Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good evening, so not a good weekend reviewing paperwork -- I have lost some proofs of postage.. also, although not provided at CCA, they have now supplied a DN in their WS, please see scan of claimants WS (without statements) Document with tick boxes as signatures doesn't look like an agreement and is split across pages. Documents have been stapled and copied multiple times looking at the top left of them. Aside from that, having read other threads, I suspect they have everything? appreciate your input please Sorry for heavy redactions, I noticed the paperwork was see-through LinkHalifaxCC1.compressed.pdf
    • Received a final demand today Final demand.pdf
    • Here is my final draft: I, XXXXXX, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in the claim and further to my set aside application dated 1 November 2022. The claimants witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts in person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act.   1.        The claimant failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis on the 2 February 2024 'The Claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents.' None of these documents were received by the court nor the defendant by that date.   2.        I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment.   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.   3.        The alleged letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address.  I have attached a copy of my tenancy agreement which is marked ‘Appendix 1’ and shows I was residing at a difference address as of 11 December 2018 and was therefore not at the service address at the time the proceedings were served.  I have also attached an email from my solicitors to the Claimants solicitors dated 14 July 2022 which was sent to them requesting that they disclose the trace of evidence they utilised prior to issuing the proceedings against me.  This is marked ‘Appendix 2’.  The claimants solicitors did not provide me with these documents.   4.        Under The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 a Debt Buyer must undertake all reasonable enquiries to ensure the correct address of a debtor, this can be as simple as a credit file search. The Claimant failed to carry out such basic checks. Subsequently all letters prior to and including ,The Pre action Protocol letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 and the claim form dated 14th February 2020 were all served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018.   5.        I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020.   6.        Upon the discovery of the Judgement debt, I made immediate contact with the Court and the Claimant Solicitors, putting them on notice that I was making investigations in relation to the Judgement debt as it was not familiar to me.  I asked them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.   The correspondence to the Claimant Solicotors is attached and marked ‘Appendix 3’   7.        I then sent a Data Subject Access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided. Details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 4’and the copies of correspondence between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 5’.   8.        The claimant relies upon and exhibits a reconstituted version of the alleged agreement.   It is again denied that I have ever entered into an agreement with Barclaycard on or around 2000.  It is admitted that I did hold other credit agreements with other creditors and as such should this be a debt that was assigned to Barclaycard from another brand therefore the reconstituted agreement disclosed is invalid being pre April 2007 and not legally enforceable pursuant to HH Judge Waksman in Carey v HSBC 2009 EWHC3417.  Details of this are attached and marked ‘Appendix 6’.   The original credit agreement must be provided along with any reconstituted version on a modified credit agreement and must contain the names and address of debtor and creditor, agreement number and cancelation clause.   9.        Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to disclose a true executed legible agreement on which its claim relies upon and not try to mislead the court.   10.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the original assigned agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. I believe that 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                 ………………………………………………….. Name                  XXXX Date                     30 April 2024
    • Only trying to help.  Ain't being nasty.  Some
    • Hi folks, I've just found previous documentation. I thought it had gone missing. I'd forgotten that I did appeal it through POPLA but I can't find the thread on here that, I assume, I posted for help. Appeal letter is dated 27/10/2020 with a rejection. I genuinely had forgotten about this so apologies for misleading you. A lot has happened in the years since the ticket was issued. We closed down a couple of businesses and moved to the opposite end of the country to retire. The documents I have are scanned copies. I no longer have the originals. The NTK is also in there. If there's anything you'd like to see, please let me know and I'll post them, although it probably won't be until tomorrow now, but I'll be looking in on this page tonight. Thank you for the responses so far
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

DPA/GDPR breach or not?/


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2121 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Not sure if this is the correct forum,but it's the only 1 closest to my query, it involves an employee.

 

Last week when England knocked out Colombia,

there were fans congregating in a town center ,

blocking the road,

and 2 buses were blocked in.

 

Several dozen fans were converging on one of the buses which was immediately outside the pub.,

rocking it,

opening the entrance doors via the outside emergency door button.

