Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm afraid I think I would blitz it so as well as emailing the people you have just messaged, I would send messages out to everyone else. Part of the point is to engage in a campaign say that you disturb everyone. As the landlord has given a "care of" address, I think you could reasonably use that the service of proceedings if you need to. However I suggest that you check on the land registry web search and you may get more information. I'm quite sure that your tenancy agreement entitles you to peaceable enjoyment of your property and so from that point of view – yes there's probably breach. Also, do you have gas central heating and is there a gas safety certificate? Is there an electrical safety certificate? Are there smoke alarms? I think you should start going through the Internet and see what are the obligations of a commercial landlord in the circumstances and get a checklist and see what's missing. Now the time to cause trouble. However, don't forget that this will put you in conflict with your landlord and I expect there will be looking to get you out. When you moved in did you take pictures of the condition of the property? I should start taking pictures now – because if you do end up moving out either because he says you notice or else because you simply decide to up sticks, I can imagine that with this kind of attitude they may be some conflict over the condition of the property and therefore some conflict in respect of obtaining the return of your deposit or at least being refunded all of it. I'm afraid that you need to gear up here.
    • Y daughter just told me she’s been paying off a fine for £600    a bailiff called at her next doors ,  whist there they clocked her car in the drive way , not scorn not taxed off the raid ... I know i know  broken waiting money spending on it [ Ford]  turns out the DVKA took her to court in Bristol long waynaways because she hadn’t told the DVLA she’d moved and BENETTS  bought the debt , and chased her up at the new address to collect the payments ... how horrid is that? 
    • Hi BankFodder,        Thank you for your quick reply,  we feel a bit vulnerable living here with our two very little girls,   your reply is very much appreciated.   The Letting agent is Space4Living,  they say they wont do anything about it,   they only say it is a civil matter.   The landlord's name is on the Tenancy Agreement,   with the letting agent as a 'Care of' Address.   I have just sent an email to the local Environmental Health about everything,     and we will see what they say about it all.   Because the landlord seems not to be bothered about it,    if he does nothing or very little about it,    would he be in breach of our tenancy agreement ?   Cheers,    KFC  
    • Please advise if the following is ok to use?   I will say as follows:   It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of xxxxxxxx With recent dismissed claims such as claim no. Xxxxxxx it has come to light that the contract with the landowner stipulates 2 hours free parking at the Berkeley Centre car park and thus this case should also be dismissed not wasting valuable court time as the vehicle in question was parked for less than 2 hours.  The claimant in this case is not the proper claimant. As can be seen in their "contract". If there is a valid claimant at all it should be Excel Parking Services and not Vehicle Control Services.   Therefore, if any contract exists at all, the Landowner gave Excel Parking Services that contract. That contract is highly unlikely (although it cannot be proven as the claimant has not produced it) to give Excel Parking Services the right to assume the rights of the landowner and assign rights to another party.   While both Vehicle Control Services (Company number 02498820) and Excel Parking Services (Company number 02878122) have the same 'controlling minds',  & they are run as completely separate companies and cannot assign rights to one another on a whim and/or without the express permission of the landowner and even then, those rights can only be rightfully assigned by the landowner themselves and as that has not been produced as part of their witness statement one can only draw the conclusion that this is because that right (by way of contract of assignment) does not exist.   Further, while dealing with the so called "contract", it is not valid now and was not valid on the day that the event that brings us here today took place. As can be seen clearly on the contract, the contract was made for a FIXED PERIOD of 36 months from 25th November 2010. This means that this contract expired on or around 25th November 2010. As no renewed "contract" has been provided, again one can only assume that on the balance of probability, it does not exist.   In either case, as has been shown, Vehicle Control Services are not the proper claimant therefore there can be no cause of action as Vehicle Control Services has no Locus Standi to make or bring a claim and waste the valuable time of this court. If a contract existed at all (and there was a subsequent breach) it would either be between myself/driver and Excel Parking Services or myself/driver and the landowner. Vehicle Control Services are merely a third party and do not (as they have shown themselves in their own evidence) have a valid contract in place to manage the car park.   There is nothing said in the evidence to assert that Vehicle Control Services are acting as an agency on behalf of the actual contract holder therefore Vehicle Control Services cannot (and indeed do not claim to) have privity of contract. Dunlop Tyre Co v Selfridge [1915] AC 847, in which the action failed because although there was a contract, the plaintiffs were not a party to it and "only a person who is a party to a contract can sue on it," (per Lord Haldane).     This position (Vehicle Control Services being the wrong claimant) is backed up by their own evidence bundle. I refer you to photograph 28, 29 and 30 in the claimant’s bundle which clearly shows a 'Car Park' sign. The logo in the bottom and top right of the signs is for Excel Parking Services and not Vehicle Control Services who are making the claim in this case.   Vehicle Control Services know this to be the case as there have been many dismissed cases and discontinued claims.   Vehicle Control Services -v- Ms A. C6DP7P37 at Birmingham County Court. Dismissed. Wrong Claimant. Vehicle Control Services -v- Unknown. C1DP3H5V at Birmingham County Court. Discontinued. Wrong claimant.   As well as all of the following Discontinued claims. A8QZ6666, 3QZ53955, C8DP9D8C, C2DP0H7C, C1DP3H5V and C8DP37CH et al, all discontinued when it was pointed out to BW Legal that VCS had no right to pursue the matter as they were not the rightful claimant.   It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; see paragraph 5.1a (enclosed). The car park signs are owned by Excel Parking, see claimants bundle 28, 29, 30 photographs and I have not entered into a contract with VCS. Following receipt of parking charge notices and letter before claim, I wrote to the Claimant stating that the Berkeley Centre pay and display car park is not managed by the Claimant but rather another party and invited the Claimant to drop their claim. Upon receipt of County court claim form Under CPR 31.14 on 14th August 2019 I requested evidence of the Claimant’s contract between VCS and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name, and proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.  The Claimant refused to comply with this request and have provided no evidence of their connection to Excel Parking. I have yet to receive any evidence of myself the Defendant entering into a contract with the Claimant (Vehicle Control Services) nor any evidence of planning permission granted for signage. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. ‘VCS had no right to claim damages in trespass against motorists…and that the penalty charges did not constitute, in VCS’s hands, such damages (and) that there was no contract between VCS and the motorist.’ The Claimant did not evidence any contract by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.   Thanks  
    • Latest info      Creditor Claims Of £535,636,017  This is the extent of the damage Wonga has caused... I hope this serves as a lesson to everyone. Please steer clear of PDLs.
  • Our picks

