Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • A judge says Anthony Levandowski carried out the "biggest trade secret crime I have ever seen". View the full article
    • Yes, let us know if they honour the agreement to pay.   Thanks for Donation made and anything further you can make - it helps us keep helping !
    • Mark Bauwens from France takes us through his week during the coronavirus pandemic. View the full article
    • Thankyou very much i will be around all day it would be appreciated Below is another attempt :     IN THE COUNTY COURT AT ***************                 CLAIM NO:**********     BETWEEN:   LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD CLAIMANT   and   MRS *********************** DEFENDANT   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   WITNESS STATEMENT OF ******************   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   I, ******************************************* WILL SAY as follows:   I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in the claim.     INTRODUCTION   1. It is my understanding that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct disputed or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed 10p to 15p in the £1 and to which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income. Lowell Portfolio I Ltd issue claims to circumvent and claim the full amount of debt to maximise profit.   2. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party.   BACKGROUND 3. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card Agreement between the defendant and Vanquis Bank   4. Whilst it is accepted that the defendant has in the past had financial dealings with Vanquis, the defendant is unaware of what alleged debt the claimant refers, and the defendant has not entered into any contract with the Claimant.   5.The defendant made a formal written request to the Claimant for them to provide me with a copy of my Consumer Credit Agreement as entitled to do so under sections 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 on the 27th August 2019 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order to which the defendant received a reply dated 6th September 2019 putting their account on hold whilst they tried to gather the information.   6.The defendant received a reply dated 24th October 2019 with no CCA attached other than the documents which enclosed a statement, default notice, notice of assignment from Vanquis to Lowell & a reconstituted copy of an agreement which the claimants have already provided in their witness statement dated 3rd August 2020.   7.On 15th January 2020, I received a claim form from the County Court Business Centre, Northampton, for the amount of £******. The claimant contends that the claim is for the sum of £********* in respect of monies owing under an alleged agreement with the account no ******************* pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). Contained within the claimants particulars the claimant states that the account was subject to assignment from Vanquis to Lowell on 24 June 2015 with notice given.   CONCLUSION 8.To date no valid full true copy of the executed credit agreement or the terms and conditions have been disclosed .the claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt.   9.The claimant disclosed various screenshots taken from the originators software of the application and also confirms on their covering letter the relative legislation The Electronic Communications Act 2000 with regards to wet signatures and the requirement of a tick box to validate the application. The screenshots are devoid of any tick box or any authenticity of IP address conformation check.   10.Therefore the claimant remains in default of my section 78 request and pursuant to section 78 6a of the CCA1974 the claimant is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.   11.For the above reasons the claim bought by the claimant is without merit and an abuse of the court process. It would be far more gracious and forthright for the claimant to admit that they do not have possession of the correct valid paperwork and this is an attempt to mislead and convince the court that the claimant can disclose the legal valid documents on which its claim relies on. It is therefore requested that the Claimants Claim is struck out pursuant to the above.   STATEMENT OF TRUTH   I, ************** the defendant, believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of Court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   Signed: …………………………………………… Print Name: ************* Dated: 4th August 2020
    • Allen Blue, who co-founded professional network LinkedIn, reveals how start-ups can achieve growth. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • Curry’s cancelled my order but took the money anyway. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423055-curry%E2%80%99s-cancelled-my-order-but-took-the-money-anyway/
      • 11 replies
    • Father passed away - Ardent Credit Services (Vodafone) now claiming he owes money. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423040-father-passed-away-ardent-credit-services-vodafone-now-claiming-he-owes-money/
      • 8 replies
    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 6 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
        • Like
      • 16 replies
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1250 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

I was caught using a child's ticket by TFL

(although my friend who is 2 years older wasn't stopped at the same station...)

 

after received a letter about it,

telling me to write back to them and tell my version of events.

 

I wrote back a pathetically grovelling letter of apology and have received a letter in response telling me I will receive only a formal warning if I pay £254.90.

