Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good thinking! I only requested the telephone hearing (in the body of the email) and will send the further note tomorrow to cover all bases!
    • @FTMDave i am attaching the photographs of the Alama park please have a look. Checking your previous post where you corrected some line and suggest some but i could not understand. Is it possible if you edit and delete irrelevant lines.    I have edited little bit but not sure what to add and what to look for   Mr XXX, of xxx and I am the Defendant against whom this claim is made. 1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX. 1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.   INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE  This is likely to be one of your aces so will need a lot of work once you get photos.  The fleecers have also shown a plan where they claim there are signs (their WS post 12, PDF page 15 which you need to confront).   2. I confirm that i was the registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma leisure centre Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in (the bank statement proof exhibit 1).   3. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.   3.  Even if the driver had seen the signs, they would have been extremely confusing.  A car is normally allowed to be parked for five hours, yet after midnight this is changed to one hour.  This begs the question for how long a motorist entering at 10pm for example is allowed to stay.  Is it for five hours until 3am or until 1am?   3.1. The PCN/NTK states "period of parking 00:02:05".  It is common sense that a couple of minutes was needed to enter the complex, find McDonald's and find a parking space, before the period of parking began, so it was likely the car entered the car park before midnight allowing the driver to park the car there for five hours.   4.  Even if the driver had seen the signage - they did not - the mention of a £100 charge is literally the last word on the last line of a long board of text.   4. I am not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as already filed.     UNFAIR TERM   4.  In an interview with the local newspaper (exhibit XXX) Ms Ellie Berkeley, HX PCN administration team leader, said: “The five-hour maximum stay prevents workers from close by abusing the land and parking there for free, without using the shops on site" which makes sense.   5.  This therefore begs the question of why this limit is cut by a massive 80% after midnight when the cinema and eateries are still open.  The driver indeed ate at McDonald's.   6.  Ms Berkeley continued: "Five hours is sufficient time to visit the cinema and also eat at a restaurant".  Certainly five hours are sufficient.  One hour is not.    7.  I would maintain this is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 part 2 section 62 (6) ""A notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer".  Such a term has absolutely nothing to do with efficient management of a car park and everything to do with trying to catch diners or cinema-goers out and thus have an excuse to issue PCNs.   NO KEEPER LIABILITY   5. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.  Is this really in the PoCs? - you need to look and find out. Where to look on PCN letter?   The rest of your section is about the use of POFA at airports which is completely irrelevant.    Adapt LFI's suggestions re POFA and keeper liability -   First is the fact that they must have a parking period and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit. All that takes time so that is one fail.   The other fail is in their wording when they are trying to transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. They are supposed to include at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". That in itself makes it non compliant but the fact that they haven't got a parking period means they haven't met the applicable conditions.   PROHIBITION  This deals with no stopping cases.  Yours in not no stopping so it is completely irrelevant.   LOCUS STANDI   You have quoted a different contract in a different place with a different PPC.  You need to read and try to find holes in the contract they produced (post 12, page 15 of the PDF for anyone looking in). What shall i add here   Adapt LFI's suggestions -   Looking at their contract, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted. You do need strict proof of who actually signed. There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow Court action in pursuit of non payers. In section 11 which is like an addendum it states" the Company shall provide parking control" but doesn't state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   ILLEGAL SIGNAGE   8. After checking, I have found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.   LFI's suggestion -   They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   ABUSE OF PROCESS  I've cut some bits out as the CoP hadn't been published when the fleecers went after you.  Are you sure the Unicorn Food Tax in the PoCs is £60? ( I couldn't understand this)   9. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.    9.1. As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice).    9.3. Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.”   9.2. Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100.    9.4. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ‘’Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’’    9.5. In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain HamiltonDouglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ‘’It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''    9.6. The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.     Statement of Truth    Alma Leisure.pdf Alma leisure centre.pdf
    • One thing I forgot to mention is I'm in Scotland, does the process change or is it then same? 
    • A copy of that to transunion should get it fixed in 24 hrs imho.    
    • I haven't got time to read through everything you sent - but it looks superb.   I presume you didn't send the covering letter we prepared but rather a request for a telephone hearing?   What worries me is that you are cutting it ultra-fine with this not attending court stuff.  Remember if you don't attend without informing the court properly the judge is entitled to just chuck your application in the bin.  Court staff are overworked and may read your mail days late.  I would very strongly suggest sending this tomorrow before 12:30 should you hear nothing tomorrow morning:   Due to being abroad I will not be able to attend the hearing and am therefore informing the Court more than seven days prior to the hearing Pursuant to CPR 27.9 No disrespect is meant towards the Court.  I have requested a telephone hearing with the consent of the Claimant but at the time of writing have not yet received a reply.  Should the telephone hearing request not be granted I would ask that the Court decide regarding set aside based on the papers I have submitted.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Welcome Finance have sold debt to Aktiv Kapital


datxman
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2855 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

Please can anyone offer me some advice,

 

I owe 12K to welcome and I am paying them back at a reduced rate,

 

however everytime I get a phonecall off them they ask for date of birth,

so I give it to them and some will say that it is fine and other people will say that we have a different date of birth for you,

but then go one to talk about my account.

