NatWest) has been in default of a s77/78 CCA request since January!

 

Personally, I think the Information Commissioners Office is well aware that the banks are taking the ****, but I don't think they have enough resources to go after them properly....

 

Onwards & upwards I guess - let's see what next week brings

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Another chat with the nice man from the ICO today (after successfully guessing his email address :D) - advised that there's still no word from NatWest, despite their assurances they've ordered statements. He's on the case now....:D

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

After a couple more phone calls with the ICO, received a letter from them today:

 

Dear {mcuth}

 

Thank you for your e-mail communications of 9th & 13th November 2006.

 

You wrote to inform me that despite their assurances, NatWest had failed to furnish you with copies of your account statements.

 

As NatWest Bank have seemingly failed to respond to your subject access request in its entirety, I have taken the decision to refer the matter to our Regulatory Action Division for futher consideration. You will be contacted by a Remedies Officer in due course.

 

I would like to thank you in advance for your patience during the interim.

 

Yours sincerely

 

I wonder if this might get interesting in the end after all?

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Battleaxe

McCuth,

 

I am set to trot withe MBNA/A & L credit cards. have the 40 day default letter for posting tomorrow and I have told them 7 more days and I visit my local County Court to file against them Section 7 and 15(2) of the Data protection Act 1998 at 10am on the morning of 1 December 2006.

Also warning that I am filing an official complaint with the Information Commissioner as well as the Financial Services Authority.

 

We must be keeping the Information Commissioner busy. perhaps he is going to call the Banks in and tell them to get with the programe and for once co-operater...whoops I saw a pinkk piggy fly past my window.

 

Well McCuth and keep us posted...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Spoke with the Regulatory Action Division peeps yesterday - apparently my case is 5th/6th from the top of the list now :rolleyes: Fed up, so am just going to take an N1 down to the court this afternoon:

 

Brief details of claim

Order under Section 7 and Section 15(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998

Damages

 

Value

£100.00

 

Particulars of Claim

1. The Defendant is a Data Controller within the meaning of the Data Protection Act and is responsible for the

processing of data of which the Claimant is a Subject.

2. The Claimant has a Current Account number XXXXXXXX ("the Account") with the Defendant.

3. On 12th June 2006, the Claimant sent a Subject Access Request ("S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)"), pursuant to Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998 to the Defendant (Appendix 1 attached). This was sent by Royal Mail Special Delivery and delivery was signed for on 13th June 2006.

4. On 19th July 2006, the Claimant sent the Defendant a further letter extending the requisite 40 day timescale by 7 days (Appendix 2 attached). This was also sent by Royal Mail Special Delivery and delivery was signed for on 20th July 2006.

5. On 8th August, 2006, the Claimant raised a complaint with the Information Commissioner's Office ("the Information Commissioners Office") which has been allocated reference RFAXXXXXXX and has further been allocated to their Regulatory Action Division.

6. The Defendant has summarily failed to comply with the Claimant's S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), despite advising the Information Commissioners Office that the required information has been sent on more than one occasion.

7. By virtue of the Defendant's failure to comply with the Subject Access Request the Claimant has suffered damage.

8. The damage caused is:

Extra costs incurred due to the Defendants failure to comply - this includes the time & cost of additional correspondence with the Information Commissioners Office, time spent preparing documents and time spent seeking legal advice.

I estimate this cost to be £100.00

9. The Claimant seeks an order that the Defendant do comply with the Claimant's Subject Access Request

10. Under the terms of Section 15(2) of the Data Protection Act 1998, where the Defendant contests that information requested under the Claimant's Subject Access Request is not included within the scope of Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Claimant requests that the Court inspects that information, and where it finds that the Defendant's opinion is unfounded, that it orders such information be included within the information supplied to the Claimant under the Subject Access Request.

11. Damages and costs within the discretion of the Court.

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Battleaxe

Michael,

 

you really are being fair regading the damages. I have hit MBNA for the cost of typing the letters, the postage and £100.00 a day for days for research and the filing fee. Altogether I have claimed £595.75 or there about.

 

I did say that the damages could be at the discretion fo the court, but thought I would get my bit in first.

 

Here's a laugh, our water bed sprung another leak last night, so the money from MBNA will pay for a new matress ( I know, champagne tastes on a lemonade budget).

 

My filing and MBNA response got crossed, but they were still late.

 

keep us posted Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

you really are being fair regading the damages.

 

Well, being honest with myself I don't think it's actually cost me any more than £100 in terms of time, research, calls & postage (though I didn't use my professional services rate to calculate that :D). For me, if I can't justify it to myself, then I couldn't justify it in front of a judge :)

 

Here's a laugh, our water bed sprung another leak last night, so the money from MBNA will pay for a new matress ( I know, champagne tastes on a lemonade budget).

 

LOL :D

 

keep us posted Michael

 

Don't worry, will do :)

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Battleaxe

With my claim for damages, I calculated that when I work I am paid an average £150.00 a day before tax. I am specialised so work for me is few and far between, and generally it is on a contract these days, this is why I charged £100.00 a day. I also had to get two different lots of services on my phone and all the 0845 and 0870 numnbers I had to ring during that time we were being harassed, so I figure if a judge wants me to quantify the costs I have the paperwork.

 

The bed has been patched and we are dry again, until the next time. Life is never dull.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I calculated that when I work I am paid an average £150.00 a day before tax. I am specialised so work for me is few and far between, and generally it is on a contract these days, this is why I charged £100.00 a day.

 

If it came right down to it, my professional rate is higher than that - but I didn't feel that I could charge that for 3 reasons:

i) I wasn't dealing with my specialised area, which I'd expect people to pay me my full rate for;

ii) It wasn't days & days of work doing the research; and

iii) Even fast-track claims only let you charge something like £9.25ph....

