Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
  • 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
      • 161 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

yet another £80 cigarette dropping fine


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2755 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

Earlier today as I was about to enter a shop I dropped my roll up on section of ground outside their entrance.

 

 

I was approached by an environmental office equipped with a video camera who proceeded to fine me.

 

 

I pointed out that it was on the shop's property but he said that it made no difference and that the wind might blow it onto the public highway.

 

 

Am I liable for the fine?

 

 

I appreciate that litter is a problem but by the time I have ground a roll up into the ground with the sole of my shoe, there is no visible evidence. His distraction prevented me from doing so on this occasion

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

So you admit to littering but dont want to pay the price? The rules are there for a reason. Ciggarette buts are disgusting, ground up or not. Anyway.... If you want to challenge it, go for it. But don't expect to win. A lot of councils are clamping down on it big time lately. m,ainly due to a lot of people thinking they can throw their litter wherever they want, instead of in a bin.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly agree with the anti-smoking sentiment and the anti-littering sentiment – but from the point of view of fair application of the rules, it amazes me that it would be an offence to drop litter on private property.

 

I think that it is worth querying this but I'm not sure where you would go. I would start off by taking a picture of the place that you drop the cigarette, make sure that it is part of the property – or the "curtilage" of the property and establish that if it is part of the curtilage make sure that that is not taken as part of the public highway.

 

The inspectors comment to you there it might blow onto the public highway is ridiculous – and I hope you have made a note of it. If you haven't then do that now. Whether any witnesses to that statement?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you admit to littering but dont want to pay the price? The rules are there for a reason. Ciggarette buts are disgusting, ground up or not. Anyway.... If you want to challenge it, go for it. But don't expect to win. A lot of councils are clamping down on it big time lately. m,ainly due to a lot of people thinking they can throw their litter wherever they want, instead of in a bin.

 

Having a bad day?

 

I think this is a bit harsh and doesn't deal with the main issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@renegadeimp

 

 

it was not a cigarette but. It was the end of a roll up. If it had been ground away to nothing then how could it be disgusting?

 

 

Besides, I am asking for advice as to whether the council has authority on the section of land directly outside the shop where they display their wares..

 

 

I am not in a particularly good mood and would rather not receive a lecture about smoking

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do they know who you are to enforce any fine, particularly as (rightly or wrongly) you denied any wrongdoing?

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wish people would stop referring to these as fines. Only a court can fine you

 

They are civil penalty orders

 

I think you will find that you will be liable. Shops are allowed to put up stalls to show their wares outside as long as they do not cause an obstruction.

 

It is whats known as "Street Furniture" The same as a telephone box or litter bin for which the local authority will have full control over.

 

The issue will be where the highway boundary is. Does it end at the front door of the shop or meets the pavement for example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The land may be private property but the council can claim certain rights over it if certain conditions are met and these include accessibility from the highway (no step up and the contiguous land allows the council to be awkward when they feel like it), maintenance segregation by boundary (no defined boundary and the council can claim it is for them to decide who does what there (appeal court case about 4 years ago based on a dentist in Camden parking his moped on his own property where there was no differentiation between his land and the pavement, despite a basement underneath). Other areas which you would fall foul of the dreaded wardens would be garage forecourts, hedges and walls of all types that face onto the public highway, some graveyards/church doorways etc.

So, not as straightforward as it seems but if the land is provably someone else's the council will probably back down rather than spend a million proving themselves right BUT not always where there is money to be made....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did you give your details to a civil enforcement officer?

They're only there to make a profit, using the guise of ''keeping out towns and cities clean''.

 

If you'd have picked it up and put it in the bin, then that would have been the end of the matter, camera or not.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have considered just walking away..

 

And me, I don't give them the time of day round here, there's nothing they can do.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you admit to littering but dont want to pay the price? The rules are there for a reason. Ciggarette buts are disgusting, ground up or not. Anyway.... If you want to challenge it, go for it. But don't expect to win. A lot of councils are clamping down on it big time lately. m,ainly due to a lot of people thinking they can throw their litter wherever they want, instead of in a bin.

 

Putting things in context.

 

I do not smoke cigarettes with filters (ever). On the odd occasion that I purchase pre-rolled cigarettes with filters, I snap them off and (always, always,always) put them in my pocket.

