Jump to content


Bailiff Advice

Judge orders debtor to pay £7,000 in costs for trying to avoid paying Compliance fee of £75......a discussion thread.

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 893 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 started an important thread earlier today concerning a recent court judgment where a debtor was ordered to pay £7,000 in costs after losing his claim against Harrow Council and their agent; Newlyn. The background and Judgment can be read by way of the following link:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?477808-Paying-the-creditor-direct-to-avoid-paying-bailiff-fees-has-landed-a-debtor-with-a-%A37-000-cost-order.(32-Viewing)-nbsp

 

To ensure that the original thread does not go 'off topic', discussions about the judgment can be posted here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The case itself was heard under the Small Claims Track and the hearing overran by almost 3 hours. The Judge delivered his verdict on the case and provided his judgment. Permission to appeal was refused.

 

A further hearing was set down (for 10th May) to consider the matter of costs. At the hearing, the Judge ordered the claimant to pay £7,000 (£2,000 to Harrow Council and £5,000 to Newlyn).

 

Neither the claimant, or his solicitor attended this hearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Neither the claimant, or his solicitor attended this hearing.

 

 

I thought at least one of them are obliged to attend - is this not so?


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

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

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

 

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

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

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

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought at least one of them are obliged to attend - is this not so?

 

In a civil court ?


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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought at least one of them are obliged to attend - is this not so?

 

Both the claimant and his solicitor were present at the hearing on 17th February 2017 but not at the 2nd hearing on 10th May to determine what costs if any should be paid. It is my understanding that notification was received from the claimants solicitor stating that neither she or her client would be attending (discounting any theory that they may not have known of the hearing date).

 

I don't suppose for one minute that the claimant was satisfied with the outcome of the earlier case (on 17th February) and the refusal of permission to appeal.

 

He certainly seemed to have been persuaded into believing that if an enforcement agent clamped (or removed) his Audi (worth around £4,000) to recover a debt that had risen to £420 (to include the 'sale stage' fee of £110) that he was somehow entitled to rent a replacement vehicle and claim for loss of road tax, insurance and goodness knows what else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A copy of the judgment has been uploaded onto the original thread and can be read here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?477808-Paying-the-creditor-direct-to-avoid-paying-bailiff-fees-has-landed-a-debtor-with-a-%A37-000-cost-order.&p=5028392&viewfull=1#post5028392

 

The judgment is quite detailed but in order to provide an accurate record of the background to this case, I was able to rely upon the transcript of the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The " pay the creditor direct and avoid fees " idea was mostly the same we have seen on here many times, but with a couple of brand new errors of interpretation thrown in.

The judge listened to all the explanations and then one by one dismantled the flawed logic.

 

The court ruled that, if money was taken by the council and used to settle the debt( not apportioned) the fees are still due under the TCE.

In other words the debt does not have to be still owed for bailiffs to collect fees that have become due.

 

Nor is it necessary to apportion proceeds under section 13 of the fees regulations, as the requirements under section 4 (collection of fees) was "free standing" and still operates in its own right.

 

THere was also some misunderstanding regarding the definition of "ammount outstanding" in section 50, in particular some errors in basic arithmetic.

The operation of that section is, as posted on here many times by me and others.

 

Proceeds were mentioned briefly and were dismissed as being misrepresented.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The judgment is quite detailed but in order to provide an accurate record of the background to this case, I was able to rely upon the transcript of the case.

 

Without the transcript (which is well in excess of 100 pages) we would have been unaware of the 'FMoTL' tactics used by the claimant such as the silly document entitled: Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal.

 

The transcript also reveals the heavy reliance on a case from 2015 (Murgatroyd v Mrs Wilkinson). The case was of no assistance or relevance to Mr Bola at all and it was a very odd case to have relied upon. In particular, given that the solicitor representing Mr Bola, had provided assistance to Mrs Wilkinson at her hearing in 2015 !!!

 

I have shared my transcript with one or two regulars on here who share my interest in the subject of 'pro rata' distribution and 'proceeds' etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally this also defts absolutely the concept of paying the "sum adjudged" and the enforcement power dying as i have seen on various sites on the web.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incidentally this also defts absolutely the concept of paying the "sum adjudged" and the enforcement power dying as i have seen on various sites on the web.

 

The 'sum adjudged' theory is another example where somebody has intentionally tried to mislead the public into believing the the regulations say what they would like them to say.

 

The 'Bola v Harrow and Newlyn' judgment is not only applicable to local authority debts....it applies to all debts (including Magistrate Court fines).