 

An extortionate amount, but I can pay (thank you student loan) and

 

my question is

- would a formal warning show up on a criminal record?

 

I study PPE and hope to possibly enter the realm of politics so that wouldn't bode well for me.

if anyone could help and tell me whether this would show up on a check, that'd be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly seems more expensive than just paying your fare, but that is the risk you chose to take.

 

You want to be a politician?. What will you do if asked if you have ever evaded your fare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an internal formal warning from TfL.

It won't show on your criminal record ever.

You've done the right thing by putting your hands up and writing a good apology/begging letter to them.

Unfortunately you were caught and this should be a lesson learnt.

I would pay and be grateful.

Looking at lots of other threads here, it seems to be a standard "admin" charge to avoid going to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I thought that'd be the best option, thanks king12345. I'm just grateful I have the money to pay the fine!

 

Also to the others asking, just because I want to work in politics doesn't mean I wish to be a politician in the public eye hahah. If I really was asked (however unlikely that may be), I'd probably just be honest and admit it but also express how admittedly stupid it was!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I was caught using a child's ticket by TFL (although my friend who is 2 years older wasn't stopped at the same station...) and after received a letter about it, telling me to write back to them and tell my version of events. I wrote back a pathetically grovelling letter of apology and have received a letter in response telling me I will receive only a formal warning if I pay £254.90. An extortionate amount, but I can pay (thank you student loan) and my question is- would a formal warning show up on a criminal record? I study PPE and hope to possibly enter the realm of politics so that wouldn't bode well for me. if anyone could help and tell me whether this would show up on a check, that'd be great.

 

The way I understand law, it's either a criminal matter, ie fine, and or a civil matter, ie usually damages (compensation) for losses.

 

It sounds like to me that there is no prosecution against you, meaning it's a claim for civil damages.

 

It's the police and CPS (the prosecution) incidentally who investigate crimes which lead to conviction and fines.

It's the courts (civil) who award compensation (ie you pay X person for Y losses).

 

If you're weren't fined, it means there was no crime committed,

so no criminal record unless you accepted a caution by the police at any point.

 

TFL offering you a formal warning unless you pay £254.90,

is therefore likely a civil claim,

meaning you do not have to pay them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but if the OP doesn't pay now, this is likely to go to court with a possible criminal conviction.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doesn't work like that openlaw...


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

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I understand law, it's either a criminal matter, ie fine, and or a civil matter, ie usually damages (compensation) for losses.

 

 

It sounds like to me that there is no prosecution against you, meaning it's a claim for civil damages.

 

 

It's the police and CPS (the prosecution) incidentally who investigate crimes which lead to conviction and fines.

It's the courts (civil) who award compensation (ie you pay X person for Y losses).

 

 

If you're weren't fined, it means there was no crime committed,

so no criminal record unless you accepted a caution by the police at any point.

 

 

TFL offering you a formal warning unless you pay £254.90,

is therefore likely a civil claim,

meaning you do not have to pay them.

 

 

Except if the OP doesn't agree the administrative settlement, or if TfL change their mind before the OP has paid the settlement, TfL can prosecute

(under Railway Bylaws or Regulation of Railways Act 1889).

 

Not all prosecutions are by the CPS, the railway companies being the main other body that prosecutes (whilst other bodies, such as the HSE, can also do so, under specific legislation) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 1889 act at section 5 doesn't appear to cover the wrong ticket for the distance travelled...just saying

 

"5 Penalty for avoiding payment of fare.E+W+S+N.I.

 

(1) Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [level 1 on the standard scale] level 2 on the standard scale]].

 

(2)If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses [or fails] on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company. . . may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

 

(3)If any person—

(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

(b)Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

©Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address,

he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [level 2 on the standard scale[level 3 on the standard scale]], or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to a fine not exceeding [level 2 on the standard scale][level 3 on the standard scale]], or in the discretion of the court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [three months].

(4)The liability of an offender to punishment under this section shall not prejudice the recovery of any fare payable by him.

