Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
    • Hi, we are looking to get some opinions on weather or not to bother fighting this PCN. This comes from a very big retail park parking where there are restaurants, hotel, amongst other businesses. The parking is free but I suppose there must be a time limit on it that I am not aware of. We were in the area for around 4 hours. Makes us wonder how they deal with people staying in the hotel as the ANPR is on what appears to be a publicly maintained street (where london buses run) which leads to the different parking areas including the hotel.  1 Date of the infringement 26/05/2024 2 Date on the NTK  31/05/2024 3 Date received 07/06/2024 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Entry and exit photos however, based on the photographs we are almost sure the photos are taken on public street. This is the location I believe photos are taken from.  https://maps.app.goo.gl/eii8zSmFFhVZDRpbA 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A 7 Who is the parking company? UKPA. UK Parking Administration LTD 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] The Colonnades, Croydon, CR0 4RQ For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. British Parking Association (BPA) Thanks in advance for any assistance.  UKPA PCN The Collonades-redacted.pdf
    • Thank you for posting their WS. If we start with the actual WS made by the director one would have doubts that they had even read PoFA let alone understood it. Point 10  we only have the word of the director that the contract has been extended. I should have had the corroboration of the Client. Point 12 The Judge HHJ Simkiss was not the usual Judge on motoring cases and his decisions on the necessity of contracts did not align with PoFA. In Schedule 4 [1[ it is quite clearly spelt out- “relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is—(a)the owner or occupier of the land; or (b authorised, under or  by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land; And the laughable piece of paper from the land owners cannot be described as a contract. I respectfully ask that the case be dismissed as there is no contract. WE do not even know what the parking regulations are which is really basic. It is respectfully asked that without a valid contract the case cannot continue. One would imagine that were there a valid contract it would have been produced.  So the contract that Bank has with the motorist must come from the landowner. Bank on their own cannot impose their own contract. How could a director of a parking company sign a Statement of Truth which included Point 11. Point 14. There is no offer of a contract at the entrance to the car park. Doubtful if it is even an offer to treat. The entrance sign sign does not comply with the IPC Code of Conduct nor is there any indication that ANPR cameras are in force. A major fault and breach of GDPR. Despite the lack of being offered a contract at the entrance [and how anyone could see what was offered by way of a contract in the car park is impossible owing to none of the signs in the WS being at all legible] payment was made for the car to park. A young person in the car made the payment. But before they did that, they helped an elderly lady to make her payment as she was having difficulty. After arranging payment for the lady the young lad made his payment right behind. Unfortunately he entered the old lady's number again rather than paying .for the car he was in. This can be confirmed by looking at the Allow List print out on page 25. The defendant's car arrived at 12.49 and at 12.51 and 12.52  there are two payments for the same vrm. This was also remarked on by the IPC adjudicator when the PCN was appealed.  So it is quite disgraceful that Bank have continued to pursue the Defendant knowing that it was a question of  entering the wrong vrm.  Point 21 The Defendant is not obliged to name the driver, they are only invited to do so under S9[2][e]. Also it is unreasonable to assume that the keeper is the driver. The Courts do not do that for good reason. The keeper in this case does not have a driving licence. Point 22. The Defendant DID make a further appeal which though it was also turned down their reply was very telling and should have led to the charge being dropped were the company not greedy and willing to pursue the Defendant regardless of the evidence they had in their own hands. Point 23 [111] it's a bit rich asking the Defendant to act justly and at proportionate cost while acting completely unjustly themselves and then adding an unlawful 70% on to the invoice. This  is despite PoFA S4[5] (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 9[2][d].  Point 23 [1v] the Director can deny all he wants but the PCN does not comply with PoFA. S9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN only quotes the ANPR arrival and departure times which obviously includes a fair amount of driving between the two cameras. Plus the driver and passengers are a mixture of disabled and aged persons who require more time than just a young fit single driver to exit the car and later re enter. So the ANPR times cannot be the same as the required parking period as stipulated in the ACT. Moreover in S9[2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; You will note that in the PCN the words in parentheses are not included but at the start of Section 9 the word "must" is included. As there are two faults in the PCN it follows that Bank cannot pursue the keeper . And as the driver does not have a driving licence their case must fail on that alone. And that is not even taking into consideration that the payment was made. Point 23 [v] your company is wrong a payment was made. very difficult to prove a cash payment two weeks later when the PCN arrives. However the evidence was in your print out for anyone to see had they actually done due diligence prior to writing to the DVLA. Indeed as the Defendant had paid there was no reasonable cause to have applied for the keeper details. Point 24 the Defendant did not breach the contract. The PCN claimed the Defendant failed to make a payment when they had made a payment.   I haven't finished yet but that is something to start with
    • You don't appeal to anyone. You haven't' received a demand from a statutory body like the council, the police or the courts. It's just a dodgy cowboy company trying it on. You simply don't pay.  In the vast majority of these cases the company deforest the Amazon with threats about how they are going to divert a drone from Ukraine and make it land on your home - but in the end they do nothing.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Invalid Default Notices


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4976 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

Thanks emandcole, I have posted my DN its in post 1201 on here. It has been confirmed that it is correct so no go there I'm afraid. I will however write to the OC to find out what is going on and probably write to them and invite them to take me to court.

