Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • thought your story rang a bell. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416315-knightsbridgecreditfix-iva-treated-me-very-badly-thinking-of-bk-now-help/ you vanished and never cameback. dx  
    • and it legally informs them of your correct and current address as you must do with all old debts last paid/used in say 7 yrs you dont want backdoor CCJ's. what were the names of these IVA scammers, the one you took it out with, and the one that scammed you to let them take over please? your story is slightly worrying. dx  
    • Incidentally, congratulations on not buying the warranty. That is another Big Motoring World rip-off. See what we have to say about extended warranties and the Big Motoring World attitude to them is particularly unhelpful
    • well that google is from 2019, but the photos are certainly of someone driving on the public highway in/out by an ANP system, though the site of where the camera actually is, is not showing there are anpr cameras up by the low yellow barriers but they wont get from facing shots from there. interesting, needs to be checked if the road IS a public highway but on private land, cause as you say, if the whole area is max 4hrs , how does the hotel work< ?? must have a reg entry system.  now as for taking pictures of cars on a public highway then guessing the are parking ...erm.... i dont thnk thats right nor allowed under GDPR. dx  
    • Under the consumer rights act 2015, if a defect manifests itself within 30 days and you have a right to return the vehicle for a full refund. If any defect manifests itself within the first six months of ownership then you have a right to return the vehicle for a full refund subject to the retailers right to carry out a repair. If the retailer declines to repair or if the repair fails then you have the right to return. The problem here is that you have to assert their right. It's a bit ridiculous – but you have to do let them know preferably in writing that you are asserting your rights under the consumer rights act either the 30 day right or the six month right. I suppose that you haven't done this – which would be quite understandable because most people don't know that these rights exist and that they are subject to these conditions – the condition that the right must be inserted. It is frankly ridiculous. The dealers know it and we have lots of instances of this company delaying appointments et cetera and our strong suspicion is that they are simply trying to run their customers out of time. On the basis that you haven't asserted your rights, we now have to look to ordinary contract law. You are entitled to purchase a vehicle which is of satisfactory condition and which remains that way for a reasonable period of time. Clearly it is in satisfactory. They are blaming you. Has your independent inspection identified the reason for the defect? This will be important because as you have seen BMW are already saying it is down to your driving and you are going to have to produce evidence that it wasn't down to your driving and the you drove it absolutely reasonably and it was simply the condition of the car. Have you been without the car for any period of time. Is it driveable now? If the car was off the road for a substantial amount of time and was still off the road then you would be able to argue that this is a fundamental breach of contract and that you have been deprived of substantially the whole benefit of the contract and therefore you will be entitled to treat the contract as breached by Big Motoring World and insist on cancelling the contract. It may be that you will eventually be obliged to keep the car but have the repairs paid for. Have you had any quotations for the work that needs doing? I asked you questions about the MOT – but you haven't responded.
  • 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 
        • 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

Cap1 & CCA return


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4980 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

Any ideas where I can get the FOS communication?

 

I don't know whether to just leave it and see what happens in the future. The only I'm worried about is that they might then say - well, you had the agreement before and never mentioned it, so you must have been ok to pay!

 

What would you suggest? should I write back a nice letter saying I don't think it's enforcable and see what they say?

 

Un1

 

now I am confused. These are two seperate issues so keep focus on that:

 

Your Credit Card CCA request has not been satisfied. As I understand it, you are now the same as a number of others - in a Mexican standoff - there is an unexecuted agreement, they are in default on S78 - send them a polite letter (I have posted this that many times I think I am going to put up a new thread for us all, so folk can grab and hack what they want) telling them the consequences.

 

Then add another paragraph thanking them for reconsidering and allowing you to retain your current account facilities. This no doubt is a sensible decision based upon the recent FOS rulings. (or whoever it was).

 

Z

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Un1

 

now I am confused. These are two seperate issues so keep focus on that:

 

Your Credit Card CCA request has not been satisfied. As I understand it, you are now the same as a number of others - in a Mexican standoff - there is an unexecuted agreement, they are in default on S78 - send them a polite letter (I have posted this that many times I think I am going to put up a new thread for us all, so folk can grab and hack what they want) telling them the consequences.

