Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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

Penalty Fare payment by post 'not received' by First Capital Connect- do I now have to pay more/face prosecution??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4147 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

Dear all

I was issued with a penalty fare about a month ago as I had stupidly failed to notice that my railcard was out of date.

 

I paid half the penalty fare on the spot as I was down to my last £10 cash and was already at my overdraft limit, so (I thought) it would have cost me more to go into unpaid overdraft...

 

The ticket inspector issued me with a bit of paper which I then lost (I am the Queen of organisation....:/). Thus I did not have the PF number so waited for the reminder letter which arrived on 2 Dec dated 26 November. The internet payment option failed to recognise my penalty number notice so I sent my card details by post on about the 7th of December. Within the allotted time.

 

I today received a letter dated 11 Dec saying they had not received payment and I now had to pay another£20 'administration costs' or they will prosecute.

 

They could well have lost my letter or delayed the payment themselves. Should I pay yet another£20 on top (for a £10 'missing' amount!?) or should I write to them about the matter first? It is grim that they use the threat of criminal prosecution as a cosh in this way and I've vowed never to use FCC's poxy service again (I'm not a commuter on that line thank God).

 

I also wondered if it would be worth representing myself in court to get declared not guilty as I accepted the PF and had no intention whatever to evade fares. Stupidity and ignorance are defences to an intentional fraud prosecution. There is also the strict liability element, but as I have in fact paid (and sent my card details today authorising them to take the £10 again) would this apply? And how can a strict liability offence (like a parking fine) bar you from certain careers and entering the USA etc?! This seems crazy to me (and I am a lawyer :D)

I've also written to FCC customer complaints about the whole sorry saga and am waiting to hear back. I'll let you know what they say :S

 

R

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just read online that the strict liability offence does apply to all just by being on the train with incorrect ticket, however I'm not clear if actually trying to pay the PF discharges the liability or not.

 

I also read that it is an offence which shows up at CRB 'enhanced disclosure' but not clear if this would affect things like entry to USA and when it would become spent?

 

It seems a crazy situation that there is now a sort of crime of a. being flaky and disorganised on public transport b. not having the ability to pay up early and settle. The latter doesn't apply to me but I've read some hairraising stories on here of 16 year olds etc (or rather their parents) having to pay hundreds to settle out of court. The strict liability criminal offence clearly means nothing in terms of actual conduct a reasonable person would deem criminal- and one would hope enlightened employers are increasingly ignoring it.

 

thanks all for looking

R

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear all

I was issued with a penalty fare about a month ago as I had stupidly failed to notice that my railcard was out of date.

 

I paid half the penalty fare on the spot as I was down to my last £10 cash and was already at my overdraft limit, so (I thought) it would have cost me more to go into unpaid overdraft...

 

The ticket inspector issued me with a bit of paper which I then lost (I am the Queen of organisation....:/). Thus I did not have the PF number so waited for the reminder letter which arrived on 2 Dec dated 26 November. The internet payment option failed to recognise my penalty number notice so I sent my card details by post on about the 7th of December. Within the allotted time.

 

I today received a letter dated 11 Dec saying they had not received payment and I now had to pay another£20 'administration costs' or they will prosecute.

 

They could well have lost my letter or delayed the payment themselves. Should I pay yet another£20 on top (for a £10 'missing' amount!?) or should I write to them about the matter first? It is grim that they use the threat of criminal prosecution as a cosh in this way and I've vowed never to use FCC's poxy service again (I'm not a commuter on that line thank God).

 

I also wondered if it would be worth representing myself in court to get declared not guilty as I accepted the PF and had no intention whatever to evade fares. Stupidity and ignorance are defences to an intentional fraud prosecution. There is also the strict liability element, but as I have in fact paid (and sent my card details today authorising them to take the £10 again) would this apply? And how can a strict liability offence (like a parking fine) bar you from certain careers and entering the USA etc?! This seems crazy to me (and I am a lawyer :D)

I've also written to FCC customer complaints about the whole sorry saga and am waiting to hear back. I'll let you know what they say :S

 

R

 

As a lawyer you can assess if a court will believe that you lost the paperwork, and then sent the payment (after the reminder) but it got lost in the post.

