Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • A South Korean court sentenced Lee Jae Yong to two and a half years in prison. View the full article
    • To add to the weight of evidence this is fraud, do you have (or can you get) proof of what the cost of the Special Delivery was?. If they paid for the weight of an envelope containing a piece of paper, they won't have paid for the cost of sending a laptop (given it is much heavier) ...... You should also contact ActionFraud.
    • @dx100uk, I'm afraid you've got this wrong. My fear of compromising my defence wasn't with regards my response to DCB Legal's initial letter per se. It was more in reference to any subsequent advice posted on this thread by other forum members and I was only being wary due to the numerous instances when some have cautioned about parking companies and their legal reps trawling these pages to stay a step ahead.   As I did also state however, I'm happy to provide full details of that initial reply to DCB Legal and have therefore reproduced it below. Thanks.    
    • China's economy grew at 2.3% for the year, making it the only major economy to see growth last year. View the full article
    • more: extend the contract line by....   contract exists between the claimant and the landowner which assigns the claimant the right to enter contracts with the public and make claims in their own name. I put the claimant to strict proof that such a contract exists.   1st few lines like this:   1.I am the defendant in this matter.   Any documentary evidence relied upon by me in this, my statement will be referred to and produced as exhibits RSS1, exhibit RSS2 and so on, and are labelled and attached accordingly.   All exhibits are listed below List of Exhibits    2. In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, unless indicated otherwise.   3. I am the registered of the vehicle, xxxxxx   4. I am not liable to the claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all.   just sign and date at the end no statement of truth is needed sorry.   dx        
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Forced mandatory work sceme


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2237 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

Really, i have, they seem to be growing and spreading.

 

How subjective is that.

 

Deal in facts

 

If you believe the government statistics JSA claimants are decreasing.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

How subjective is that.

 

Deal in facts

 

If you believe the government statistics JSA claimants are decreasing.

 

Of course they are decreasing ....

 

- seasonal work

- part time work

- short term work/zero contract

- moving to ESA

 

Unemployment is UP not DOWN

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or people like me on an 'indefinate' agency contract, we get messed about with 'holiday pay' and loose out on other things - but it is far more than the dole paid me - even though I had worked solidly since I was 16 and ended up unemployed at 54... I am now doing a job I did ten years ago, learnt new software and am paying £53 a week fares (only to be messed about with by Southern Region most days).

 

Long term life on the dole isn't what the DM likes people to think - whilst I could have got my family to help out sometimes I would still have had to repay any money borrowed.

 

I have strong objections for people coming in from other countries and taking admin work, there are plenty of qualified able people to do those (and other) jobs in this country but at a living wage and not at a pittance and relying on a partner for support.

 

The whole system has been tinkered with by blinkered people who have never had real-life experience of being long term unemployed - if everybody who worked for the DWP had it in their contract that they had to experience two periods of three months with minimum wage every three years the system would improve dramatically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Or people like me on an 'indefinate' agency contract, we get messed about with 'holiday pay' and loose out on other things - but it is far more than the dole paid me - even though I had worked solidly since I was 16 and ended up unemployed at 54... I am now doing a job I did ten years ago, learnt new software and am paying £53 a week fares (only to be messed about with by Southern Region most days).

 

Long term life on the dole isn't what the DM likes people to think - whilst I could have got my family to help out sometimes I would still have had to repay any money borrowed.

 

I have strong objections for people coming in from other countries and taking admin work, there are plenty of qualified able people to do those (and other) jobs in this country but at a living wage and not at a pittance and relying on a partner for support.

 

The whole system has been tinkered with by blinkered people who have never had real-life experience of being long term unemployed - if everybody who worked for the DWP had it in their contract that they had to experience two periods of three months with minimum wage every three years the system would improve dramatically.

 

Amen to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Abolish zero hour contracts

Enforce the minimum wage

DO away with recruitment agencies

Bring Work Providers back in house that are not motivated by profit but only by results.

Change the sanctions regieme so that the sanction only goes live AFTER the appeals process has been exausted OR the Sanction is accepted.

Stop wasting tax payers money on stupid courses that do not apply to the 90% of those sent on them.

Tailor support to the individual and aim to get them into Sustainable work

MWA restricted to those that DO NOT want to work. Make it so that the MWA is done serving a charity and no private business.

Scrap UJM - Its pointless and full of fake [problem] jobs. OR have every job vetted before posting BAN agencies from advertising on there.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For 2 out of the 4 weeks that I was on a placement along with about 8 others the boss at the company we were placed with called us into his ‘office’ on the Friday afternoon and gave us each £20 and thanked us for our efforts.

[...]

Do you suppose that the fact that my experience was exactly 12 months ago and that I did not mention it at the time nullify any action along the lines you suggest that I might wish to take now?