 

What do you reckon?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Agree, it is unreasonable for the original creditor to have split any debt into two parts and for you to have to now deal with two DCA's/owners. Where in the terms and conditions did it say this could happen?

 

Technically it is a breach of the OFT debt collection guidelines as two DCA's (owners or otherwise) are now chasing what is still one debt.

 

Get the original creditor to explain what they were doing, where does it end otherwise, split it into ten pieces? :-x

 

Have you got the original default notice? If it's invalid and the OC terminated on you the debt is finished anyway. Perhaps a better way to go?

 

As I said earlier I would write to all 3 (copying the other two in each letter) asking "WTF is going on? :?WHICH ONE of you 3 should I be dealing with? I WILL ONLY deal with 1 of you - and only when the other 2 agree to this". :evil:

 

The invalid DN is another route to take - and may get the whole lot written off - but you need to know WHO to deal with first. If no satisfactory response get FOS or OFT to rule on who is calling the shots among the 3 of them (you are actually calling the REAL shots - but they don't know it yet!).

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks emandcole, I have posted my DN its in post 1201 on here. It has been confirmed that it is correct so no go there I'm afraid. I will however write to the OC to find out what is going on and probably write to them and invite them to take me to court.

 

What do you reckon?

 

Wouldn't do that, you still have a very valid point of argument here that can be cleared up by the creditors. As bigdebtor suggests insist they sort it out and get the FOS to intervene.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I'm sure you know already, but if not make sure you keep the envelope that letter came in (and do the same for any other letters!). The more letters you have showing how they act the better, if not for court then at least for saying to them 'I can show how unreasonable you've been so lets agree something or I'll be taking this to TS'.

 

The delay in writing/sending etc is a standard tactic. I don't think I'd be inviting court action when they have a valid agreement and DN unless you actually want the finality/certainty of a CCJ. I can see how that may be tempting given the run-around you're getting, but just have a think before putting that idea in front of them.

 

If Lowells have bought the debt from SD then why are they saying that neither they nor SD think you're in dispute? Surely if SD have sold the account then what they think is now irrelevant, or have I missed a step somewhere? I think the previous posters are correct and you need to send a letter to one and cc the others asking exactly what is going on, and also stating that until all three answer (and more importantly until all three of those answers correspond!!!) then no-one will be paid.

 

You could put something along the lines of 'I will keep the money that would be used for payments aside, and when you have given me the courtesy of an answer the owner of the account will have these payments forwarded and a payment plan can then be agreed upon'. This at least shows willing on your part and should any of them decide to take court action then that coupled with the mess they've got this into should put you in a favourable light.

  • Haha 1

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I'm sure you know already, but if not make sure you keep the envelope that letter came in (and do the same for any other letters!). The more letters you have showing how they act the better, if not for court then at least for saying to them 'I can show how unreasonable you've been so lets agree something or I'll be taking this to TS'.

 

The delay in writing/sending etc is a standard tactic. I don't think I'd be inviting court action when they have a valid agreement and DN unless you actually want the finality/certainty of a CCJ. I can see how that may be tempting given the run-around you're getting, but just have a think before putting that idea in front of them.

 

If Lowells have bought the debt from SD then why are they saying that neither they nor SD think you're in dispute? Surely if SD have sold the account then what they think is now irrelevant, or have I missed a step somewhere? I think the previous posters are correct and you need to send a letter to one and cc the others asking exactly what is going on, and also stating that until all three answer (and more importantly until all three of those answers correspond!!!) then no-one will be paid.

 

You could put something along the lines of 'I will keep the money that would be used for payments aside, and when you have given me the courtesy of an answer the owner of the account will have these payments forwarded and a payment plan can then be agreed upon'. This at least shows willing on your part and should any of them decide to take court action then that coupled with the mess they've got this into should put you in a favourable light.

 

 

Thanks lexis200, I will certainly be writing to OC trust me, and thank you for the great advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi shadow, what do mean is the 4.APR 0% correct please?

 

Is this credit agreement charging no interest?