 

[(5)In this section—

(a)“railway company” includes an operator of a train, and

(b)“operator”, in relation to a train, means the person having the management of that train for the time being.]"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the 1889 act at section 5 doesn't appear to cover the wrong ticket for the distance travelled...just saying

 

Nothing to do with this case.

The op travelled using a child ticket which is not valid if the user is over 16 so 5.3.a applies.

Also the toc can prosecute under bylaws subject to the strict liability standard.

Impossible to get out of it.

Pay up and forget about it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"5 Penalty for avoiding payment of fare.E+W+S+N.I.

 

(1) Every passenger by a railway shall, on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, either produce, and if so requested deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or pay his fare from the place whence he started, or give the officer or servant his name and address; and in case of default shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [level 1 on the standard scale] level 2 on the standard scale]].

 

 

(2)If a passenger having failed either to produce, or if requested to deliver up, a ticket showing that his fare is paid, or to pay his fare, refuses [or fails] on request by an officer or servant of a railway company, to give his name and address, any officer of the company. . . may detain him until he can be conveniently brought before some justice or otherwise discharged by due course of law.

 

 

(3)If any person—

(a)Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

(b)Having paid his fare for a certain distance, knowingly and wilfully proceeds by train beyond that distance without previously paying the additional fare for the additional distance, and with intent to avoid payment thereof; or

©Having failed to pay his fare, gives in reply to a request by an officer of a railway company a false name or address,

he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding [level 2 on the standard scale[level 3 on the standard scale]], or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to a fine not exceeding [level 2 on the standard scale][level 3 on the standard scale]], or in the discretion of the court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [three months].

(4)The liability of an offender to punishment under this section shall not prejudice the recovery of any fare payable by him.

 

 

[(5)In this section—

(a)“railway company” includes an operator of a train, and

(b)“operator”, in relation to a train, means the person having the management of that train for the time being.]"

 

Precisely.

 

Buying a child's ticket when not entitled can be used to show intent.

Paying the child's fare as an adult means "not having previously paid his fare", or only paying for a shorter distance than travelled.

 

Not difficult for the TOC to get a RRA 1889 s5 prosecution, and a conviction if they can show intent.

 

"The liability of an offender to punishment under this section shall not prejudice the recovery of any fare payable by him." just means that on conviction the TOC can recover the fare evaded as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing to do with this case.

The op travelled using a child ticket which is not valid if the user is over 16 so 5.3.a applies.

Also the toc can prosecute under bylaws subject to the strict liability standard.

Impossible to get out of it.

Pay up and forget about it

 

 

There are two issues here - The Magistrates convicts not the TFL; 2) TFL is clearly not interested in prosecuting as it would have done so already. So, in my view, TFL is using its powers like a cash cow. It is potentially an abuse of power, therefore. Criminal Procedure rules 'Over-riding Objective' is to be fair, and in my view, TFL are clearly not being fair. I underlined section 5 (3) because it was the nearest provision I could find. However, the OP paid for their ticket, whereas section 5 (3) states did not pay for their ticket. Under the rules of statutory interpretation the law is read in everyday terms. Thirdly, we do not know if there was 'intent' as this is not a specifically strict liability offence (ie guilty on the act alone, ie the actus reus). Furthermore, Parliament clearly separates any losses which are potentially recoverable (section 5 (4), from 'fine.' In my view, TFL are putting undue pressure on the OP to pay the £254 which does not go to the Magistrates but into their pockets. I think this is a case for the London Mayor or a public authority ombudsman.

 

 

We need more information, ie what was the entire version of events, for instance, did the OP pay the extra for the ticket when requested to do so? Did the Op offer to pay the difference but the train staff (conductor) didn't accept? Have TFL acted in accordance with Criminal Rules of Procedure October 2015 as amended, probably not, as aforesaid. We need to know why the OP and not her friend, whom being 2 years older, was not formally threatened as the OP was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly you're not familiar with fare evasion procedures.

I mentioned bylaws offences because TfL does not need to prove intent if they decide to prosecute under them.

