Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • How does one obtain the permit? The permit team number is only open between the hours of 9am to 3pm Mon - Fri. It says on the website, To obtain an additional 2 hours, the driver must pay a tariff of £3.00 + booking fees in person at our Security Hut, is that how you get the permit also, from the security hut? What a rigmaroll that would be but maybe just another step to take to try and catch people out?
    • Anotheruser0000 bear in mind that not all Judges are equally versed in the PoFA regulations. Fortunately now most of them are but sometimes a Judge from a higher Court sits in who is well experienced  in Law but not PoFA. and so they sometimes go "offkey" because their knowledge can raise a different set of arguments and solutions. It does seem particularly unfair  when the decision is so  bad . it can also be that in some situations the motorist being a lay person is not sufficiently know ledgeable to be able to counter a Judge's decisions in a way that a barrister could.
    • The argument about the date of receipt is now dead because the PCN  does not comply with the wording  of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  First reason Section 9 [2] [e]  "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges;" Second Reason Section 9 [2][a] "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;" All your PCN does is mark the time you entered and left the car park. It does not include all the myriad things you do in between-driving into the car park, looking for a parking space-perhaps a disabled space or  parent and Child place@ getting the children or disabled person out of the car then going shopping. Coming back; loading the car with shopping [, getting the children or disabled into the car, taking the trolley back to the store; driving to the exit perhaps stopping to let vehicles/pedestrians cross in front of you etc. so subtracting the driving times from before and after parking can make quite a difference from their time to the actual period parking time. So the upshot is now that only the driver is responsible for paying the PCN and the keeper is not liable at all even if the name of the driver is never known by Nexus so well done for not appealing. You obviously want to keep it that way to make it very difficult for them to win in Court if it ever goes that far. Although your question is now moot since  the same objective has been achieved by the non compliant PCN [ie no keeper liability] just  about the only way to dispute the timing of the PCN would be if one kept the envelope and there was a discernible date stamp on it that did not match the date on the PCN. There is a new Act coming out [and it cannot come quickly enough ] and one of the things required is that parking companies will have to prove the date of sending out their PCNs. We are not the only ones who sometimes doubt the veracity of their dates particularly as the later it is sent [unlawfully] the shorter the period motorists have to benefit [?] from the reduced payment. I haven't seen it on your posts but do you know how long you are permitted to park for free?
    • I was so annoyed and frustrated about the fact this case was lost it's been floating around my head all night. Dave962, are you sure that's what the Judge said? .... It doesn't make sense. Did the judge in fact dismiss the case on the grounds that the defendant did not make an appeal within 28 days? Effectively telling the PPC about the error entering the registration number and providing proof of payment at that time? To me, that's an important point.  
    • The United Autoworkers Union took a risk in a Republican - and often anti-union - part of the US.View the full article
  • 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

Scammed by National company...help please


kc_31
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5877 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

Hi,

 

I took my car in for an MOT recently. To cut a long story short, they split one of the water pipes during the MOT and charged me £18 to replace it. I argued that they had broken it so I shouldn't have to pay for it. They instantly changed their story, saying it wasn't their fault and it could have happened at any time. I reluctantly agreed to pay for the new pipe. Then they said I would need anti-freeze, costing £25 :confused: . I got the car back the following day having paid them an unbelievable £588 only to find that the car had no water in and definitely no anti-freeze :eek: . I filled the car up with water but the next day when I drove it, it over-heated. A guy from the breakdown service came out and told me the head gasket is knackered. He thinks the garage have replaced the split pipe with one that is too narrow, hence not enough water getting through to engine!

 

I have spoken to vosa - not interested as it is not the actual MOT test that's the problem. Have also spoken to trading standards, who advised me to go to another garage and get them to write a report. If the report shows that the garage are at fault, I am to send them a letter (they sent me a template).

 

Has anyone dealt with this sort of thing before?? My local garage say they will do the report but it will cost around £40, does that sound reasonable?

 

I need to know whether I am going about this the right way and what my next step should be.

 

Thanks.

Nationwide

13/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

01/11/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

11/11/06 - Standard response to prelim

14/11/06 - LBA sent

17/11/06 - Standard response to LBA

04/12/06 - MCOL Issued

06/12/06 - MCOL Acknowledged

07/12/06 - Paid (almost in full)

 

HSBC

14/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

25/10/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

23/11/06 - LBA sent

31/01/07 - MCOL Issued (finally!!)

07/02/07 - MCOL Acknowledged

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The advice from Trading Standards seems spot on - you are going to need some kind of independent evidence to prove they are at fault.