 

Under the CCA key financial details number 4 states 0% APR.... I've never had a littlewoods account so dont know if it does charge interest or not, hence the question.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this credit agreement charging no interest?

 

Under the CCA key financial details number 4 states 0% APR.... I've never had a littlewoods account so dont know if it does charge interest or not, hence the question.

 

S.

 

Thanks shadow, not too sure about this one myself but sure will look in to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did do a subject access request to Littlewoods some time ago and I have just been going over what they have added to my balance.

 

There are Administration chrage of £10 added, Insufficient Minimum Payment Fee of £10 added [what the hell is that for]:confused:, I shalll have a thorough look through my SAR and see what else comes up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did do a subject access request to Littlewoods some time ago and I have just been going over what they have added to my balance.

 

There are Administration chrage of £10 added, Insufficient Minimum Payment Fee of £10 added [what the hell is that for]:confused:, I shalll have a thorough look through my SAR and see what else comes up.

 

I think these are £10 default charges - and unfair and fully recoverable if they can't prove they incurred £10 of additional costs by your missed payments etc. They CAN'T prove that and won't even try!

 

If they have actually stated 0% apr and then charged you ANY interest AT ALL then I thinbk you have won a watch regarding unenforceability.

 

ZERO becoming SOMETHING (ie. not zero - can't be de minimus - it's the EXACT OPPOSITE! :-?

 

BD

Edited by Bigdebtor
Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I'm sure you know already, but if not make sure you keep the envelope that letter came in (and do the same for any other letters!). The more letters you have showing how they act the better, if not for court then at least for saying to them 'I can show how unreasonable you've been so lets agree something or I'll be taking this to TS'.

 

The delay in writing/sending etc is a standard tactic. I don't think I'd be inviting court action when they have a valid agreement and DN unless you actually want the finality/certainty of a CCJ. I can see how that may be tempting given the run-around you're getting, but just have a think before putting that idea in front of them.

 

If Lowells have bought the debt from SD then why are they saying that neither they nor SD think you're in dispute? Surely if SD have sold the account then what they think is now irrelevant, or have I missed a step somewhere? I think the previous posters are correct and you need to send a letter to one and cc the others asking exactly what is going on, and also stating that until all three answer (and more importantly until all three of those answers correspond!!!) then no-one will be paid.

 

You could put something along the lines of 'I will keep the money that would be used for payments aside, and when you have given me the courtesy of an answer the owner of the account will have these payments forwarded and a payment plan can then be agreed upon'. This at least shows willing on your part and should any of them decide to take court action then that coupled with the mess they've got this into should put you in a favourable light.

 

I largely agree with Lexis here - but I do think you need to be careful about admitting to owing anything at all. Perhaps say somethinbg like "I shall keep payments aside to pay anything legally recoverable" ?

 

Can someone else help with a better legal wording that protects the debtor's interests in this?

 

BD

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think thye should state the interest on the statements - but it should be easy to work out if interest has been charged - Check if your balance owed is what it should be. Is the original amount of credit what you expected - ie. did it equal the cost of goods purchased - or is there initial interest rolled into this? Then add any default charges and then take away your total payments. If the amount fo the current balance does not tally then other charges (what? - interest?) have been added.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BD, the question is how to find out if I have been charged interest, and as catologue companies mostly do not state this but slyly we all know its added in the goods that we order.

 

Look at the statements... if after you have made a payment the new balance doesnt equal the old balance minus your payment then interest is being charged.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think thye should state the interest on the statements - but it should be easy to work out if interest has been charged - Check if your balance owed is what it should be. Is the original amount of credit what you expected - ie. did it equal the cost of goods purchased - or is there initial interest rolled into this? Then add any default charges and then take away your total payments. If the amount fo the current balance does not tally then other charges (what? - interest?) have been added.

 

 

Thanks BD, I will do that after I have written out my letter to the OC. Should I write to Cabot & Lowell and inform them that I have written to the OC and until I get a response from them I will have no dealings with them?

 

 

I was thinking of writing this to the OC,

 

Dear Littlewoods,

 

Please could you write and advise which company you have sold my debt to.

 

 

Lets see what they respond.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at the statements... if after you have made a payment the new balance doesnt equal the old balance minus your payment then interest is being charged.

 

S.

 

 

Thanks shadow, now that you have mentioned this I have just discovered something even more strange. Having had a good luck at my SAR I have only just noticed that dispite opening an account in Feb 06 the statements in my SAR start from week 35.