AfterMidnight

MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1035 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

thank you, I know it is long :-(

 

I am just struggling to work it all out, my brain doesn't function so well after my accident and the ton of paperwork they sent doesn't make any sense :-(

 

thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoop Whoop!

 

My complaint has been upheld by the fos. Just waiting for MBNA offer on my account. Doesn't help with the current issues but at least I will get my own build sheet to argue.

 

Can't believe it 18 months and 22 pages on here since I last looked at this thread. Hopefully with my own calculation to look at and compare to all my statements I should have some fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Miaspa 2010

 

 

Good news for you, will be interesting to see what they come up with. If you want any opinions on what you receive, do post up as usual minus any identifiable stuff irrevocably blanked out, and see what those people who have now been looking at these for a long time reckon.

 

 

Well done again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Miaspa 2010

 

 

Good news for you, will be interesting to see what they come up with. If you want any opinions on what you receive, do post up as usual minus any identifiable stuff irrevocably blanked out, and see what those people who have now been looking at these for a long time reckon.

 

 

Well done again.

 

Hi all

I have not been on the thread for a while as i wait for a response from the FOS on MBNA PPI calculations.

 

I am still following events on the thread and even though things seem a bit quite at present.

 

I am really getting quitely confident that an explosion of a scandal is about to happen.

 

I asked last week for an update on my case and the response i have had is from the casework manager

and interestingly not my adjudicator.

 

There may well be a reason why my adjudicator did not reply though

it is still something to hear from their manager.

 

Please read on the reply i had, as usual any comments welcome,

or maybe we should not speculate though its hard not to...

...Thank you for your email.

 

Please accept my apologies for the delay in our response. I can see that my colleague,

 

Vicki McAusland, sent you a letter on 10 March 2014

to explain we are looking into MBNA’s calculations on a wider basis.

 

Since Vicki last wrote to you we have been looking closely at the way MBNA carries out its calculations.

 

We have asked MBNA for more information about its calculations and when we’ve had response

s to all our enquiries we should be in a position to respond to your concerns.