 

Am I right in saying that this is against DPA as if I give a different DOB to what they have on their records they should not continue with the conversation?

 

Also how far back can you go to reclaim PPI

 

I believe I took the loan out before 2005 so I may not be covered by normal SAR?

 

can any one help or point me in the right direction with these questions?????

 

Thanks in advance

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you are right they are violating the DPA.

 

The SAR goes as far back for any data they hold.

 

You can claim back PPI as far back as you like.

 

The fact that your claim pre-dates 2005 will likely be a benefit to you as you stand a better chance of actually getting cash back.

 

After 14 January 2005, the FSCS are dealing with the claims and are applying compensation back into the loan to offset the balance owed.

 

Send your CCA request and SAR.

 

Dont wait too long, with all the claims against them, who knows how long til the pot of money has gone empty?

 

It will be interesting to see if the SAR records you giving a wrong DOB. I doubt it though.

 

They are foolish though...so who knows?

 

Youre better of refusing to answer at all.

 

And record their calls if at all possible, especially if they are violating your data security rights.

Please overlook my typos and spelling mistakes, sometimes my fingers arent in sync with my brain :)

I am just a consumer and have no legal training. My posts are opinion only, based on my own limited experience. If in doubt you should seek legal advice from a qualified practitioner.

 

Activ Kapital - Disputed £4,000.00 - 04/04/2011 Settled! WON!

HSBC Current Account - Defaulted for £200.00 Charges. - 19/05/2011 Charges Refunded Default Removed! WON!

HSBC Loan Account - £16,000.00 Unsecured Loan - 05/07/2011 Disputed No Further Contact WON! (for Now)

Barclaycard Account - Disputed account and £1500.00 Charges. - 18/07/2011 Charges Refunded! WON!

London Scottisht - Disputed account and Charges. £25,000.00 - 06/2011 Balance reduced by 95% WON!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Hi All,

 

I have received a letter sorry a note from Hillside saying that I have a message waiting for me and I am to contact them within seven days otherwise the message will no longer be available.

 

I am fully aware that these are a track and trace, DCA company. They have also telephoned my home asking to speak to me but I wasnt in.

 

I am at a lost as far as I am aware I have no outstanding debts that I am not dealing with already.

 

So do I contact them or not ?

 

I know the bank and a mobile phone company have wrote to me after having defaulted my accounts back in 2008 despite no payments being made for over 6 years and no default notices received.

 

I could certainly do with some advice on how to tackle this one.

 

Oh I almost forgot Welcome have also terminated my contract after refusing to cash my cheques for payment as they wanted a direct debit set up, but I have a basic bank account due to my financial status. So does that mean they need to stop processing my data in accordance with DPA.

 

Sorry for all the questions but I dont know which way to turn.

 

thanks in advance

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No No No... If they ring back just say, "I dont know who you are" and just say"In Writing"

Phishing attempts that we see all the time.

 

When something with more substance turns up then kick into gear

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

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

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard that these people phone neighbours as well I don't want this to happen are they allowed to do this?

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

Welcome finance have wrote to me to inform me that they have terminated my contract and that I have to pay £4960 or it will be sent to a DCA.

 

What can I do?

 

please help

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this company contacted myself and caught me a bit off guard.

 

It turns out these are working on behalf of welcome finance who they put me through to without my knowledge. I complained about the underhanded tactics and that I have already told welcome that all contact is to be done in writing.

 

The guy from welcome said I just want to sort out repayment of the loan, to which I replied I have been making payments and yet you fail to cash them.

 

I asked for the address of the Data controller who I should send in a SAR and he went to give me a P.O.box address, I said that I wanted a correct address one that is listed on with the ICO, he said I can give you head office address but if I send it there then it will not get dealt with.

 

He now was me to complete another Income and expenditure sheet and I have to submit copies of my bank statements etc.

 

I would rather go to court than agree with these clowns.

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No... Don't do the I&E form!

You don't have to bow to their demands!!

 

You pay what YOU can afford!!

 

They are refusing my cheques now they have terminated my contract and now using a tracing service to get me phone number even though I had wrote to them asking to put everything in writing I feel as if I am being bullied by these clowns

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 threads on same debt mereged

 

knowing welcome

 

they prob owe you money

in PENALTY charges and PPI/other insurances

by reclaiming.

 

the address to use is in the sticky on this welcome finance forum

where your thread is located

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
They are refusing my cheques now they have terminated my contract and now using a tracing service to get me phone number even though I had wrote to them asking to put everything in writing I feel as if I am being bullied by these clowns

 

I wanted to jump in and offer you some support and advice.

 

I currently have this lot in court.

They are very very incompetent.

 

My case has been in court going on three years now.