 

A cigarette filter is typically 2 to 2.5cm long and most smokers tend to leave at least another 1 cm of paper/tobacco, resulting in (up to) 3.5 cm at 0.9 cm (diameter). That is (3.14x0.45x0.45x3.5) a total volume of 2.25cm cubed. A cigarette butt on its own would be (3.14x0.45x0.45x2.5) 1.59 cm cubed.

 

My roll up was approximately 1.2cm long at a diameter of 0.4cm, (incidentally the last third is void of tobacco). That makes a volume of (3.14X0.2x0.2x1.2) 0.15 cm cubed.

 

So I would have to discard 15 roll up "ends" to generate as much litter (by volume) as a standard cigarette butt. The key difference is that my "litter" does not persist.

 

To demonstrate my point I have taken photos of a roll up and a roll up after it has been ground under heal. Unfortunately I am not sure how to upload the images. I would be very surprised if you were able to spot any "litter" after the event.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you dropped the butt on private property there's nothing they can do.

I saw a guy making the same argument when he dropped a butt at the entrance of an underground station.

The enforcement officer wanted to give him the £80 charge but the guy told him to get lost as he was on private property.

He then proceeded to pass the gates with his ticket and gave the officer the middle finger.

On another occasion I saw another guy walking off and the officer grabbing him by the arm.

He threw himself on the floor screaming like he had been hit by a lorry.

Police and ambulance arrived and they cautioned the enforcement officer.

They then took him away in the police car.

Would it be rude to use the word "NICE"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did you give your details to a civil enforcement officer?

They're only there to make a profit, using the guise of ''keeping out towns and cities clean''.

 

If you'd have picked it up and put it in the bin, then that would have been the end of the matter, camera or not.

 

I did pick it up and put it in my pocket as soon as he mentioned it (there was no bin near by). He insisted that I had committed an offence and that picking it up made no difference.

 

He gave me the impression that he was an Ealing Council environmental officer. I have since discovered that he was probably working for private contractors called Kingdom Security. As of yesterday they have offered to hand penalties out to the "criminals" in Ealing in return for a slice off all penalties paid to Ealing council.

 

http://www.ealing.gov.uk/news/article/1347/council_launches_environmental_crackdown

 

He had no incentive to allow me to pick it up. The set up is akin to the private parking contractors that operate outside Ealing broadway tube station. Drivers picking up/dropping off passengers are allowed to pull on to the single yellow line but many pull into an empty parking bay to drop off, thinking that they are being civil minded/considerate. In the meantime the firm are surreptitiously photographing the cars rather than warning them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you dropped the butt on private property there's nothing they can do.

I saw a guy making the same argument when he dropped a butt at the entrance of an underground station.

The enforcement officer wanted to give him the £80 charge but the guy told him to get lost as he was on private property.

He then proceeded to pass the gates with his ticket and gave the officer the middle finger.

On another occasion I saw another guy walking off and the officer grabbing him by the arm.

He threw himself on the floor screaming like he had been hit by a lorry.

Police and ambulance arrived and they cautioned the enforcement officer.

They then took him away in the police car.

Would it be rude to use the word "NICE"?

 

 

I am not certain if the property is private or not. The area was that outside the shop where they display their wares but perhaps it is indeed part of the pavement. I honestly don't know. There is a definitely line that seems to delineate the paving slabs laid by the council and the paving used by (what I assume is the freeholder).

 

Had i known that he was an employee of a private contractor, i might well have ignored him. That said, i didn't.

 

Ironically, after work, I popped into a Weatherspoon pub in Raynes Lane. It has tables and chairs in a section of the pavement that is cordoned off. There were no ashtrays.

 

Had I been in Ealing and he had seen me drop anything, I guess that he would have attempted to hand me a penalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do not give your details when requested they will simply inform the old Bill to come and get your deails. If you do anything naughty or walk off they will radio CCTV and track you until the old bill arrive.

 

I did think that might be the case. I was walking in to a shop, and would have exit via the entry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that there are some people here that consider that I got my just deserts.

 

My GF has done some research on my behalf and seems to think that one can not appeal against the penalty. You can reserve the right to go to court though, which is probably more money than I can afford to lose.

 

AFAIK the penalty is a fixed £80, with no discount for paying early and not contesting the charge, unlike parking infractions.