 

This is taking longer than we had hoped so thank you for your patience while we look into it.

 

As soon as we’ve finished this work,

 

we’ll be in touch with you again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update whatisdue, as you say we should not speculate probably, but FOS "kind of" reporting back that they are asking questions, and still awaiting feasible answers... can't really be a bad sign....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had in the post today a letter saying very much same as whatisdue's recent letter, in my case coming from Vicki McAusland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ditto twice as one for me and one for OH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Evening,

 

I have also received a letter from Ms. Vicki McAusland - FOS Lead Adjudicator.

 

Ms. McAusland, apologises for her delay in resonding about MBNA and its credit card payment protection insurance redress...

 

"Since last I wrote to you we have been looking closely at the way MBNA carries out its calculations. We have asked MBNA for more information about its calculations and when we've had responses to ALL our enquiries we should be in a position to respond to your concerns.

 

Its taking longer than we had hoped so thank you for your patience while we look into it...."

 

I do hope that the Financial Ombudsman Service is really 'looking closely', as it would appear that there has been a rather large blunder made recently...!

 

I will leave the matter there for now and continue to wait, patiently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The following may well be of benefit:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27679311

 

Will they ever change...!?

 

Very unlikely.. whilst they think they can get away with it.. they will!


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken / A/C everyone could you comment on what MBNA claim that the PPI is the last item on the statement charged and could not possibily affect any charges / overlimit fees when quite clearly on the statement PPI is one of the first charges ? Also as the PPI remains in the account each month and is quantifiable how can it possibily not affect charges. MBNA say they are quite confident on their methodology so who has given them this independant advise that they claim of to be correct in their redress ways when clearly it is not ?

The following may well be of benefit:-

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27679311

 

Will they ever change...!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions as per above raised by whatisdue are good ones, although there may not really be any sensible answers...

 

 

The arguments (first payment is PPI, so this is cleared and therefor does not attract interest) are old ones,

and the counterargument is that even if that was indeed taken first, and disappeared from the account

- well then the exact same value was left in.

 

Meaning this "left in" value was an effect of PPI premiums, so must be consequently corrected for the value and interest

then accrued if correcting for PPI mis-sale and putting someone back in the position that they would have been in if it was not for the PPI premiums.

 

As for who has given them this independent onceover "all fine" methodology advice?

 

Dunno, but I sincerely hope for their sake they have hugely extensive professional indemnity insurance for the quotable if anonymous advice they gave..

.. I suspect they gave MBNA a small piece of OK of part of the jigsaw..

. and that has been taken as something of a licence to overextend that claim...

 

Unfortunately for MBNA, the days of people, advisers, and hopefully industry regulators tending to automatically believe the bank's bluff

"we are the experts, trust us" when making such judgement calls...are well and truly over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with AMN here.

 

The MBNA response is one of we know best so dont bother us little plebs.

 

Sadly for them I suspect the powers that be are now starting to work out they have been had by them aswell. The more that is uncovered then the less the FCA will believe them about anything. The point raised in the article is separate from the issue raised within this thread.

 

But FCA guidance explicitly states these charges should be returned.

An overlimit that was even a few hundred over the limit at the end of the account

(when normally most people were suffering financial meltdown) cannot possibly be correct

if the reconstructed balance is below the limit at the time.

 

To let such a penalty stand doesnt put the consumer back to where they would have been if the PPI wasnt there.

 

Indeed I am sure many late fees towards the end of these accounts are also wrong.

 

If the new reconstructed balance goes into credit how an earth can a late fee have occurred.

 

The card was in credit MBNA. No wonder we had a banking crisis if you cannot work out that a penalty charge cannot be levied against a credit balance.

 

This thread started nearly 2 years ago.

 

We know exactly what they are up to.

 

Hopefully a great big fine and an ordering of them to look at one and every claim they have ever admitted too should now be on the regulators mind.

 

This isnt chicken feed they have once again [problem]med the consumer of this is millions.

 

To [problem] once is bad enough but then to [problem] many more times after you have been caught shows the real face of banking.

 

And interestingly everyone of those named and shamed is on my personnal list of under paying banks. No surprise there.