 

If the garage is reputable then £40 sounds reasonable to me - remember that you are asking them to inspect your car thoroughly and then write out a report - this will be taking up time which they could be using to work on other jobs, so I think £40 sounds fair.

 

Make sure you claim the £40 back too if they are proved to be at fault.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that, I'll get it booked in.

Nationwide

13/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

01/11/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

11/11/06 - Standard response to prelim

14/11/06 - LBA sent

17/11/06 - Standard response to LBA

04/12/06 - MCOL Issued

06/12/06 - MCOL Acknowledged

07/12/06 - Paid (almost in full)

 

HSBC

14/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

25/10/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

23/11/06 - LBA sent

31/01/07 - MCOL Issued (finally!!)

07/02/07 - MCOL Acknowledged

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update time!!

 

I have taken my Rover to my local garage to have the report done.

The chap who looked at it is Rover trained and worked solely on Rovers for 15 years, so I think it's safe to say he knows what he's talking about.

 

He says they didn't bleed the air out of the engine when they re-filled it. He showed me a small nut which apparently has to be undone in order to bleed it properly. The nut in question is caked in enough grease and dirt to make it obvious (even to a female novice like me) that it has not seen a spanner in quite some time.

 

I have spoken to the area manager of the garage who did the M.O.T and he wants to get another report done. Before their incompetent mechanics get within 20 miles of my car again, I plan on taking a couple of close up photgraphs of the nut as evidence in case they mess around with it during their inspection.

 

Does anyone happen to know what would happen if their report states that it wasn't their fault that the head gasket blew? Where would I stand then?

 

Many thanks.

Nationwide

13/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

01/11/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

11/11/06 - Standard response to prelim

14/11/06 - LBA sent

17/11/06 - Standard response to LBA

04/12/06 - MCOL Issued

06/12/06 - MCOL Acknowledged

07/12/06 - Paid (almost in full)

 

HSBC

14/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

25/10/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

23/11/06 - LBA sent

31/01/07 - MCOL Issued (finally!!)

07/02/07 - MCOL Acknowledged

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, where do I stand as far as asking them to supply me with a courtesy car in the mean time and possible compensation. The total bill for repairing the car will be around £500. Add that to the amount I paid the garage when the MOT was done and it's a total of almost £1100 (more than my poor car is worth).

 

Thanks again.

Nationwide

13/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

01/11/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

11/11/06 - Standard response to prelim

14/11/06 - LBA sent

17/11/06 - Standard response to LBA

04/12/06 - MCOL Issued

06/12/06 - MCOL Acknowledged

07/12/06 - Paid (almost in full)

 

HSBC

14/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

25/10/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

23/11/06 - LBA sent

31/01/07 - MCOL Issued (finally!!)

07/02/07 - MCOL Acknowledged

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be very careful if your rover is fitted with a K-series 16 valve engine as these are incredibly prone to head gasket failure. I am surprised the rover mechanic with 15 years of rover experience didn't mention this as they are a standing joke in the motor trade.

 

I would think the garage that did the original work would have no problem finding somebody suitably qualified that would confirm this and that the hose split due to the cooling system pressurising because of a failed head gasket. Is the rover mechanic a member of the institute of the motor industry if he is he will have put something like AMIMI or FIMI after is signature on the report.

 

Also would he be prepared to appear in court as there are plenty of independent engineers with the appropriate qualifications that the repairing garage will know about that will.

 

Sorry to put a dampener on this but I have been in the motor trade for about 30 years and have been to court on numerous occasions and have never been on the losing side yet but wouldn't fancy my chances if they get an expert witness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rover K-series is as prone to HGF (head Gasket Failure) as any other make of engine (just remember the PSA 1.9 XUD9TE). If the cooling system is not bled properly after re-filling, the coolant boils, and the resultant cavitiaiton causes 'hotspots' in the engine block and cylinder head. This then warps the head, causing HGF. Another reason for failure can be using water, instead of water/anti-freeze in the correct ratio.

 

There's plenty of people here...MG-Rover.org Forums - Powered by vBulletin who can help.

 

I have had a Renault Megane with HGF after the bleed screw leaked (cost me £190 all in), and therefore sucked in air after cooling, and also a K-series HGF on a 416i the day after I bought it when a clip rubbed through a hose (free, though it took the garage 3 weeks to get it back to me...did lend me a 420 in the meantime)

 

Please don't be put off by the Rover K-series...it is one of the best engines around if looked after, and was way ahead of it's time when it came out (and still is compared to some. My 414 has a 1.4 litre K16 and puts out 104 bhp!).