There are no statements prior to week 35 contained in my SAR, so that's something else to dispute about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the Shadow has just made the same point as me - but much more succinctly;)

 

I would send a longer letter - identical one to all 3 showing cc to the other 2 along the lines:

 

1. I took out a cca on date for £amount with OC name.

2. I was advised by OC name on date that the debt was (assigned/passed) - use word in OC's letter - to DCA1.

3. I was then advised by OC name on date that (whatever next letter said) to DCA2.

4. I believe I am now being pursued by both DCA1 and DCA2 for payment of the same alleged debt, which is contrary to OFT and FOS guidelines.

5. I require all 3 of you to advise me jointly and severally of the correct status as you believe it of any debt which may be outstanding in respect of any debt taken out or any CCA agreed by me on date from OC.

6. Until I have received confirmation from all 3 and have an identical position stated by all 3 of you, I shall enter into no further communication nor make any further payments but shall retain any payments which may be due pending a resolution as outlined above.

 

Change the words to suit - but keep the message as intended.

 

Good luck

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

I largely agree with Lexis here - but I do think you need to be careful about admitting to owing anything at all. Perhaps say somethinbg like "I shall keep payments aside to pay anything legally recoverable" ?

 

Can someone else help with a better legal wording that protects the debtor's interests in this?

 

BD

 

True if there are issues regarding enforceability etc., but I thought the agreement and DN were kosher, so there wouldn't be much point trying to be cagey as you've nothing to gain (or lose).

 

Just had a look on littlewoods site and this is on their credit accounts page

 

Littlewoods

 

so I think the 0% is correct unless you had another specific type of account...

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the Shadow has just made the same point as me - but much more succinctly;)

 

I would send a longer letter - identical one to all 3 showing cc to the other 2 along the lines:

 

1. I took out a cca on date for £amount with OC name.

2. I was advised by OC name on date that the debt was (assigned/passed) - use word in OC's letter - to DCA1.

3. I was then advised by OC name on date that (whatever next letter said) to DCA2.

4. I believe I am now being pursued by both DCA1 and DCA2 for payment of the same alleged debt, which is contrary to OFT and FOS guidelines.

5. I require all 3 of you to advise me jointly and severally of the correct status as you believe it of any debt which may be outstanding in respect of any debt taken out or any CCA agreed by me on date from OC.

6. Until I have received confirmation from all 3 and have an identical position stated by all 3 of you, I shall enter into no further communication nor make any further payments but shall retain any payments which may be due pending a resolution as outlined above.

 

Change the words to suit - but keep the message as intended.

 

Good luck

 

BD

 

Thanks DB very much for that I will copy the above and send off to all 3 companies. Your scales have been tipped;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

True if there are issues regarding enforceability etc., but I thought the agreement and DN were kosher, so there wouldn't be much point trying to be cagey as you've nothing to gain (or lose).

 

Just had a look on littlewoods site and this is on their credit accounts page

 

Littlewoods

 

so I think the 0% is correct unless you had another specific type of account...

 

Thanks lexis200 I won't mention the DN as I believe it is correct, but will write what DB has advised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the Shadow has just made the same point as me - but much more succinctly;)

 

I would send a longer letter - identical one to all 3 showing cc to the other 2 along the lines:

 

1. I took out a cca on date for £amount with OC name.

2. I was advised by OC name on date that the debt was (assigned/passed) - use word in OC's letter - to DCA1.

3. I was then advised by OC name on date that (whatever next letter said) to DCA2.

4. I believe I am now being pursued by both DCA1 and DCA2 for payment of the same alleged debt, which is contrary to OFT and FOS guidelines.

5. I require all 3 of you to advise me jointly and severallyI'd probably leave that out. They've not helped you with any suggestions so make them work out how they need to sort this out! of the correct status as you believe it That gives them a get out (I'm sorry frettful, but we believed we were correct in telling you xy and z...')of any debt which may be outstanding in respect of any debt taken out or any CCA agreed by me on date from OC.

6. Until I have received confirmation from all 3 and have an identical position stated by all 3 of you, I shall enter into no further communication nor make any further payments but shall retain any payments which may be due pending a resolution as outlined above.

 

Change the words to suit - but keep the message as intended.

 

Good luck

 

BD

 

I'm not too sure you can start with 'I took out a cca' then change to 'alleged debt', especially if they have an agreement which kind of blows the alleged bit away?? Perhaps if you want to keep the alleged bit in you could amend 'took out a cca' to 'applied for an account' or similar.

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not too sure you can start with 'I took out a cca' then change to 'alleged debt', especially if they have an agreement which kind of blows the alleged bit away?? Perhaps if you want to keep the alleged bit in you could amend 'took out a cca' to 'applied for an account' or similar.

 

The bit wot you called a bit:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4976 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...