 

Unlike local authorities (who all have their own computer systems) payments to HMCTS in relation to Magistrate Court fines are paid into one centralised system. This makes it very simple to identify payments that have been received after a warrant of control has been issued. HMCTS will then forward these direct payments payments to the relevant enforcement agency so that the compliance fee of £75 can be deducted. This procedure was confirmed by the Parliamentary-under Secretary of State for Justice (Shaliest Vara) in response to a series of Parliamentary questions in the House of Commons regarding magistrate court fines (see below):

 

 

Question from Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South)

 

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what estimate he has made of the number of instances in which enforcement agent fees paid by a defendant were transferred directly by HM Courts and Tribunal Services to enforcement agents in each of the last five years; and what estimate he has made of the amounts transferred in that period.

 

Reply from Shailesh Vara: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice.

 

If an offender makes a payment on a financial imposition after a warrant of control has been issued and referred to the EAE, HMCTS transfers the full payment to the AEA to enable them to reconcile their accounts and take the fee owed to them and they then return any balance owed to HMCTS.

 

The Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act states that the AEA is entitled to retain the first £75 of any amount paid on a warrant and then their fees are retained on a pro rata basis with the balance paid to HMCTS.

 

A link to the full list of questions and answers is below:

 

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/...l%22#g34637.r0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't take the thread of topic BA - we all know that the TCEA does not say what Shailesh stated - if anyone can show us that it says the EA can retain £75 then go ahead. Until then let's just remember that Shailesh was removed from the department shortly after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting reply and I share your view that the case was one that was doomed to fail.

 

From your reply, you seem to be privy to highly confidential information regarding payments (or more to the point) none payment of solicitor's bills by the claimant. While I am not surprised to hear that this was the reason for the non attendance of both parties on the May 10th hearing, your comment does raise the question as to how this information came to your attention. It really should not have been disclosed to you and I would hazard a guess that the law firm in question would be extremely disappointed.

 

You and I both know that this debtor had the misfortune to seek advice from one particular individual (whose name I have no intention of posting on here) and Mr Bola, like many others before him has been led into believing that he would be awarded many thousands of pounds by taking legal action.

 

The information that I have, is that Mr Bola was refused permission to appeal the judgment of 17th February. This is also explained in detail to him in the transcript. It may be the case (but I haven't checked), that he may have been granted permission to appeal the separate cost judgment (of £7,000) of 10th May. Personally, I would say that he has an uphill struggle. Please do not listen to any fairy stories that the Judge may have 'erred in law'. He didn't.

 

Only yesterday, you were denying that the case had been heard on 17th February and yet today, you are claiming that the case is somehow not that important and that it mainly concerns a denial of expenses and damages. It certainly doesn't. I would suggest once again that somebody is seriously misleading you and that instead of providing you with confidential information regarding solicitors bills that they instead, share a copy of the transcript with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An interesting reply and I share your view that the case was one that was doomed to fail.

 

From your reply, you seem to be privy to highly confidential information regarding payments (or more to the point) none payment of solicitor's bills by the claimant. While I am not surprised to hear that this was the reason for the non attendance of both parties on the May 10th hearing, your comment does raise the question as to how this information came to your attention. It really should not have been disclosed to you and I would hazard a guess that the law firm in question would be most disappointed.

 

Fortunately that is of no concern of yours and is , I suspect, an attempt at some sort of tit-for-tat against the constant information passed to yourself from Peter Felton, including making posts that were sub judice (which I understand the judge was furious about).

 

You and I both know that this debtor had the misfortune to seek advice from one particular individual (whose name I have no intention of posting on here) and Mr Bola, like many others before him has been led into believing that he would be awarded many thousands of pounds by taking legal action.

 

This is certainly one that has never been on the boards but I do believe that yes, he was approached and passed it to the solicitor. He then had no more to do with it.

 

The information that I have, is that Mr Bola was refused permission to appeal the judgment of 17th February. This is also explained in detail in the transcript. It may be the case (but I haven't checked), that he may have been granted permission to appeal the costs judgment of 10th May. Personally, I would say that he has an uphill struggle. Please do not listen to any fairy stories that the Judge may have 'erred in law'. He didn't.

 

That is not your decision to make and certainly the appeal board are of the opinion that errors in law can be argued. I know which parts have been highlighted but as I say I cannot disclose them.

 

Only yesterday, you were denying that the case had been heard on 17th February and yet today, you are claiming that the case is somehow not that important and that it mainly concerns a denial of expenses and damages. It certainly doesn't. I would suggest once again that somebody is seriously misleading you and that instead of providing you with confidential information regarding solicitors bills that they instead, share a copy of the transcript with you.