 

Is this standard practice? Or is it more likely to be the case that the private enforcement firm would not be interested in lower penalty charges.

 

Additionally is anyone aware of any other councils that use these kind of firms to hand out litter penalty charge notices.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do not give your details when requested they will simply inform the old Bill to come and get your deails. If you do anything naughty or walk off they will radio CCTV and track you until the old bill arrive.

 

Imagine the call to 999:

"Hello, i am a private contactor milking money off innocent citizens.

One of them dropped a whole gram of tobacco wrapped around the end of a rizla paper and when challenged he picked it up and walked off"

Operator: "the armed team is in the way"

 

Come on guys... Police don't have time for this sort of rubbish.

They're already stretched as it is, they won't give any priority to such calls.

 

If they happen to pass by they might intervene, but given that you had picked the butt and were probably on private property, they would have probably let you go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You people are totally missing the point

 

The street warden has full authority on the matter as he will be acting under the full authority of the Local Authority.

 

Dropping the Cigarette will be tecnically an offence like a council parking ticket and enforced the same way. For the local authority to be abe to do this action they would have instigated a new Bye law. That is secondary or delegated legislation.

 

People need to take this serious as it is not just some jobs worth, it has the full power of local Government behind it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well according to the following I am bang to rights (assuming that the following is correct or that I have understood it).

 

http://kb.keepbritaintidy.org/smokinglitter/legislation/legis.pdf

 

CNEA Section 18: Extension of Litter Offence to all Places

Section 18 of the CNEA extends the scope of the offence of littering, so that it is an offence to drop

litter anywhere in the open air in the area of a principal litter authority regardless of the ownership

of the land. This removes the previous loophole where a person could be fined for dropping litter

on the pavement, but could not be fined for throwing it into an adjacent private garden.

 

I think that means that dropping a cigarette anywhere outdoors is an offence, which presumably would include my own garden, a pub garden and so on.

 

What are the litter laws?

It is a criminal offence for a person to drop, throw down, or otherwise deposit and then leave litter.

The offence of littering is covered in Sections 87 and 88 of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA)

1990. This act has been updated and amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment

Act (CNEA) 2005 to make it clearer that it the term ‘litter’ now includes smoking related litter and

other discarded items such as chewing gum. The CNEA has also amended the existing legislation

so that the offence of littering now applies to all places that are open to the air, including both

private and public land and water.

 

"and then leave litter"? As soon as the agent saw me drop it he grabbed my attention, I was still standing over it. Once he mentioned it, I picked it up. Am I legally obliged to prove that had no intention of leaving an item as litter, or does his organisation have to prove that I intended to leave it? and had I been left to grind it away until it became virtually invisible to the human eye, is it still litter?

 

"It is a criminal offence"- So I am now a criminal?

 

The authorised officer intending to issue a fixed penalty notice can request the offender’s name

and address. It is an offence for that person to fail to provide these details, or to provide a false or

inaccurate name and address. Failure to give correct details can result in a fine of up to £1,000

 

Well they can't chuck that at me

 

The following lays out DEFRA's guidance to local authorities

 

http://www.cleanhighways.co.uk/legislation/guidance-on-the-use-of-fixed-penalty-notices

 

Defra recommend that agents should wear hi-visibility jackets, that those accused should be cautioned. The guy had a black coat, he didn't caution me but did tell me twice that he was recording me.

 

Defra do not stipulate that there has to be an informal appeals process.

 

Failure to give correct details is a criminal offence, however (even though I did) I did not legally have to provide proof of ID or my date of birth

 

And again we go back to the question of intent

 

In addition information should be recorded which would answer the following questions considered necessary to prove an offence was committed:

 

Was a person witnessed littering?

Did they drop, throw down or otherwise deposit litter?

What was littered?

Was the person identified as the person who dropped the litter?

Was the location where they dropped litter an area where it is an offence to litter, for example, an area which is open to the air?

Having littered, did they leave it?

Did the person who was witnessed littering have the permission of the landowner to do so?

Was the person of a suitable age to be issued with a fixed penalty notice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well whatever you decide to do, you should pay the fine, which will no doubt go into the LA's profit pocket, as these private companies are only paid by their results.

 

You did get a jobsworth, but it's not in their financial interests to walk over to you and ask you to pick it up and place it in a bin.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...