 

From the DWP MWA Guidance:

4.18 You or the placement host must not give any incentive payments or

rewards to the claimant for participation in MWA.

From the Work Programme guidance, Chapter 3c:

 

National Minimum Wage Act

54. It is the provider’s responsibility to ensure that all work experience and

community benefit work placements are in line with National Minimum

Wage regulations. As part of their considerations, providers should

consider the following points:

• As a general rule, persons participating in a relevant Government

Scheme – which includes the Work Programme – designed to

provide training, work experience or temporary work, or to assist in

seeking or obtaining work, do not qualify for the National Minimum

Wage (NMW) in respect of work done for an employer as part of

that scheme.

 

• However, there are some important exceptions:

• Participants will qualify for the NMW if they are regarded as

employees of the employer AND are paid for their work by the

employer. (Payment of expenses can be ignored for these

purposes.)

 

• "Employment" has a wide meaning, and participants are likely to be

regarded as employees if they agree voluntarily to take up the

placement with a particular employer.

• The NMW is very unlikely to apply to participants mandated to

participate in unpaid work experience or an unpaid community

benefit work placement through the Work Programme, or to

Participants who volunteer to take part in an unpaid placement of

either type which is not a work trial exceeding 6 weeks. Where a

claimant’s expenses are paid, this still counts as unpaid work

experience or unpaid community work placement.

It is a thin line, and the "official" guidance makes it clear that only expenses can be paid. Anything else is a "wage" and falls within the remit of the National Minimum Wage. Unfortunately, to argue a case before an Employment Tribunal, the claim would have to been made within three months of finishing your placement. Could have been a very interesting case, especially if you had named both the "employer" and the placement provider.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

Quote
No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This does make me a little angry, ok morally it may be very wrong, but, if you have been on JSA for x amount of time is it not right that you start earning it a little and do not just expect it. Maybe i am wrong because i have only been on JSA for 9 weeks once in my 14 year work history, but it does stench of people wanting something for nothing, when i was on jsa i would arrive suited and booted and would have actually looked for jobs, others turned up pretty much in pj's or stinking of booze and just got signed for another fortnight.

 

This is something I don't understand. The unemployed have to "earn" their JSA, but employers don't have to "pay" their workers? And they say it's the claimants that are getting something for nothing.

 

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I believe that if you have a job that needs to be done, you pay someone to do it. You don't try to weasel out of your responsibility to society by coercing the unemployed into working for you for next to nothing.

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

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How subjective is that.

 

Deal in facts

 

If you believe the government statistics JSA claimants are decreasing.

 

Yes because as mentioned zero hour contracts, seasonal work ect..... the facts are correct, As AMAZING as this site is, it is not perfect, someone could happily come along and say 'Hi, i turned up for my fortnightly JSA signing on, drunk as a skunk and they sanctioned me, how unfair is that, how can i appeal and get it all back' and people would offer help to argue why the sanction is unfair, how backward is that. Long term unemployment brings its own problems and of course these people need help with skills ect...... but don't pretend their is only a tiny minority playing the system because the number is bigger than you think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is something I don't understand. The unemployed have to "earn" their JSA, but employers don't have to "pay" their workers? And they say it's the claimants that are getting something for nothing.

 

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I believe that if you have a job that needs to be done, you pay someone to do it. You don't try to weasel out of your responsibility to society by coercing the unemployed into working for you for next to nothing.

 

Sorry i am confused, who are you blaming, the government or the shops/charities these jsa claimants are sent too, and i said after x time, then yes you should earn jsa and not just be given it, you are getting paid after all, jsa plus it will give you routine and working experience and skills.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes because as mentioned zero hour contracts, seasonal work ect..... the facts are correct, As AMAZING as this site is, it is not perfect, someone could happily come along and say 'Hi, i turned up for my fortnightly JSA signing on, drink as a skunk and they sanctioned me, how unfair is that, how can i appeal and get it all back' and people would offer help to argue why the sanction is unfair. Long term unemployment brings its own problems and of course these people need help with skills ect...... but don't pretend their is only a tiny minority playing the system because the number is bigger than you think.

 

In the grand scheme of things it IS only a small % that 'play the system' but of course these people make it worse for genuine claimants that have maybe fallen on hard times and maybe have never claimed before. The system stinks, there is no easy 'cure' but it is an unfair system. Also, propaganda will tell you (from our lovely Tory government (unelected of course) that the unemployed and those on benefits are the problem in this country when in REALITY the spend of welfare is small compared to other demands. The % of benefit fraud is also negligible (although should be invesyigated and dealt with) How about concentrating on tax evasion for starters?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry i am confused, who are you blaming, the government or the shops/charities these jsa claimants are sent too, and i said after x time, then yes you should earn jsa and not just be given it, you are getting paid after all, jsa plus it will give you routine and working experience and skills.