 

I certainly did not deny it had been heard on Feb 17th - in fact I never even mentioned that date. I did confuse some of my dates but rectified my error. No-one from 'over there' has a transcript. Why would they? They weren't involved in any of the proceedings and the claimant is not an active client. Having read the judgement once more it is plainly mostly concerned with dismissing the various expenses and damages that were claimed, and rightly so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been said by others, I'm not around for the next few hours, so I will respond further later on if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fortunately that is of no concern of yours and is , I suspect, an attempt at some sort of tit-for-tat against the constant information passed to yourself from Peter Felton, including making posts that were sub judice (which I understand the judge was furious about).

 

This is certainly one that has never been on the boards but I do believe that yes, he was approached and passed it to the solicitor. He then had no more to do with it.

 

That is not your decision to make and certainly the appeal board are of the opinion that errors in law can be argued. I know which parts have been highlighted but as I say I cannot disclose them.

 

I certainly did not deny it had been heard on Feb 17th - in fact I never even mentioned that date. I did confuse some of my dates but rectified my error. No-one from 'over there' has a transcript. Why would they? They weren't involved in any of the proceedings and the claimant is not an active client. Having read the judgement once more it is plainly mostly concerned with dismissing the various expenses and damages that were claimed, and rightly so.

 

I will answer each comment in turn:

 

1)..In the first instance, very few legal cases are taken against enforcement companies and if a judgment is made, is it important that details can be provided as the decision can greatly assist many others who may be considering using the courts to reclaim sums paid to an enforcement company.

 

Such judgments are vital to me in the work that I do away from the forum as they assist me in the advice that I provide to individuals subject to bailiff enforcement. They also assist me and other regular poster on here by ensuring that the advice that we all provide is accurate.

 

Judgments posted on this forum are also widely distributed are a vital tool to the enforcement sector, advice sector, and viewing public.

 

In fact, John Kruse has recently stated that there is a need for courts to determine legislation (and by the way, JK is also in a position where enforcement companies will share judgements with him as well).

 

If your comment about a Judge being 'furious' that making posts were sub judice in in connection with this particular case then can I please assure you such comments doe not appear in the transcript. One last point that I would like to make is that enforcement companies (or law firms) will NOT disclose cases until a Judgement has been released. I wish to make that clear. Furthermore, once a judgment is made, it is a public record.

 

2). Yes, the individual from 'your board' did pass the case to 'legal'. However, you may be interested to hear that when questioned in court, he denied knowing that person !!

 

3)..In relation to your comment about an 'appeal', if you read my answer, I merely provided my opinion (that Mr Bola would face an uphill struggle).

 

4)..This is not correct at all. One member of your board (a prolific poster for the past 3 years) was actually working as a Paralegal to the Solicitor who represented Mr Bola when this case was heard on 17th February. There is therefore an 'involvement' whether you like it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is more to this than meets the eye. The person concerned has been ordered to pay costs to the tune of £7k but what about the other costs he has left himself liable for. Seems to me it could be double the £7k overall.


Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for finally posting the judgement BA, it is of huge benefit. The claimant in this case was clearly an idiot. It's clear from his name that he perhaps grew up in a culture where 'officialdom' is not respected or is open to abuse. That is not intended as a sweeping statement on all things African but it is a possibility.

 

The arguments he tried to use were doomed to failure and frankly mostly ridiculous, but that was the case he wanted to present. Heaven knows why he tried to claim 3 months car hire seeing as he'd paid the EA and had his car returned - that is quite bizarre.

 

I have been informed the reason his solicitor did not attend the May hearing is due to some fees being unpaid. However I have also been informed that at the May hearing it was said that leave to appeal has since been granted. Remember, just because a judge says leave to appeal is denied doesn't mean an appeal cannot be sought - it simply means the judge believes his decision is correct. I am told the leave to appeal was allowed due to some errors in law by the judge but of course I am not at liberty to disclose any more.

 

I do want to add though that I feel hailing this as 'a hugely significant ruling' is overblowing it, perhaps even distorting it. It is mainly a ruling regarding a denial of expenses and damages. Due to the constant use of 'I think' by the judge I'm not confident he was fully conversant with the legislation around enforcement and this has seemingly resulted in the several errors.

 

I would imagine the 100 page transcript would be an exhuasting read and an expensive purchase. The going rate would see a 100 page transcript costing about £1500. Someone must have badly wanted it.

 

Yes well being one of the instigators of ll this nonsense you would say all this, it was expected.

Unfortunately the judgment is as said, and all the rhetoric in the world cannot change that.

I think the judgement is highly important, although more so to the people who have been fostering this nonsense on debtors than the rest of us who knew the situation long ago.