 

The driver attempted 3 or 4 times to gently shove a few fans off.

1 fan actually got onto the roof and was jumping on the roof.

 

A harrowing experience for the several passengers on board,

some of whom were young women.

 

All the time this was happening,

someone was filming the incident.

 

All of a sudden,

the video clip is on Youtube.

 

The driver concerned is angry that this video clip is on youtube ,

uploaded by a local taxi firm.

 

The driver never gave his permission for the video clip to be uploaded or for the drivers face to be shown.

The taxi firm did not ask the bus company if they could upload it either.

 

Not only was it embarrassing for the driver at the time of the incident,

but it was also a shock for him when he saw the video clip on Youtube,

which has gone viral,

and has had over 66,000 hits.

 

The bus driver asked me if there is a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018,

and/or a breach of the GDPR.

 

As I am not clued up much on both,

I cannot give a positive answer

 

So,

any help and advice would be greatly appreciated.

I will print it off and give it to the employee.

Edited by DragonFly1967
Added some spaces and paragraphs :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, to start, I should say that I have also seen the video on youtube.

 

This is not a breach of the DPA and/or the GDPR for many reasons.

 

Although the drivers face can be seen, there is nothing contained in the video (with the exception of his face) that identifies them personally. As the incident took place in public and was filmed in public, there is no right to or expectation of privacy. Anyone can film anyone else in a public place and they do not need the permission of anyone else to do so. Annoying? Sometimes yes, especially when you're just trying to do your job, but it's just one of those things when every man and his dog is carrying around a broadcast quality camera in their pocket I'm afraid.

 

I really can't understand why the bus driver is embarrassed by this incident. It's not like they got off the bus and provided them with a set of steps to help them climb on top. There was nothing that the driver could have done to prevent this from happening apart from mowing down countless idiots that were standing in the road (which, after watching the video, I'm sure was sorely tempting) so they have absolutely nothing at all to be embarrassed about.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the above post by dragonfly is not entirely correct.

 

Whilst it is true there is no expectation of privacy in public places and there is no law prohibiting filming is public,

this means there has been no tort of the invasion of privacy.

 

However the GDPR is another matter entirely.

 

By the person uploading it to YouTube without permission,

and the drivers personal data ie his facial image has been shared,

this is not compliant with the GDPR.

 

It doesn’t matter that you or I may not be able to identify him,

other people might.

 

The only time that it could be shared online without permission is If it’s in the interests of the public and for freedom of the press/expression.

 

I do not see how that would apply in this case and the consent of the driver should have been obtained.

 

Old Cogger said:
sounds all a bit childish by the driver - what has he got to loose? working legally is he not?

 

That is of no relevance. He didn’t consent to his image being posted online and is offended/embarrassed/shocked/whatever else by it being placed online without his consent. Not in the interests of the public or for journalistic reasons either. Clear breach of GDPR

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd agree with that completely if it was uploaded for a commercial purpose, then I do think the GDPR (at the very least) would apply. But what we're talking about here (basically) is: A member of the public, uploading footage of other members of the public, that was filmed in public, for no commercial gain.

 

I'm just not convinced that there's a breach, or at least, not one that could be proved/actioned.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Think you approaching it from incorrect angle. It's not whether it's processed for commercial purposes in order to breach gdpr, rather if it's not purely for domestic or household purpose then it's a breach of gdpr. CJEU ruling in reynes. And number of UK CoA rulings.

 

 

In terms of data protection it's not.

Other things yes.

 

The problem is the whole scale theft and misuse of our private data from the Russian criminal online gangs and state sponsored misuse of data by Russia and North Korea,

to Cambridge analytica and Facebook all the way to the DVLA selling our personal data to corrupt parking companies.

That's why the gdpr is important.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very difficult to find anything that discusses public use (rather than media/journalism use) of cameras for photography/videoing in public. There's lots of information for professional photographers/videographers, journalists (employed & independent) and just about everyone else who uses something with a lens for commercial purposes. But when it comes to Joe Bloggs filming something and uploading it, Google is bereft of anything even remotely meaningful.