Each time I got to a hearing, they try some dirty under handed tactic,

but luckily, I have always been well prepared with my evidence.

 

They like to be "creative" with their evidence, and in my case,

most of the judges have been able to see what they are doing.

 

Now what should have been a simple half day trial for PPI

(they upheld my claim but were undervaluing the amount to be paid back,

and claiming the right to offset against arrears, of which there were none),

has ended up being a multi-track trial.

 

So far, the trial itself has lasted four days and I still have to go back after the new year for final submissions,

not to mention the 7 preliminary hearings that were held before the start of the trial.

 

Bottom line...if you do end up having to face them in court,

your evidence will be the thing that wins the day for you.

 

Make copies, or at the very list a log of every cheque and payment.

 

Also get your full statement of account and your SAR if you haven't already.

When you have those two things, you will be in a much better position to determine your best course of action.

Please overlook my typos and spelling mistakes, sometimes my fingers arent in sync with my brain :)

I am just a consumer and have no legal training. My posts are opinion only, based on my own limited experience. If in doubt you should seek legal advice from a qualified practitioner.

 

Activ Kapital - Disputed £4,000.00 - 04/04/2011 Settled! WON!

HSBC Current Account - Defaulted for £200.00 Charges. - 19/05/2011 Charges Refunded Default Removed! WON!

HSBC Loan Account - £16,000.00 Unsecured Loan - 05/07/2011 Disputed No Further Contact WON! (for Now)

Barclaycard Account - Disputed account and £1500.00 Charges. - 18/07/2011 Charges Refunded! WON!

London Scottisht - Disputed account and Charges. £25,000.00 - 06/2011 Balance reduced by 95% WON!

Link to post
Share on other sites

nice to see you around MrZ happy Xmas!!

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

nice to see you around MrZ happy Xmas!!

 

Thanks DX, Happy New Year!

Please overlook my typos and spelling mistakes, sometimes my fingers arent in sync with my brain :)

I am just a consumer and have no legal training. My posts are opinion only, based on my own limited experience. If in doubt you should seek legal advice from a qualified practitioner.

 

Activ Kapital - Disputed £4,000.00 - 04/04/2011 Settled! WON!

HSBC Current Account - Defaulted for £200.00 Charges. - 19/05/2011 Charges Refunded Default Removed! WON!

HSBC Loan Account - £16,000.00 Unsecured Loan - 05/07/2011 Disputed No Further Contact WON! (for Now)

Barclaycard Account - Disputed account and £1500.00 Charges. - 18/07/2011 Charges Refunded! WON!

London Scottisht - Disputed account and Charges. £25,000.00 - 06/2011 Balance reduced by 95% WON!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Hi There, I am need advice on this one.

 

I have today received a letter inside it contained two pages one from welcome dated 20/6/14

saying they have sold my debt and another page dated 22/07/14 from Aktiv saying they have bought my debt.

 

I have been making regular payments although the account is in default, and now I find out that they have sold my debt.

 

I am trying to consider my options on this one as I know I will get threatening phone calls / letters.

 

My first thought is to do a CCA request and my next thought is to go straight in to do a SAR as I believe that this debt is unenforceable.

 

I dont know what the protocol is when a company sells your debt,

but I am sure that it is not to send you two letters in the same envelope with one saying

it has been sold and the other saying it has bought it.

 

I have claimed back my PPI on this account although I do think I was done out of money

because the way in which they presented the figures were very obscure.

 

However that aside What should I do first?

Datxman v Lloyds TSB 2006 ** WON** 27/2/2006

With no conditions

Datxman v Capital One 2006

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) letter sent - July 2006

Non-compliance letter sent - 11/09/2006

enforcement letter sent - 11/09/2006

Statements finally received - 27/09/06

Prelim Letter - sent 28/09/06 - £540

Lowell has bought the debt and I have asked them to wipe it clean due to lack of funds

Datxman v Barclaycard 2006

Won no conditions

 

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Time is running out for the banks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

merged with you existing welcome thread for history.

 

i'd send them a CCA request

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi There, I am need advice on this one.

 

I have today received a letter inside it contained two pages one from welcome dated 20/6/14

saying they have sold my debt and another page dated 22/07/14 from Aktiv saying they have bought my debt.

 

I have been making regular payments although the account is in default, and now I find out that they have sold my debt.

 

I am trying to consider my options on this one as I know I will get threatening phone calls / letters.

 

My first thought is to do a CCA request and my next thought is to go straight in to do a SAR as I believe that this debt is unenforceable.

 

I dont know what the protocol is when a company sells your debt,

but I am sure that it is not to send you two letters in the same envelope with one saying

it has been sold and the other saying it has bought it.

 

I have claimed back my PPI on this account although I do think I was done out of money

because the way in which they presented the figures were very obscure.

 

However that aside What should I do first?

 

 

 

As dx said CCA to AK and I think a SAR to Welcome would be useful, if you have had problems with PPI.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...