 

Then add another paragraph thanking them for reconsidering and allowing you to retain your current account facilities. This no doubt is a sensible decision based upon the recent FOS rulings. (or whoever it was).

 

Z

 

Cool, was gonna do that and you have reassured me!!

 

Thanks! :)

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 85 True Copies - see the exceptions in the regulations

 

right to assign often says that the lender has the right to assign their "rights" they do not have the right to retain illicitly obtained funds and therefore cannot assign that

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

You can SAR any organisation that may hold your data.

 

Re: your old judgement -

 

Limitations Act 1980

 

24 Time limit for actions to enforce judgments

 

(1) An action shall not be brought upon any judgment after the expiration of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable.

 

(2) No arrears of interest in respect of any judgment debt shall be recovered after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due.

 

I'm not sure if this is subject to the 'acknowledgement or part payment' rule though so this will need further research before you tell them to go jump!:D

 

Regards, Pam

HI Zubo

 

I am afraid if you have been paying £1 a month of the debt you cannot use the statute bar.

Also it cannot be used in conjunction with a ccj.

 

Int he normal course of affairs although the creditor is entitled to pursue a debt indefinately, he can only persue it through the courts within six years of the debt being taken out unless there is contact of any kind regarding the debt,( with the exeption of flatley refusing it exists,) which would start the clock running again.

 

 

Payplan do an excelent info sheet on this

 

 

Regards

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Zubo

 

I am afraid if you have been paying £1 a month of the debt you cannot use the statute bar.

Also it cannot be used in conjunction with a ccj.

 

Int he normal course of affairs although the creditor is entitled to pursue a debt indefinately, he can only persue it through the courts within six years of the debt being taken out unless there is contact of any kind regarding the debt,( with the exeption of flatley refusing it exists,) which would start the clock running again.

 

 

Payplan do an excelent info sheet on this

 

 

Regards

 

Peter

 

Hi Peter

 

The section of the LA 1980 I have referred Zubo to is in relation to the enforcement by the creditor of any CCJ he already has, and is not about his 6 year time limit to chase the debt in the first place. That is a different section of the LA.

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Okay, which one of you lot has decided to set up a business then? :D:D

 

Beating Banks With Bad Credit Agreements? - 30/03/2007

 

N.B - If you get to read the published quote on here from Wilson(yes, her again!:eek:) v Howard CA, don't get too excited!! -this is again a judgement based on the specific CCA rules about securities (pledges/pawns) having no effect if the agreement is unenforceable and is therefore not comparable with basic agreement situations.

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter

 

The section of the LA 1980 I have referred Zubo to is in relation to the enforcement by the creditor of any CCJ he already has, and is not about his 6 year time limit to chase the debt in the first place. That is a different section of the LA.

 

Regards, Pam

 

Hi Pam i was not aware that the statute of limitations act could be aplied to a debt post ccj.

 

I know the creditor may have to apply to the court to enforce after six years but i thought that was a different act.

 

Could you point me to the relevant section.

 

Best regards

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter

 

24 Time limit for actions to enforce judgments

 

(1) An action shall not be brought upon any judgment after the expiration of six years from the date on which the judgment became enforceable.

 

(2) No arrears of interest in respect of any judgment debt shall be recovered after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due.

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Pami

 

is this from the 1980 act?

 

IHave this

 

County Court Judgments

 

If the creditor has been to court and there is a County Court Judgment outstanding, then you cannot use the Limitation Act to dispute you owe the debt. It does not matter how many years ago the creditor went to court, the County Court Judgment will still exist. However, the creditor may not be able to enforce the Judgment without the court's permission if the Judgment is over six years old. Phone us for advice.

If you think the creditor has been to court and got a County Court Judgment against you after the debt is out of the six year limitation period, then you can ask the court to "set aside" or remove the County Court Judgment so you can put in a Limitation Act defence. We have a factsheet on "Setting Aside a Court Judgment in the County Court". Phone us for advice.

The debt may be unenforceable but it is still a legal debt and non-payment is likely to have been entered on your credit reference file. A default will stay on your credit file for 6 years. We have a factsheet on “credit reference agencies”. Phone us for advice

 

Regards

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Pami

 

is this from the 1980 act?

 

 

Pami??? You gettin' fresh with me now Peter??:D

 

Yes, this is from the 1980 Act.