 

Robin

Joint acc - Halifax - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 06 Oct 06, some statements received 24 Oct 06 - £264 so far! Prelim sent 26 Oct 06. here

 

Bills acc - Halifax - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 06 Oct 06 - £957 so far. Prelim sent 31 Oct 06

 

Old Student Account - £1082.49 charges and contractual interest - Prelim sent 01 Nov 06

 

Capital One - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 26 Oct 06 here

 

Monument - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 26 Oct 06 here

 

Wifes old Lloyds TSB - Gonna nail 'em

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

thanks for all your help.

 

Miniconverter, when I asked this guy to look at my car and do the report I have to say he was skeptical because Rovers are prone to head gasket failure. He didn't think it was their fault, just one of those things. However, once he had looked at the car he said there was no doubt as to what was wrong with it.

As for the original garage finding someone suitably qualified, I'm afraid I don't trust them. All their staff are qualified, yet when I took my car to them it was running fine and has always been a fantastic car since I bought it. Since they touched it I have only been able to drive it once, it's been off the road since! Need I say more??

 

Since my last post, the area manager has spoken to the guy who did the report for me. He then called me back saying he had spoken to their legal department and they do NOT admit liability, they do NOT think it is their fault. But as a gesture of good will (because I put a bad review about them on the internet and the area manager came across it) they are prepared to have the head gasket skimmed and pressure tested. He would then like me to change my review or add to it.

 

To be honest I don't trust them to come near my beloved car again but don't really have much choice, if I turn down their offer it will cost me £350 on top of the £150 I already have to pay to replace the radiator and re-cut the valves.

 

Anyway, thanks again for everyone's help.

Nationwide

13/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

01/11/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

11/11/06 - Standard response to prelim

14/11/06 - LBA sent

17/11/06 - Standard response to LBA

04/12/06 - MCOL Issued

06/12/06 - MCOL Acknowledged

07/12/06 - Paid (almost in full)

 

HSBC

14/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

25/10/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

23/11/06 - LBA sent

31/01/07 - MCOL Issued (finally!!)

07/02/07 - MCOL Acknowledged

Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I OK to name the garage on here? It's difficult to explain everything without using names!

Nationwide

13/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

01/11/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

11/11/06 - Standard response to prelim

14/11/06 - LBA sent

17/11/06 - Standard response to LBA

04/12/06 - MCOL Issued

06/12/06 - MCOL Acknowledged

07/12/06 - Paid (almost in full)

 

HSBC

14/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

25/10/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

23/11/06 - LBA sent

31/01/07 - MCOL Issued (finally!!)

07/02/07 - MCOL Acknowledged

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they the national company beginning with K or N? Up here, neither have the inclination to do engine work, so would probably pass it on to someone else. Some of the places I have been little more than (mildly) glorified fitters of parts.

 

A classic kwikfit ploy is to use different flanges on exhaust fittings to everyone else. When you need a new part, you need to buy all the rest of the parts as they don't fit the parts on the car already.

 

I try to do most work on my cars myself, but use independets as much as possible.

 

Robin

Joint acc - Halifax - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 06 Oct 06, some statements received 24 Oct 06 - £264 so far! Prelim sent 26 Oct 06. here

 

Bills acc - Halifax - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 06 Oct 06 - £957 so far. Prelim sent 31 Oct 06

 

Old Student Account - £1082.49 charges and contractual interest - Prelim sent 01 Nov 06

 

Capital One - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 26 Oct 06 here

 

Monument - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 26 Oct 06 here

 

Wifes old Lloyds TSB - Gonna nail 'em

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying when the guy at the Rover garage says it was there fault because the system had not been bleed properly, but if they get a switched on independent engineer he will argue that the hose which failed originally was because the system was pressurising due to head gasket failure.

 

I currently have a transit diesel in bits because the head gasket failed the driver carried on driving and this has split the top hose due to the system pressurising. Now you would think that the pressure wouldn't get that high due to the pressure cap releasing it but I have seen this happen many times including a Rover 216 about three weeks ago this split the heater hose when the head gasket failed.

 

At the end of the day its up to you to decide if you are going to accept there offer or not but I think it would be very difficult to prove that the head gasket wasn't faulty when you left the car with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying when the guy at the Rover garage says it was there fault because the system had not been bleed properly, but if they get a switched on independent engineer he will argue that the hose which failed originally was because the system was pressurising due to head gasket failure.

 

I currently have a transit diesel in bits because the head gasket failed the driver carried on driving and this has split the top hose due to the system pressurising. Now you would think that the pressure wouldn't get that high due to the pressure cap releasing it but I have seen this happen many times including a Rover 216 about three weeks ago this split the heater hose when the head gasket failed.