 

I find it hard to believe the judgment in feb was given permission to appeal, the judge was quite adamant and it has now been some months.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the purchase of the transcript, of course the word count is not relevant to the cost, as it has already been transcribed, so it does not matter how detailed it is, it is very detailed, and quite amusing to.(in parts)


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Bola was asked three times if he new the person question (just like the twelfth disciple :)). He denied knowledge on each case.

 

What surprised me about this, was the judge did not step in and curtail the query, I would have thought he would, as it was not someone is directly involved, apparently , for some reason he did not say anything.

 

When asked initially if he had payed the fees, Mr Bola said yes.

He was of the opinion that the fees referred to court costs, now where would he get that idea?

 

I think it should be said also that unlike whitely, no one on here thinks the claimant was stupid. He was badly advised that is all.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is more to this than meets the eye. The person concerned has been ordered to pay costs to the tune of £7k but what about the other costs he has left himself liable for. Seems to me it could be double the £7k overall.

 

The starting point is that he claimed to have incurred bills for the hire of a replacement vehicle of £4,932. Despite the fact that he had been asked for over 6 months to provide evidence in support and was only able on the morning of the hearing, a bank statement showing a payment of £1,644, we nonetheless have to assume that he really did incur these hire costs as otherwise, it would indicate that he was attemtping to make a fraudualent claim.

 

He also paid a fee of £308 for an injunction (which failed). He was order to pay £500.

 

At the hearing on 10th May, he was ordered to pay Harrow Council £2,000 and Newlyn £5,000.

 

Given the comment from Whitley earlier (that the non attendance of either him or his solicitor had been due to non payment to his solicitor) we can discount any thought that the case had been conducted under a 'pro bono' or other such scheme.

 

Taking the above into consideration, his attempt to avoid paying the complaince fee of £75 has left him worse off to the tune of at lest....£12,740. This sum excludes any solicitors fees. It also excludes any payments made to the individual who 'passed his case to legal'. As is alwalys the case, this individual claims that he 'drafts the proceedings' for the soldicitor. There will be a cost associated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sad cases really. If only they had dealt with the original PCN ( or other relevant issue) rather than try to fight the system. Just think that if everyone dealt with issues at the very beginning, you would not need bailiffs or bailiff advice sites.


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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your comment about a Judge being 'furious' that making posts were sub judice in in connection with this particular case then can I please assure you such comments doe not appear in the transcript. One last point that I would like to make is that enforcement companies (or law firms) will NOT disclose cases until a Judgement has been released. I wish to make that clear. Furthermore, once a judgment is made, it is a public record.

 

No, I had already made it clear the sub judice was a different case; in fact I believe Mr Felton was actually passing info whilst the case was ongoing and when it was brought to the judges attention I understand quite a few feathers were spat.

 

2). Yes, the individual from 'your board' did pass the case to 'legal'. However, you may be interested to hear that when questioned in court, he denied knowing that person !!

...

 

4)..This is not correct at all. One member of your board (a prolific poster for the past 3 years) was actually working as a Paralegal to the Solicitor who represented Mr Bola when this case was heard on 17th February. There is therefore an 'involvement' whether you like it or not.

 

On point 2 I'm not in a position to answer that. On point 4.... well, wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it hard to believe the judgment in feb was given permission to appeal, the judge was quite adamant and it has now been some months.

 

That is usually how it works. The judge refused leave; leave was sought; leave was granted 3 months later.

 

Regarding the purchase of the transcript, of course the word count is not relevant to the cost, as it has already been transcribed, so it does not matter how detailed it is, it is very detailed, and quite amusing to.(in parts)

 

The number of words is of course how a transcript is priced. A transcriber charges per 'folio' usually of about 80 words or so. County Court proceedings are not automatically transcribed then made available for purchase to whoever wants one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is usually how it works. The judge refused leave; leave was sought; leave was granted 3 months later.

 

I assume from what you have said that 'leave to 'appeal' the 17th February 2017 judgment was granted in May ( re your reference to '3 months later'). Are you certain of this? In particular given that neither Mr Bola or his solicitor attended the hearing?

 

Your reference to the costs of a transcript is hardly of any importance whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I assume from what you have said that 'leave to 'appeal' the 17th February 2017 judgment was granted in May ( re your reference to '3 months later'). Are you certain of this? In particular given that neither Mr Bola or his solicitor attended the hearing?

 

Your reference to the costs of a transcript is hardly of any importance whatsoever.

 

Its wrong in any case, the high word count only applies to the initial transcription, as i thought i had said, once that is made all you are paying for is a copy.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 893 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
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...