It's a matter of having a valid ticket or not.

The op didn't have a valid ticket.

If prosecuted under strict liability bylaw the intent will not be part of the equation.

The only question asked will be: "did you have a valid ticket?"

The answer is NO.

Convicted.

There's no space for ifs and buts with bylaws offences.

All toc are entitled to charge reasonable admin fee when fare evasion occurs.

It's up to the suspected fare evader to accept this settlement and avoid court or indeed proceed to court and risk higher fine and conviction which shows on their record.

Considering that the op admitted using a child ticket to travel, despite not being a child, his/her chances of being found not guilty are nil.

That's why we suggested and recommended to pay up and consider the matter a tough lesson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are two issues here - The Magistrates convicts not the TFL;

 

But TfL choose to prosecute or not.

 

2) TFL is clearly not interested in prosecuting as it would have done so already. So, in my view, TFL is using its powers like a cash cow. It is potentially an abuse of power, therefore.

 

If all Tfl were interested in was prosecuting, they would have done so. They have given the OP an opportunity to give their side of the story, to decide if a prosecution is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest.

If the OP doesn't agree to pay the administrative settlement, and/or TfL decide to prosecute before the OP pays the admin settlement, Tfl can seek those admin costs in court (as well asd the evaded fare) ; that money would go to TfL, unlike any fine and victim surcharge, which goes to the courts ....

 

Criminal Procedure rules 'Over-riding Objective' is to be fair, and in my view, TFL are clearly not being fair. I underlined section 5 (3) because it was the nearest provision I could find. However, the OP paid for their ticket, whereas section 5 (3) states did not pay for their ticket.

 

They paid for a ticket. A child's ticket. They paid for a child's ticket, not "their fare"

 

Under the rules of statutory interpretation the law is read in everyday terms. Thirdly, we do not know if there was 'intent' as this is not a specifically strict liability offence (ie guilty on the act alone, ie the actus reus).

 

Not hard for the prosecution to establish intent if the OP can't explain how they accidentally bought a child's ticket what with them being an adult .....

 

Furthermore, Parliament clearly separates any losses which are potentially recoverable (section 5 (4), from 'fine.' In my view, TFL are putting undue pressure on the OP to pay the £254 which does not go to the Magistrates but into their pockets. I think this is a case for the London Mayor or a public authority ombudsman.

 

For the reasons above, you think wrong

 

 

We need more information, ie what was the entire version of events, for instance, did the OP pay the extra for the ticket when requested to do so? Did the Op offer to pay the difference but the train staff (conductor) didn't accept?

 

Both irrelevant. The offence is "not having previous paid" ; it can't be avoided by offering to pay only once caught!.

 

You refer above to 'statutory interpretation'. If there is any doubt as to interpretation, the courts rule on it. Statute can't be read in isolation from subsequent case law clarifying it.

Corbyn v Saunders shows why you are wrong (or, rather, again wrong!).

http://swarb.co.uk/corbyn-v-saunders-1978/

 

"payment of the proper fare before he begins his journey"

 

So, buying a child's ticket when not a child, gets the OP a ticket, but not "payment of the proper fare", and offering to pay once stopped isn't "before he begins his journey".

 

You are so "way off base' that you appear to have next to no understanding of the issues.

If what you believe was to be true it'd be hard for the TOC's to ever prosecute anyone for fare evasion, and the fact that they can, and do, shows you are just wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clearly you're not familiar with fare evasion procedures.

I mentioned bylaws offences because TfL does not need to prove intent if they decide to prosecute under them.

It's a matter of having a valid ticket or not.

The op didn't have a valid ticket.

If prosecuted under strict liability bylaw the intent will not be part of the equation.

The only question asked will be: "did you have a valid ticket?"

The answer is NO.

Convicted.

There's no space for ifs and buts with bylaws offences.

All toc are entitled to charge reasonable admin fee when fare evasion occurs.