 

Keep the faith everyone. Think even the powers that regulate this crooked industry are waking up to dont trust them on anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the reply I received to my second complaint about unlawful charges. All the charges were applied before 2006 so their argument doesn't hold water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your details are showing thru the pen

 

att removed

 

**you can post up images/letters by this method immediately..you don't need 10 posts**

.

set your default scan page size to A4 less than 300DPI [150 will do]

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets - as a picture[jpg] file

don't forget you can use a mobile phone or a digital camera too!!

'

BUT......

ENSURE: remove all pers info inc. barcodes etc

but leave all monetary figures and dates.

.

************************* ************************* *******

{DO NOT USE A BIRO OR PEN OR USE SEE THRU TAPE OR LABELS]

************************* ************************* ***********

.

DO IT IN MSPAINT.EXE or any photo editing program

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites ...

http://freejpgtopdf.com/

http://www.convert-jpg-to-pdf.net/

..

if you have multiple scans/pics

put them in a word doc FIRST and convert that to PDF

or http://www.freepdfconvert.com/

or

use www.pdfmerge.com

 

convert existing PC files to PDF [office has an installable print to PDF option]

..

it would be better to upload a multipage pdf if

you have many images too rather than many single pdfs

.

or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

or use word and save as pdf

try and logically name your file so people know what it is.

though DONT USE BANK NAMES or CAG in the title

i'e Default notice DD-mm-yyyy

.

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

...

YOU DONT have to put a link to the attachment in the msg box..just upload it ..job done

you can click on your links to check them too!

.

dx


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI under sec 32 c ' a 'mistake' you can reclaim them

 

dx


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all

 

Just posting as I don't seem to get notifications so thought I would post to see if I would get them now.

 

Like the rest of you - I am just now waiting !

 

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi GS

 

 

Yup...tick, tick, tick, tick...wait....tick, tick

 

 

I did say around January to my other half that I reckoned it would all be mostly over at some point during 2014. I still think that that is likely, but the wheels of FOS (and FCA) move s-l-o-w-l-y. Hopefully at some point over the summer FOS will one day realise that they will never actually never be receiving more than the (in all probability) story of "of-course-it's-fine" posturing, flannel and "completely-understandable-postponements" from our friends in Chester ...

 

 

The authorities and regulators have the evidence, have asked some questions apparently and will, at some point, have to make their minds up if MBNA's creative ppi'-ing is within acceptable allowable remit...

 

 

I would wonder if this one (being one of many issues now bubbling up to awareness with other institutions' methods) would actually be some nice low-hanging-fruit for FOS to make a first hard stand on...

 

 

AMN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi AM

 

Hurrah I got a notification - totally agree with your thoughts; I rang the FCA chap and told him I had given the FOS permission to let him have details of my case if he wanted to review in view of their investigation - couldn't be bothered to print and sort everything again ! He seemed very nice;

 

Just finished writing to Barclays - have finally decided to go after them for the overdraft protection ! Here I go again on the PPI merry go round ! Must be mad!

 

Have also claimed on a couple of mortgage care policies - don't know where I'll get with thos but its worth a try....

 

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken / AMN / G/S A/C everyone.

 

 

While I am waiting like most people on this thread for the FOS to reveal the findings of their investigations into MBNA. I have been looking further into the BBC report on shortchange of consumers PPI redress by lenders notably MBNA by not including O/L fees and charges in redress.

 

 

On the V20 B037 build there is a 'Other Trans' column that was not fully explained to me. The £12 charge for O/L or Late fees are straight forward. Though there also large amounts of £1,133 and £205 which always come up when the balance is over the limit (page18 of thread). I looked at Nathan 003 who has the same V20 B037 build on page 6 of this thread. I noticed the same thing of £12 charges against O/L monthly balances and also some large amounts of money against O/L balances. I suspect this would also be on the V20 B031 build.

 

 

My point is are these amounts in the 'Other Trans' column charges along with the obvious £12 charges that should be returned to the consumer including interest. Knowing PPI charges caused the balance to go O/L ?. I can not find any record of the large 'Other Trans' on my statements just the £12 O/L & Late fees so this does puzzle me. Also I notice there is a very large amount of money in the very first entry of 'Other Trans' which I can not account for. I also noticed this on Nathan 003 build. It is not on my statements to cross check.

 

 

your comments on this please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totally agree with AMN here.

 

The MBNA response is one of we know best so dont bother us little plebs.