 

At the end of the day its up to you to decide if you are going to accept there offer or not but I think it would be very difficult to prove that the head gasket wasn't faulty when you left the car with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again,

 

The company is Nationwide Autocentres. Sorry if I'm not supposed to mention them!

 

Anyway, they collected the car yesterday so we'll see how it runs when it comes back. I also found out on Friday that they road tested my car the day they did the MOT - why the heck did they do thet???!!!

Nationwide

13/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

01/11/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

11/11/06 - Standard response to prelim

14/11/06 - LBA sent

17/11/06 - Standard response to LBA

04/12/06 - MCOL Issued

06/12/06 - MCOL Acknowledged

07/12/06 - Paid (almost in full)

 

HSBC

14/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

25/10/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

23/11/06 - LBA sent

31/01/07 - MCOL Issued (finally!!)

07/02/07 - MCOL Acknowledged

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask them for an answer as to why they toke your car on the road during an MOT as this is not part of the MOT and if that is all the car was in for they have no reason or need to take it on the road unless that is they used it to fetch the sandwiches

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts exactly!!

Nationwide

13/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

01/11/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

11/11/06 - Standard response to prelim

14/11/06 - LBA sent

17/11/06 - Standard response to LBA

04/12/06 - MCOL Issued

06/12/06 - MCOL Acknowledged

07/12/06 - Paid (almost in full)

 

HSBC

14/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

25/10/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

23/11/06 - LBA sent

31/01/07 - MCOL Issued (finally!!)

07/02/07 - MCOL Acknowledged

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll bet they ragged it to McDonalds or something whilst the engine was cold. The K-series is not a fan of being ragged until warm.

 

Robin

Joint acc - Halifax - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 06 Oct 06, some statements received 24 Oct 06 - £264 so far! Prelim sent 26 Oct 06. here

 

Bills acc - Halifax - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 06 Oct 06 - £957 so far. Prelim sent 31 Oct 06

 

Old Student Account - £1082.49 charges and contractual interest - Prelim sent 01 Nov 06

 

Capital One - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 26 Oct 06 here

 

Monument - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 26 Oct 06 here

 

Wifes old Lloyds TSB - Gonna nail 'em

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, I didn't think of that. Thanks mnrbig.

 

Teethgrinder, I think you may be right!

 

I will let you all know how I get on with the AA.

Nationwide

13/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

01/11/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

11/11/06 - Standard response to prelim

14/11/06 - LBA sent

17/11/06 - Standard response to LBA

04/12/06 - MCOL Issued

06/12/06 - MCOL Acknowledged

07/12/06 - Paid (almost in full)

 

HSBC

14/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

25/10/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

23/11/06 - LBA sent

31/01/07 - MCOL Issued (finally!!)

07/02/07 - MCOL Acknowledged

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Can i just ask you why you had to pay £588 for an MOT, coolant hose and anti freeze.

The MOT is only £40ish, the hose would be £20ish and the Anti Freeze as you have stated is £25, it would take less than an hour to fit a hose refill with anti freeze and then bleed the system once the engine was warmed up.

Did you have a lot of work done to get the car through the MOT besides the hose and anti freeze, if you did was that work properly carried out ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Joe,

They also replaced 2 brake pipes and pads and discs.

Nationwide

13/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

01/11/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

11/11/06 - Standard response to prelim

14/11/06 - LBA sent

17/11/06 - Standard response to LBA

04/12/06 - MCOL Issued

06/12/06 - MCOL Acknowledged

07/12/06 - Paid (almost in full)

 

HSBC

14/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

25/10/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

23/11/06 - LBA sent

31/01/07 - MCOL Issued (finally!!)

07/02/07 - MCOL Acknowledged

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats still very expensive for replacing all that, i have a BMW and it was only £200 to have full set of disks and pads for front and back

 

Agreed, sounds pretty expensive, but without knowing which brake pipes were replaced its hard to tell. If they replaced the front to rear metal brake pipes than there could be a fair bit of labour involved. A break down of costs would be ideal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the invoice wilth a full break-down of costs. I forgot to mention they also replaced the mid and rear sections of the exhaust. The most expensive thing was the rear metal brake pipes which cost £120.

Nationwide

13/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

01/11/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

11/11/06 - Standard response to prelim

14/11/06 - LBA sent

17/11/06 - Standard response to LBA

04/12/06 - MCOL Issued

06/12/06 - MCOL Acknowledged

07/12/06 - Paid (almost in full)

 

HSBC

14/10/06 - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

25/10/06 - Statements received

02/11/06 - Prelim letter sent

23/11/06 - LBA sent

31/01/07 - MCOL Issued (finally!!)

07/02/07 - MCOL Acknowledged

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...