It's up to the suspected fare evader to accept this settlement and avoid court or indeed proceed to court and risk higher fine and conviction which shows on their record.

Considering that the op admitted using a child ticket to travel, despite not being a child, his/her chances of being found not guilty are nil.

That's why we suggested and recommended to pay up and consider the matter a tough lesson.

 

 

I studied Criminal law and Public law as joint course with the Open University. If Parliament which has sovereignty in England and Wales makes a criminal law statute with the term 'intent' then the prosecution has to prove intent otherwise it would be a strict liability offence, ie intent not required (no mens rea) The This Railways 1889 Act is clearly an intent offence, so the prosecution has to prove intent: mens rea, in addition to the actus reus (act).

 

 

NB I am just saying the Op should consider the options and make an informed decision, yes I understand criminal law so I will provide a legal albeit not a qualified view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't got a clue about law.

I understand you studied law, but did you ever sit an exam???

TfL doesn't have to prosecute under rra 1889 just to please you.

They can prosecute under bylaw and your great (not) defence will crumble like a sand castle in a hurricane.

Get it in your head, TfL has a choice of what legislation to apply (rra1889 or bylaw).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You haven't got a clue about law.

I understand you studied law, but did you ever sit an exam???

TfL doesn't have to prosecute under rra 1889 just to please you.

They can prosecute under bylaw and your great (not) defence will crumble like a sand castle in a hurricane.

Get it in your head, TfL has a choice of what legislation to apply (rra1889 or bylaw).

 

Hopefully the OP has extracted the advice they think will help and replied to TfL. It would be nice if they let us know how they get on.

 

In the meantime, I think it would be helpful not to continue the discussion on this thread. Thank you for everyone's advice.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

I am currently in the same situation. used my brothers 16+. I am so embarrassed and apologetic and would never do this again had i been aware of the consequences. Should I talk to them by phone or email. I dont even know how to express my apologies. Please help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi ya Daqueen16 user-online.png

you need to start a new thread

of your own please

 

 

dx


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

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I studied Criminal law and Public law as joint course with the Open University. If Parliament which has sovereignty in England and Wales makes a criminal law statute with the term 'intent' then the prosecution has to prove intent otherwise it would be a strict liability offence, ie intent not required (no mens rea) The This Railways 1889 Act is clearly an intent offence, so the prosecution has to prove intent: mens rea, in addition to the actus reus (act).

 

 

NB I am just saying the Op should consider the options and make an informed decision, yes I understand criminal law so I will provide a legal albeit not a qualified view.

 

 

Firstly, there is no 'Railways Act 1889'. The Railways Acts date from the 1990s and subsequent amendments.

 

The correct title for this legislation is The Regulation of Railways Act (1889) and the Section 5(3)(a) charge will be correct in this instance.

 

For the relevant guidance in relation to the charge and determination of intent from an Appeal Court precedent you need to look no further than Browning & Floyd (1946)

 

Browning held a ticket that was not valid for his use despite it being valid on the route travelled.

 

The Appeal Court ruled that although the railway may not have lost any money, Browning had not previously paid HIS fare.

 

The same applies in this case,

 

The OP is not a child and therefore, having previously paid only a child fare when an adult fare is due, the OP has not previously paid THEIR fare

 

Prosecution is not restricted to Police & CPS

 

Having successfully prosecuted countless similar cases in the past I can confirm that it is entirely a matter for the TOC.

 

They can either proceed to prosecution, or exercise discretion and allow an alternative disposal via an administrative settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify the matter of 'intent', the ruling in Browning acknowledged that he had presented the invalid ticket intending to avoid paying HIS fare

 

The same applies in this case, the allegation would be that the OP paid only a child fare with intent to avoid paying the actual fare due

 

In Oscar Chess (1957), former Master of The Rolls Lord Denning and others made clear that the judiciary is not to be a mind reader, but that a person will be judged on their words and actions

 

The OP admits buying only a child ticket and was 'caught' knowing that an adult fare was due. That satisfies an allegation of 'intent'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...