As a lawyer, you no doubt sent the payment with the potential for such an impact on you by a recorded delivery method, or at least got a certificate of posting?

As a lawyer, you will no doubt have assessed the risk that they will decide they might not succeed with a charge of "intent" but may instead use a strict liability charge : would you be able to defend against not showing a valid ticket (if the ticket relied on a valid railcard that you did not have) "on demand": did they ask to see a valid ticket, and did you produce one?.

 

A criminal conviction may result from a strict liability offence : as a lawyer are you arguing that strict liability offences shouldn't be permitted?.

 

It would be up to e.g. US immigration and / or your professional body to assess the risk based on the details of an offence, if found guilty if a strict liability offence.

 

If convicted, it may be that the USA would still allow you to visit : having a conviction might not bar you from the USA : it might just mean that you could no longer use the "visa waiver" scheme, and would have to have a visa approved in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

er.... actually 'as a lawyer' I've no idea if the court would 'believe' me. From what I have seen (and my area of work isn't criminal) magistrates tend to go very much by class etc eg they are more likely to let off a middle class woman if they are one themselves. The defendant speaks their language. But whoever I end up in front of might not like the look of me.

 

From the one's I've met, judges and magistrates do forget paperwork- especially small stuff like tickets- as much (or more than!) anyone else. They have to pay fines like this themselves as they lead busy lives and forget details which is what the train companies seem to be taxing us all on- and I haven't met one who speaks favourably of strict liability fining. For a start it clogs up the (publicly funded) courts with a load of vexatious nonsense aimed at maximising train company profits.

 

Thanks for the info on USA. I know drugs offences etc really bar you for life, but a missing ticket seems very far from that.

 

I think I DID use recorded delivery however, I usually do for things like that. Will check as that could help, but they could still try to charge me anyway with the threat of prosecution couldn't they? I'll try it at least.I have not heard anything much good about the 'Independent' appeals service.

 

It appears FCC will try to get money any way they can. I am just not sure whether courts will agree with them as to their methods.

 

As understandably most people are frightened into settling, there doesn't seem to be much on the web about people actually going through court battles with this lot.

They clearly have me for the SL offence. It's SL like a parking fine. My query was whether a court would take into account that I have accepted the PF and tried to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

btw 'as a lawyer' I do have a lot of arguments against SL defences, as many others do lawyers or not!! But that's not relevant here as the law is in place so they have got me on it and I committed the offence. But do I have to do the full time, as it were, that's what I want to know :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear all

I was issued with a penalty fare about a month ago as I had stupidly failed to notice that my railcard was out of date.

 

I paid half the penalty fare on the spot as I was down to my last £10 cash and was already at my overdraft limit, so (I thought) it would have cost me more to go into unpaid overdraft...

 

The ticket inspector issued me with a bit of paper which I then lost (I am the Queen of organisation....:/). Thus I did not have the PF number so waited for the reminder letter which arrived on 2 Dec dated 26 November. The internet payment option failed to recognise my penalty number notice so I sent my card details by post on about the 7th of December. Within the allotted time.

 

I today received a letter dated 11 Dec saying they had not received payment and I now had to pay another£20 'administration costs' or they will prosecute.

 

They could well have lost my letter or delayed the payment themselves. Should I pay yet another£20 on top (for a £10 'missing' amount!?) or should I write to them about the matter first? It is grim that they use the threat of criminal prosecution as a cosh in this way and I've vowed never to use FCC's poxy service again (I'm not a commuter on that line thank God).

 

I also wondered if it would be worth representing myself in court to get declared not guilty as I accepted the PF and had no intention whatever to evade fares. Stupidity and ignorance are defences to an intentional fraud prosecution. There is also the strict liability element, but as I have in fact paid (and sent my card details today authorising them to take the £10 again) would this apply? And how can a strict liability offence (like a parking fine) bar you from certain careers and entering the USA etc?! This seems crazy to me (and I am a lawyer biggrin.png)

I've also written to FCC customer complaints about the whole sorry saga and am waiting to hear back. I'll let you know what they say :S

 

 

Sorry, I don't often get really annoyed by threads on here, but I have to say.............What a lot of drivel!