 

All in all, I can thoroughly justify the £100, and that's what I'm happy with :)

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a conversation with the "Regulatory Action Division" at the ICO today. They've just picked up the case after transfer and wanted to check if NatWest had sent me the information yet. Told her no, and advised that county court action had now started - but also ranted that it shouldn't be up to me to take this action on. She said that the ICO would be writing to NW (again :rolleyes:) and would probably take some court action themselves if NW didn't respond to this letter - that could take months though.... go figure!

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got my copy of the N1 today - claim issued 14th December, sent 19th December, deemed served 21st December. Defendant has until 4th January 2007 to reply.

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Received notice that Acknowledgement of Service has been filed on 2nd January - Defendant now has 28 days from date of service (21/12/06) to file a defence - i.e. til 18/01/07....

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and I thought I'd be really nice & keep the ICO uptodate with what's going on, by dropping this letter in the post:

 

Regulatory Action Division

Information Commissioner’s Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Cc: Data Protection Controller

National Westminster Bank PLC

135 Bishopsgate

London

EC2M 3UR

Dear Sir/Madam

National Westminster Bank PLC – your ref XXXXXXXXX

 

Further to our discussions before Christmas on the above, I must inform you that I am still as yet to receive any information from National Westminster Bank PLC (“NatWest”) in response to my DPA SAR of 12th June 2006. Indeed, I am yet to receive any sort of communication from NatWest at all!

Without prejudice to any action that your office may take against NatWest, this letter is also to inform you that I have started a county court action against them. The claim requests an order from the judge under s7 & 15(2) of the DPA and claims damages in the sum of £100 to reflect the additional correspondence and time spent on investigation, advice & preparation.

The case is issued in the Swindon County Court, Claim Number 6SN05488 which was served on 21st December 2006. NatWest have acknowledged service and intend to defend the entire claim.

Yours faithfully,

 

{mcuth}

 

 

:D:D

 

 

Cheers

 

 

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching with interest. Always like to see Natwest in trouble!

 

It's probably not relevant to your case but the new Fraud Act (my current favourite statute) has a section which covers failure to disclose information in order to gain or cause loss. I think this situation would be covered, but I'll wait and see if the same thing happens to my DPA.

 

Keep us posted. I'm wondering exactly what their defence will be...

If you found this post useful please click on the scales above.

 

Egg - £400 - Prelim sent. On hold.

Mint - On the list Est £800

GE Capital - On the list (3 accounts!) Est £4000

 

MBNA - £545 Prelim sent 13/11/2006

LBA sent 1/12/2006

£350 partial payment received 18/12/2006.

Full settlement received 20/1/07

 

NatWest - Est £4000 not incl interest

Data Protection Act Sent 10/1/07

Statements received 24/1/07

Prelim sent 3/2/07

Full Settlement received 22/2/07

 

The contents of this post are the sole opinions of The Cornflake and not necessarily the opinions of any other members of this group. They do not constitute sound legal or financial advice and if in doubt you are advised to seek advice from a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably not relevant to your case but the new Fraud Act (my current favourite statute) has a section which covers failure to disclose information in order to gain or cause loss.

 

Interesting - that will be one for other cases I think :)

 

I'm wondering exactly what their defence will be...

 

Me too - LOL! I can't wait to see how they're going to say that I've got the Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) information when quite clearly I haven't :rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching with interest. Always like to see NatWest in trouble!

 

It's probably not relevant to your case but the new Fraud Act (my current favourite statute) has a section which covers failure to disclose information in order to gain or cause loss. I think this situation would be covered, but I'll wait and see if the same thing happens to my Data Protection Act.

 

Keep us posted. I'm wondering exactly what their defence will be...

 

I have read that act I believe the are relevent parts. I have posted them some where I shall try and dig them out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc276bill.pdf

 

There are more parts that I believe may be useful.

 

(4) The second is where—

(a) the information is the kind of information that P trusts D to disclose to

him,

(b) D knows that P is trusting him in this way or is aware that he might be,and

© any reasonable person would expect D to disclose the information to P

 

Quote:

 

4 Fraud by abuse of position

 

Quote:

 

(1) A person (D) is in breach of this section if he—

(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act

against, the financial interests of another person (P),

(b) dishonestly and secretly abuses that position, and

© intends, by means of the abuse of that position—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) D abuses his position secretly only if he believes that P and any person actingon P’s behalf are ignorant of the abuse.

(3) D may be regarded as abusing his position even though the conduct alleged toamount to the abuse consists of an omission rather than

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received a letter from the ICO today:

 

Dear {mcuth}

 

I refer to your letter dated 6 January in which you explained that you had still not received copies of your statements from Natwest.

 

I wrote to them on 18 December 2006 and chased this up with a phone call last week. I have now received confirmation that your statements were sent out on 9 January and you should therefore have received this now. As such, it is not my intention to take any further action. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.

 

Yours sincerely

 

....

 

Well that's a surprise to me, cos guess what, no statements (or indeed any other communication) here! So, I just called up and let them know that I'm still statment-less. Apparently Natwest said they had sent the statements and then were going to give me a courtesy call to check they'd been received. If they've rung my landline (the only number they'd have, and they would only have that from the court documents), then they've not left a message.

 

Upshot is - the very nice lady in the Regulatory Action Division at the ICO is going to chase up with NatWest (again). I pointed out that they've now said that they've sent statements 4 times (I think) and if it was me, I'd be sending them special delivery so I could get a signature on file :rolleyes:

 

Oh, and BTW, NatWest have until tomorrow to file a defence with the court regarding the DPA claim :D

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...