 

I have also seen the information you have posted up and confess I don't really understand why it says the creditor will have to/can apply to the court after 6 years. It seems at odds with the wording of the LA section.

 

I am also not sure if the 'fresh accrual upon part payment or acknowledgement' rule applies to this as it does with the 6 year action on a debt limitation.

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pami wammi

 

Yes i have just found it in the act also.

 

Why would you bother having it put asside if it was unenforceable.

 

They seem to be contradictory.

 

Confused

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be a typo!

 

Els

 

Hi

 

Don't you believe it!!:D

 

Unless of course you're actually his missus (in disguise), in which case - YES, IT WAS DEFINITELY JUST A SIMPLE TYPO!!:eek::eek::cool::D

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI I .

If an action is commenced to recover money and say three years latter a ccj is issued on the debt without the knowledge of the debtor then he cannot use the SOL six year rule to ovride the initial action. He would have to wait a further six years untill section 24 took effect. mmm

 

I canfind nothing else in the act that overide this;Section 29(7)

 

Subject to subsection (6) above, a current period of limitation may

be repeatedly extended under this section by further

acknowledgments or payments, but a right of action, once barred

by this Act, shall not be revived by any subsequent

acknowledgment or payment.

So the part payment rule must apply to CCJs?

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pami wammi

 

Yes i have just found it in the act also.

 

Why would you bother having it put asside if it was unenforceable.

 

They seem to be contradictory.

 

Confused

 

Peter

 

Hi petee betee :p

 

Well I suppose it's only worth getting it set aside if it's still within the 6 years then.

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi

Sorry to be a pain about this but this has come up a number of times on here and the percieved wisdom has always been as i quoted,(probably drawn from he same source) .Now thanks to the witch of eastwick it seems that we have been labouring under a false premise and the sol does apply to a ccj.

I am open to arguments please:o

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now thanks to the witch of eastwick it

 

After that comment Peter, you may well have an argument! ;)

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest The Terminator
Hi

 

Okay, which one of you lot has decided to set up a business then? :D:D

 

Beating Banks With Bad Credit Agreements? - 30/03/2007

 

N.B - If you get to read the published quote on here from Wilson(yes, her again!:eek:) v Howard CA, don't get too excited!! -this is again a judgement based on the specific CCA rules about securities (pledges/pawns) having no effect if the agreement is unenforceable and is therefore not comparable with basic agreement situations.

 

Regards, Pam

 

Not Guilty :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI I .

If an action is commenced to recover money and say three years latter a ccj is issued on the debt without the knowledge of the debtor then he cannot use the SOL six year rule to ovride the initial action. He would have to wait a further six years untill section 24 took effect. mmm

 

It would appear so

 

I canfind nothing else in the act that overide this;Section 29(7)

 

Subject to subsection (6) above, a current period of limitation may

be repeatedly extended under this section by further

acknowledgments or payments, but a right of action, once barred

by this Act, shall not be revived by any subsequent

acknowledgment or payment.

So the part payment rule must apply to CCJs?

 

Again it would appear so! :(

 

Peter

 

Hi

 

This Act, like many others, is very confusing! I guess someone would have to actually try their luck under s24 and see what happens!:confused:

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After that comment Peter, you may well have an argument! ;)

 

Hope so uni

 

Otherwise it would mean she was correct and i would never hear the end of it.

 

:shock:

 

Regards

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope so uni

 

Otherwise it would mean she was correct and i would never hear the end of it.

 

:shock:

 

Regards

 

Peter

 

hehe! :)

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi

Sorry to be a pain about this but this has come up a number of times on here and the percieved wisdom has always been as i quoted,(probably drawn from he same source) .Now thanks to the witch of eastwick it seems that we have been labouring under a false premise and the sol does apply to a ccj.

I am open to arguments please:o

 

Peter

 

PINS!

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys

 

Need your help on a new thread I just setup

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/79147-consumer-credit-act-resources.html#post698254

 

comments/ suggestions/changes here please, then I will edit the intro

 

Tam sorry to jump into this thread

 

Z

 

|Err the thread with four posts has vanished, tried asking for info from admin, no response as yet.

 

I am guessing that mods didnt like how I wanted to use the thread...

wish they would just say so...

 

Z

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4980 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...