 

As a lawyer perhaps you might remind yourself that the rail companies do not maximise profits by going to Court with these cases. They are actually a cost to the companies, some of which they may recoup through awards following successful prosecution, but the fines and surcharges all go into the Courts central funds, a great deal of which is then paid out to lawyers for various reasons.

 

As a lawyer you might also remind yourself that you are asking your clients to pay you substantial fees for checking details.

As a lawyer, perhaps you should remind yourself that it was your failure to check details i.e; that your Railcard hadn't expired, which got you into this situation in the first place

As a lawyer having made that mistake, you then managed to lose the all important notice that was just a reminder to deal with the issue without further problem

 

You say 'thank God' that you are not a regular commuter on the FCC route. I think a few readers may be thinking 'if this person is so disorganised, I hope that isn't the lawyer I've just engaged to deal with my matter!'

 

er.... actually 'as a lawyer' I've no idea if the court would 'believe' me. From what I have seen (and my area of work isn't criminal) magistrates tend to go very much by class etc eg they are more likely to let off a middle class woman if they are one themselves. The defendant speaks their language. But whoever I end up in front of might not like the look of me.

 

From the one's I've met, judges and magistrates do forget paperwork- especially small stuff like tickets- as much (or more than!) anyone else. They have to pay fines like this themselves as they lead busy lives and forget details which is what the train companies seem to be taxing us all on- and I haven't met one who speaks favourably of strict liability fining. For a start it clogs up the (publicly funded) courts with a load of vexatious nonsense aimed at maximising train company profits.

 

I think I DID use recorded delivery however, I usually do for things like that. Will check as that could help, but they could still try to charge me anyway with the threat of prosecution couldn't they? I'll try it at least.I have not heard anything much good about the 'Independent' appeals service.

 

It appears FCC will try to get money any way they can. I am just not sure whether courts will agree with them as to their methods.

 

As understandably most people are frightened into settling, there doesn't seem to be much on the web about people actually going through court battles with this lot.

 

They clearly have me for the SL offence. It's SL like a parking fine. My query was whether a court would take into account that I have accepted the PF and tried to pay.

 

 

As a lawyer I don't think your apparently clear class prejudices will help endear you to many clients. (post 4)

As a lawyer perhaps a reassessment of your opinions, achieved by acknowledging the thousands of successful cases heard every year by Magistrates across the country, might help you to understand that the Courts do not consider these matters to be what you describe as 'a load of vexatious nonsense aimed at maximising train company profits'.

 

As a lawyer, I am quite surprised by your comment here: 'It appears FCC will try to get money any way they can. I am just not sure whether courts will agree with them as to their methods.

 

Their 'methods' appear to me to be:

i) to allow a traveller who has failed to comply with a rule to resolve an otherwise prosecutable strict liability matter by paying a charge, determined by statutory instrument.

ii) to allow that traveller 21 days to pay, or successfully appeal

iii) to allow the traveller, who has not paid, or appealed within the 21 days, a further 14 days to pay the fare plus a bit of the administration cost that was incurred by dealing with the traveller's failures

iv) to remind the traveller that they have had 3 chances to resolve the matter, which they have failed to act upon and then to issue the summons that could have been issued at step one.

 

As a lawyer, put yourself in the position of a lay Magistrate, being presented with that information and being asked to consider why a trained lawyer had not responded to a strict liability allegation given three separate opportunities to do so

 

You say; 'As understandably most people are frightened into settling, there doesn't seem to be much on the web about people actually going through court battles with this lot.'

 

As a lawyer, maybe you should again remind yourself that 'the web' is not the only resource available to check for such information, but having said that, I do not agree. There is a mass of information posted by many hundreds of people on these various sites.

 

Generally speaking, the majority do not come back and tell us how they got on, very frequently because they lost, but as in all these matters, there will be exceptions.