 

Well if you have to work for your JSA then by LAW it should be minimum wage so if over 25 and on £72.40pm JSA that is 11-12 hours work maximum - right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes you are spot on their, the spend of welfare is less than 5% total ive heard, more is spent on Pensions, Military, the EU, NHS and tax evasion, but tax evasion although more in money terms is only a small % of people, rich people, who can afford to fight it, real average joe bloggs is easy to blame, we have no brunt, but yes whatever the answer is in the greater interests will not suit everyone and 'some' people will be worse off for it. as for NHS and EU spending this can be controlled with appropriate measures (leaving the EU and actually controlling migrants)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes because as mentioned zero hour contracts, seasonal work ect..... the facts are correct, As AMAZING as this site is, it is not perfect, someone could happily come along and say 'Hi, i turned up for my fortnightly JSA signing on, drunk as a skunk and they sanctioned me, how unfair is that, how can i appeal and get it all back' and people would offer help to argue why the sanction is unfair, how backward is that. Long term unemployment brings its own problems and of course these people need help with skills ect...... but don't pretend their is only a tiny minority playing the system because the number is bigger than you think.

 

 

Actually you have this wrong.

First of all, the DWP and all its resources makes the rules (That must abide by the law)

If they do nto follow the rules and break the law it is only fair that they be held to account, especially if they ar ein a position to enforce the rules themselves. THAT is morally correct.

Those that live in greenhouses should not be throwing stones and all that. After all WE pay them money to make sure the right things happen at the right time.

 

Secondly, If someone was legitimately sanctioned then of course help would be given to help them understand the process. They have the right to appeal etc. At the end of the day these are basic rights. If they were legitimately sanctioned according to the rules then the appeal would not be upheld now would it.

 

I find restricting peoples rights to knowledge and fair treatment backward, do you not then?

 

And my comments about the statistics was made to prove a point. Actually when it comes to reality they are wrong. The whole government approach is wrong. Unemployment is indeed decreasing. HOWEVER because of the way it is, UNDEREMPLOYMENT is RISING. Income tax receipts are dropping due to the low payment jobs and the tax payer is paying OUT MORE in welfare benefits, esp to those in work.

 

Now interestingly you cannot have it both ways. You say first that the amount of people notbothering and just claiming jsa in a somethign for nothign culture is increasing from the people you see, yet you then declare the governments stats showing unemployment reducing is correct. The "people" you see are either working OR just claiming benefits. Not both at the same time (we hope) May I suggest you have also invented Schrodinger JSA claiment

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well if you have to work for your JSA then by LAW it should be minimum wage so if over 25 and on £72.40pm JSA that is 11-12 hours work maximum - right?

 

you didn't answer the question, but yes, in the scheme of things what would be the problem with that, i assume it does not work like that now, but even if it did a huge % of jsa claimants would still moan about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
you didn't answer the question, but yes, in the scheme of things what would be the problem with that, i assume it does not work like that now, but even if it did a huge % of jsa claimants would still moan about it.

 

a Huge % would moan about it? Being offered the chance to work for minimum wage?

 

I suspect you are very out of touch. And also your "the huge majority would complain" actually shows you are voicing opinions based on stereotypical views and not based from actual fact.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Abolish zero hour contracts

Enforce the minimum wage

DO away with recruitment agencies

Bring Work Providers back in house that are not motivated by profit but only by results.

Change the sanctions regieme so that the sanction only goes live AFTER the appeals process has been exausted OR the Sanction is accepted.

Stop wasting tax payers money on stupid courses that do not apply to the 90% of those sent on them.

Tailor support to the individual and aim to get them into Sustainable work

MWA restricted to those that DO NOT want to work. Make it so that the MWA is done serving a charity and no private business.

Scrap UJM - Its pointless and full of fake [problem] jobs. OR have every job vetted before posting BAN agencies from advertising on there.

 

Agree with most of this, but I also think the right type of jobseeker support is important. It would be much more appropriate to have work experience placements rather than 'work activity placements', and it would also be more useful to offer comprehensive support and training in new careers where there are more job opportunities rather than try to push the 'most able' candidates into shop work rather than a job they are more suited for. Not only is it better for the first candidate, it's also better for those that have limited skills and miss out on a job because someone overqualified has got it instead. The work providers don't care - they just want their payment and will push the most likely prospects to get them their payout, into any job available.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually you have this wrong.

First of all, the DWP and all its resources makes the rules (That must abide by the law)

If they do nto follow the rules and break the law it is only fair that they be held to account, especially if they ar ein a position to enforce the rules themselves. THAT is morally correct.

Those that live in greenhouses should not be throwing stones and all that. After all WE pay them money to make sure the right things happen at the right time.

 

Secondly, If someone was legitimately sanctioned then of course help would be given to help them understand the process. They have the right to appeal etc. At the end of the day these are basic rights. If they were legitimately sanctioned according to the rules then the appeal would not be upheld now would it.