 

I think I might email the ICO about this and get a definitive take on it (getting an answer should only take a decade or two) :lol:

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of this driver in any event,

it was a local taxi firm that uploaded the image.

 

In order to be compliant with GDPR they would have been required to give the driver a privacy notice

ie if the event was recorded by their cctv then the required signs would have been necessary,

 

if they had of handed the cctv to the police so that action could be taken against the hooligans vandalising the bus then that would have a lawful reason,

but just posting the video online without consent is definitely a breach of GDPR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the taxi firm were sending a message out to the public.....

."Don;t get the bus, get a taxi"...…

 

I too believe there is a breach of GDPR,

but wanted to be absolutely certain,

 

which is why i have posted on here for expert(hopefully) advice.......

 

I am aware that the bus company are seeking tp pursue the assailant on the roof of the bus for damage to the roof of the 1 year old bus.

 

Here is what I looked up on Wikipedia.....

 

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) (EU) 2016/679 is a regulation in EU law on data protection and privacy for all individuals within the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA).

 

It also addresses the export of personal data outside the EU and EEA areas.

The GDPR aims primarily to give control to citizens and residents over their personal data and to simplify the regulatory environment for international business by unifying the regulation within the EU.[1]

 

Superseding the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC,

the regulation contains provisions and requirements pertaining to the processing of personally identifiable information of individuals (formally called data subjects in the GDPR) inside the European Union,

 

and applies to all enterprises,

regardless of location,

that are doing business with the European Economic Area.

 

Business processes that handle personal data must be built with data protection by design and by default,

meaning that personal data must be stored using pseudonymization or full anonymization,

and use the highest-possible privacy settings by default,

 

so that the data is not available publicly without explicit,

informed consent,

and cannot be used to identify a subject without additional information stored separately.

 

No personal data may be processed unless it is done under a lawful basis specified by the regulation,

or if the data controller or processor has received an unambiguous and individualized affirmation of consent from the data subject.

 

The data subject has the right to revoke this consent at any time.

 

Clearly a breach of GDPR.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no breach of anything

 

the person that took the video was standing on public land ….the events were viewed from public land...

 

there are no laws whatsoever that prevent such actions . nor the uploading of the video anywhere...

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

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

and they

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry DX but you are incorrect.

They had no right to post the video online.

 

It was not posted for journalistic reasons or for reasons in the public interest and the driver was clearly the focus of the video together with the person damaging the bus.

 

As in my earlier post if they had of just provided the video to the police or to the bus company then that would not of breached the GDPR, but putting it online has.

 

The video of the perp would probably not have breached the GDPR as they could claim to have posted it in order to try identify him but they should have blurred out the drivers face or got his consent.

Edited by dx100uk
quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please tell us which Article of the GDPR has been breached as there are over 99 Articles in the GDPR this may help to clarifiy your position.

 

I have to also agree there has been no breach of the GDPR.

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been 2 breaches of the GDPR.

1. Art 12 and Art 13 have been breached by the taxi firm as they have not provided the requisite notification to the bus driver as required by the GDPR

2. The images of the driver on the video, is the personal data of the driver - this cannot be disputed. In order to process(use, transfer, store, delete, etc) personal data then there are only 6 lawful basis and the controller/processor MUST be able to show that the processing is lawful under one of these(Article 6) - they are:

1. consent

2. contract

3. legal obligation

4. vital interests of the data subject

5. task in public interest

6. legitimate purposes of the data controller which are not overridden by the rights and freedoms of the data subject

 

The taxi firm cannot rely on any of these for posting the personal data of the driver on the Internet and so they unlawfully processed the data.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not exactly.

 

the court cases have ruled where the focus of the images appear to be on a person or number of people then the consent of those people would be required.

 

people that are in the background and not the focus of the picture and so probably not entirely recognisable do not need to give consent.

 

However, consent may also not actually be required as a legitimate reason could be used, for example, at a racing event if i take a picture of a racing car speeding past and the people on the other side of the track show in the picture then

a)because they not the focus of the picture and

b)because there is a legitimate reason for the picture and that people attending such an event would expect people to take photos or videos, then that would be lawful.