 

To get to the main point, as a lawyer perhaps you might reflect on the fact that most people are not 'frightened into settling' as you claim. A proportion of people facing these issues appear to weigh up their chances, ask advice of others, have a look at the 'web', frequently seek legal advice from a good lawyer, recognise that they have not complied with a clear rule and write to ask the TOC to allow them to make a payment rather than risk a conviction and much higher charge.

 

You have not yet been charged with any offence. My guess is that if you choose not to pay and if a summons is issued that summons will allege that you 'did fail to show a valid ticket on demand' contrary to National Railway Byelaw 18.2 [2005].

 

A discounted travel ticket that is presented without a valid railcard authorising the traveller's claim of entitlement to that discount, is not a valid ticket.

 

If you were charged with 'intent to avoid a fare', which in my opinion is very unlikely, it would be a different matter and I would say that you have a defence, but you have the option of getting rid of all the risk in relation to strict liability right now.

 

Your call

Edited by Old-CodJA
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to report all sorted by First Capital Connect Customer Services. They say payment was debited 13 Dec so they are not going to pursue the charge.

 

What a bunch of dull pedants there are on here. People post for advice and that's it. Get a grip!

 

For anyone who actually wants to sort out their issue with a penalty fare rather than be lectured by said loons, best to go direct to customer services who it appears can sort all the nonsense out post haste.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at other thread I've noticed the same angry little men (I assume it's men) posting rants at people who are just asking for advice. Why not go and commit a bit of road rage instead? You'll feel better, I assure you.

 

Thanks to those who bothered to give decent advice eg Bazza.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and by the way Old Cod, I am currently off sick with a severe illness and have to take medication which leads to lapses of concentration, absent mindedness and fainting fits.

 

Although you will no doubt be horrified to hear that I am still doing some part time work from home where I can and check everything 10x for my clients. I have had no complaints in 10 years. A file of paperwork managed under specific conditions is very different from the administrative details of one's own life, which take a back seat where concentration and energy are in short supply. My work is for my clients and not you to make assumptions about and you don't know what the hell you are talking about, so stay out of it.

 

I saw no reason to mention that in my original post as it is hardly anyone's business but mine, although it might have been relevant in court later.

 

So stick that in your smugly judgemental craw. If you ever get ill (and we all do at some time) I hope that you find yourself able to maintain your obviously impeccable standards of... whatever, because no one's going to want to give an inch for such a bitter person. (You may be a total delight in real life but frankly, I doubt it).

Edited by morpheus2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do remain amazed as to how the internet facilitates this bizarre level of judgemental superiority from people who clearly have no grounds for it whatever. I guess it is the a forum where sad little people can feel superior to everyone else and spit their bile anonymously.

 

I mean it when I say I think you'd feel better if you went out and actually talked to real people.Then if you still felt like insulting them gratuitously, at least you'd be doing it from a correct knowledge base.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please lets keep this Civil...there is little point in personal attacks.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please lets keep this Civil...there is little point in personal attacks.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

Thanks Andy,

 

I agree we should always keep it civil, which is why I referred only to the relevant matters.

 

As you probably know, having spent most of the past 30 years in and out of courtrooms dealing with these issues and fiesty solicitors, such personal attacks are water off this old Drake's back.

 

Yes, I'm definitely male, unfortunately we cannot escape the fact that the OP's later flood of short posts did underline my point about prejudices.

 

Despite that, I'm genuinely glad it's sorted for her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at other thread I've noticed the same angry little men (I assume it's men) posting rants at people who are just asking for advice. Why not go and commit a bit of road rage instead? You'll feel better, I assure you.

 

Thanks to those who bothered to give decent advice eg Bazza.

 

What little information I've gathered to be able to offer advice has been based on my own experience, Internet research, but primarily reading the postings of "industry experts" like Old-CodJA.

 

I've had people criticise my posts, too .... Usually when they haven't liked my answer, rather than them disagreeing as to its factual accuracy. I haven't seen where OCJA's post was inaccurate.

 

I'm glad it was resolved for the OP. If FCC had chosen instead to proceed with the strict liability offence it would have been hard to defend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear there is a resolution in this case - I am therefore closing the thread.

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

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4147 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...