 

I find restricting peoples rights to knowledge and fair treatment backward, do you not then?

 

And my comments about the statistics was made to prove a point. Actually when it comes to reality they are wrong. The whole government approach is wrong. Unemployment is indeed decreasing. HOWEVER because of the way it is, UNDEREMPLOYMENT is RISING. Income tax receipts are dropping due to the low payment jobs and the tax payer is paying OUT MORE in welfare benefits, esp to those in work.

 

Now interestingly you cannot have it both ways. You say first that the amount of people notbothering and just claiming jsa in a somethign for nothign culture is increasing from the people you see, yet you then declare the governments stats showing unemployment reducing is correct. The "people" you see are either working OR just claiming benefits. Not both at the same time (we hope) May I suggest you have also invented Schrodinger JSA claiment

 

Ok so the DWP set the rules and have to abide by the law and should do whats morally correct, do you seriously suggest that we all do things which are wholly morally correct, all of the time, we all do things to suit ourselves, even if we do help others from time to time, so for me, its pot, kettle, black, we expect them to be perfect but we can be imperfect and use any scrap of a loophole to not be punished for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would happily work for minimum wage (although I feel I shouldn't have to but that is another story) ....BUT, it would have to be a FULL TIME job of at least 36 hours and also not cost half my 'wages' getting there. You see sometimes it isn't MW that is the problem but the hours offered and location. Why would you work say 12 hours on MW for £70-80 plus have to work horrid hours AND pay for travel - surely there is no sense in that? I certainly WOULD NOT do it (others may though just to get off JSA)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok so the DWP set the rules and have to abide by the law and should do whats morally correct, do you seriously suggest that we all do things which are wholly morally correct, all of the time, we all do things to suit ourselves, even if we do help others from time to time, so for me, its pot, kettle, black, we expect them to be perfect but we can be imperfect and use any scrap of a loophole to not be punished for it.

 

It is not about using loopholes. It is about following the rules. At the end of the day those who police the rules must follow them or they have no crediability. When they do things incorrect then that is what the appeals process is there for. To correct mistakes.

 

I really struggle to find what you are getting at. Are you saying we should not help people who have been wronged or unlawfully bullied just because they are a JSA claiment?

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
a Huge % would moan about it? Being offered the chance to work for minimum wage?

 

I suspect you are very out of touch. And also your "the huge majority would complain" actually shows you are voicing opinions based on stereotypical views and not based from actual fact.

 

Yes because the minimum wage pays less than JSA when you consider what else you get on jsa, rent/council tax paid ect...... the minimum wage is not worth working for, it should be a living wage. And come on, please, i can spend 10 minutes on the net to find 10's of thousands of jobs offering part time, minimum wage positions, why arnt people taking them, because its not worth it to them. It is a difficult argument to put in to words, but i am most certainly not out of touch at all lol...... if only you knew me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, slightly changing the rhetoric of the thread do *YOU* as contributors think it is fair that:

 

Person 1

Aged 25, only done a few hours per week on the off chance, built up no NI contributions, never worked full time or paid in to the system gets £72.40pw

Person 2

Aged 40, worked full time for 20 years, fully up to date NI and tax contributions gets £72.40pw

 

I know I know, what do I suggest? Well surely there needs to be some form of 'credit' on top of the JSA payments for people that have contributed/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also it is not pot kettle black. The claiments are not being paid to enforce the rules now are they. The claiments also did not make the rules. You ignore the power in the relationship between the claiment and the DWP advisors. The rules are there to protect the claiment as well. They only do that if they are enforced and infringments challenged

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes because the minimum wage pays less than JSA when you consider what else you get on jsa, rent/council tax paid ect...... the minimum wage is not worth working for, it should be a living wage. And come on, please, i can spend 10 minutes on the net to find 10's of thousands of jobs offering part time, minimum wage positions, why arnt people taking them, because its not worth it to them. It is a difficult argument to put in to words, but i am most certainly not out of touch at all lol...... if only you knew me.

 

First off

 

People on minimum wage are entitled to housing benefit, working tax credits and more. People ARE taking these jobs. THATS why unemployment figures are decreasing BUT WELFARE spending increasing.

 

Second of

 

I cna look on UJM now and find the same job advertised 10 times within the space of a week by different agencies. I can find victiious jobs that turn out to be training. Did you watch Wotchdog last week to see the employment agency [problem] there?

 

Also 1000s of those jobs are zero hour or part time. IF they pay less than JSA then can you blame them when JSA is the amount assessed to be the minimum amount u need ot live on?

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for knowing you, I do not profess to. It does not matter, I am mearly repliying to the points you raised.

 

You still did not answer the question. Should we stop as you imply helping people to fight sanctions on the basis that they are a jsa claiment?

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...