 

Sadly for them I suspect the powers that be are now starting to work out they have been had by them aswell. The more that is uncovered then the less the FCA will believe them about anything. The point raised in the article is separate from the issue raised within this thread.

 

But FCA guidance explicitly states these charges should be returned.

An overlimit that was even a few hundred over the limit at the end of the account

(when normally most people were suffering financial meltdown) cannot possibly be correct

if the reconstructed balance is below the limit at the time.

 

To let such a penalty stand doesnt put the consumer back to where they would have been if the PPI wasnt there.

 

Indeed I am sure many late fees towards the end of these accounts are also wrong.

 

If the new reconstructed balance goes into credit how an earth can a late fee have occurred.

 

The card was in credit MBNA. No wonder we had a banking crisis if you cannot work out that a penalty charge cannot be levied against a credit balance.

 

This thread started nearly 2 years ago.

 

We know exactly what they are up to.

 

Hopefully a great big fine and an ordering of them to look at one and every claim they have ever admitted too should now be on the regulators mind.

 

This isnt chicken feed they have once again [problem]med the consumer of this is millions.

 

To [problem] once is bad enough but then to [problem] many more times after you have been caught shows the real face of banking.

 

And interestingly everyone of those named and shamed is on my personnal list of under paying banks. No surprise there.

 

Keep the faith everyone. Think even the powers that regulate this crooked industry are waking up to dont trust them on anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ken, AMN, everyone i suspect you have all been watching the world cup ! and missed my post on the 'Other Transaction column on the V20-B037 Build !

 

I really would welcome a response and advise on my post to understand if and how it should fit in with proper redress.

 

Also i forgot to mention that my statements prove beyound doubt that the PPI monthly charge is placed on the overlimit balance amount.

 

Making complete rubbish of the MBNA claim in the BBC investigation article that it is charged first

and that it could never affect O/L charges/feesAll comments are welcome.

Ken / AMN / G/S A/C everyone.

 

 

While I am waiting like most people on this thread for the FOS to reveal the findings of their investigations into MBNA. I have been looking further into the BBC report on shortchange of consumers PPI redress by lenders notably MBNA by not including O/L fees and charges in redress.

 

 

On the V20 B037 build there is a 'Other Trans' column that was not fully explained to me. The £12 charge for O/L or Late fees are straight forward. Though there also large amounts of £1,133 and £205 which always come up when the balance is over the limit (page18 of thread). I looked at Nathan 003 who has the same V20 B037 build on page 6 of this thread. I noticed the same thing of £12 charges against O/L monthly balances and also some large amounts of money against O/L balances. I suspect this would also be on the V20 B031 build.

 

 

My point is are these amounts in the 'Other Trans' column charges along with the obvious £12 charges that should be returned to the consumer including interest. Knowing PPI charges caused the balance to go O/L ?. I can not find any record of the large 'Other Trans' on my statements just the £12 O/L & Late fees so this does puzzle me. Also I notice there is a very large amount of money in the very first entry of 'Other Trans' which I can not account for. I also noticed this on Nathan 003 build. It is not on my statements to cross check.

 

 

your comments on this please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MBNA are still working odd calculations just had my offer through, just requested a copy of the calculation. The refund is only marginally higher than if interest was worked out at 8% simple on the PPI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From memory comparing with my say printout the other transactions are the total of expenditure on the card. I would more inclined to ask why you are loaning 776.86 at 8% simple so MBNA can loan it back to you at 17% compound. Basically that is the effect of the surplus redress column.

 

Ken, AMN, everyone i suspect you have all been watching the world cup ! and missed my post on the 'Other Transaction column on the V20-B037 Build !

 

I really would welcome a response and advise on my post to understand if and how it should fit in with proper redress.

 

Also i forgot to mention that my statements prove beyound doubt that the PPI monthly charge is placed on the overlimit balance amount.

 

Making complete rubbish of the MBNA claim in the BBC investigation article that it is charged first

and that it could never affect O/L charges/feesAll comments are welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: whatisdue's : "Ken, AMN, everyone i suspect you have all been watching the world cup ! and missed my post on the 'Other Transaction column on the V20-B037 Build !

 

I really would welcome a response and advise on my post to understand if and how it should fit in with proper redress."

 

 

I will try to take a look a bit later, being doing summer things.

 

 

AMN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...