 

on the other hand,

me taking a picture of someone picking their nose whilst sitting in their car and posting it all over facebook or youtube would breach the GDPR as no consent and no legitimate reason for posting it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steveod you are wrong

dont make things up

 

There are no laws whatsoever if filmed from a public space

 

There is no expectation of privacy of anyone.

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

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

and they

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the BBC I was informed they are obliged to get permissions to film using individuals i.e. direct at individuals (consent) but actual actions filming etc then film but edit if necessary as so not to break human rights = very difficult at times to differentiate = every situation will be different subject to events at the time.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are a Data Protection specialist?

Have you reviewed the case law?

 

It doesn’t make any difference whether filmed in public, in private, from a private premises to a public premises or vice versa.

ALL personal data processing is subject to the GDPR laws.

 

I recommend you go view the ICO guidelines on cctv, body worn cameras and drones as these are used for filming in public places and as you will plainly see are subject to GDPR as well. And read the Reynes judgement from CJEU as well as the Lindquist cjeu judgement.

 

there is also a couple of uk cases I can show you where it was ruled uploading personal data to a website was in breach of data protection act.

 

It’s not the filming that’s the issue. It’s the posting online without consent or legitimate reason that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

go for it steve but waste your own money not someone elses.

go see a solicitor and pay for a consultation on that mobile phone footage eh!

 

theres is no claim under GDPR anywhere,

it was filmed in a public place from a public place

end of.

 

I dont need to know anything about silly ifs and buts or CJEU rubbish either..

it wasn't a drone...it wasn't a body worn camera...it wasn't a CCTV system..[all do have some limitations]

 

 

it was a pers hand held device

 

just know someone who is very high up in the UK equiv of the USA 1st amendment auditors ….

 

as I said stop making things up...there is NO BREACH of anything...

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

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

and they

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know someone that is very high up.

That really doesn’t mean anything.

 

You know a lot and help many posters but that doesn’t make everyone else wrong.

 

It doesn’t make any difference how the footage was obtained, handheld mobile, cctv, drone, body camera, satellite.

 

issue was the posting of the drivers image on the internet, who had done nothing criminal, without his consent and without legitimate reason and causing him distress.

 

I don’t need to consult a solicitor I have plenty of data protection experience as my job.

 

Please show me where in the GDPR or the DPA 2018 it excludes the processing from the obligations of lawful basis of processing of personal data when the personal data has been obtained in a public place. There is no such exclusion or exemption.

 

And it’s no use just rubbishing the cjeu, those rulings are binding and show that recordings or images of people obtained in a public area are personal data and can only be processed without consent where the data subject has committed a crime or for the legitimate reason of freedom of expression.

 

you believe whatever you want, that’s your right.

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary quote removed...spacing added.
Link to post
Share on other sites

show you...just go look at the 100's of videos from the UK groups on youtube already from public land...

MOD, USAF, Prisons, etc etc ...none have ever successfully prosecuted anyone using a hand held device..despite all their wonderful and farcical reasons they state in the videos the activists must turn off their cameras and delete the footage.

 

as for me, 35yrs being responsible for data protection in one of the biggest establishments of its kind in the UK

 

….'for the legitimate reason of freedom of expression'...you are getting there.

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

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

and they

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom of expression relates to posting or processing “in the public interests”.

 

It doesn’t relate to posting for entertainment purposes by a taxi firm where there is no public interest per se.

 

They needed to get the consent of the driver or should have anonymised his face.

 

Just a simple request,

Please show us where in the GDPR it excludes handheld mobiles from the 6 lawful basis for processing of personal data such as in this case of the OP

 

What lawful basis of the 6 does the taxi firm use?

Link to post
Share on other sites

and who said 'it's for entertainment purposes'?...not the person that filmed and uploaded it....

 

dx

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

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

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

and they

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

what about dash cam footage.

 

What about the England fan who jumped on ambulance following World Cup win over Sweden who is then identified by police using social media to ask for footage.

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...