Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 1st again why do you keep changing things before you send them   you've added counterclaim in to our std CPR 31:14 you sent? why? this opens you up to additional costs and I hope you didnt tick counterclaim when you did AOS on mcol too?   also I notice you've  played with our std OD defence above too...   pers I would refrain from continuing to change things as they are written in the frain they are for specific reasons.   your defence is due by 4pm Monday [day 33]   here are 2 versions you will ofcourse need to adapt them to lowells para no's and remove the NOA stuff as your docs show Lowell have complied with those. but don't forget to mention other documents provided to date notably statements contain no proof they came from Lloyds but rather Lowells own internal data system    dx   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant entering into an Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim ('the Agreement') with the [insert original creditor] . .  2. The defendant denies that the account exceeded the agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds but is as a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. .  3. I refute the claimants claim is owed or payable. The amount claimed is comprised of amongst others default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, missed or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety. .  4. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon. .  5. The claimant is denied from added section 69 interest within the total claimed that as yet to be decided at the courts discretion. .  6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. .  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-. .  (a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification.  (d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.  (e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct. .  7. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated [xxxxxxx] namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. .  By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .  .............. or  Particulars of Claim  1.The claim is for the sum of 2470.56 in respect of monies owing pursuant to an overdraft facility under account number XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX.  2.The debt was legally assigned by Santander UK Plc to the claimant and notice has been served.   3.The Defendant has failed to repay overdrawn sums owing under the terms and conditions of the bank account.   The Claimant claims:  The sum of 2470.56 Interest pursuant to s69 of the county courticon Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00 percent from the 7/04/2015 to the date hereof 14 days is the sum of 7.58Daily interest at the rate of .54  Costs Defence  The Defendant contends that the particulars of the claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant once having had banking facilities with the original creditor Santander Bank. It is denied that I am indebted for any alleged balance claimed.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied.I am not aware or ever receiving any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Original Creditor has never served notice pursuant to 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974  Any alleged amount claimed could only consist in the main of default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.  4. As per Civil Procedureicon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.  (a) Provide a copy agreement/overdraft facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of all excessive charging/fees and show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.   (d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (e) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.  5. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated April 2015 namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  Regards  Andy    
    • Hi   Just read your thread and looked at the Docs posted in your PDF.   1. from AST to rent a Car Parking space you need to have signed a Car Parking Agreement for a Space and for visitors you should have asked permission for another space in advance with a fee to pay. (i also assume renting a parking space would be at a cost)   2. You have no signed Car Parking Agreement nor visitor space agreement.   Did you not fully read that AST before you signed it and pick up what is stated about parking and ask them about this Car Parking Agreement and if you need one to park in the car park?   You could formally complain to them about what was verbally said to you but unless you have evidence of this it may be hard to prove.   You should also contact them and ask how you go about renting a Car Parking space/costs and about the Car Parking Agreement also what the process is for a visitor car parking space/costs.   You need to be aware that they could class you and your visitor as illegally parking in there car park without consent nor a signed car parking agreement which they could use as a Breach of your Tenancy Agreement so you need to be careful in how you are approaching this and where you are parking.   Just for info on checking Manchester Life website they have numerous buildings/apartments/car parks but you may be in a building where some of the apartments are leasehold and as part of there leasehold they may have purchased a car parking space in that building. (so how do you know you are not parking in a space that someone in the building has legally purchased?)
    • It converts a forthwith to monthly payment which is set to suit your finances...so if £5 a month so be it...rubber stamped by the court....if you try to negotiate direct ...which it sounds thats what your doing.....they can alter it whenever they feel like it and if you dont comply can execute the judgment...but not if you submit an N245 as advised.   But hey what do we know ? 
    • you still got that spreadsheet I did for you?   dx  
  • Our picks

DDWales

TPS now BWLegal from 2014!

Recommended Posts

Hi all. 

 

My mother has just received the attached invoice request from BW as well as the notification from TPS. As you can see the alleged 'offence' was undertaken in 2014! A number of other online forums have indicated that TPS have just sent out a batch of these across the UK so look to be trying to clear their systems to make a quick buck.

 

This is the first correspondence she has had with them so surely this contravenes POFA in terms of notification timescales in the first instance.

In terms of next steps should she just ignore for the moment as it would seem that TPS/BW are chancing their arm?

 

Cheers!

 

DDW

 


If you believe that this post has helped in any way please click on the star to the left

 

DDWales Vs Barclaycard-*Won* http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/174860-ddwales-barclaycard.html

DDWales Vs Natwest-*Won*

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/210090-ddwales-natwest.html

 

-Reclaim the Right-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

please complete this:

 

if you must put stuff up please use PDF not post img's to a post.

 

has she moved since parking there?

 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Thanks dx. Have filled in and attached accordingly. DDW

 

For a windscreen ticket (Notice To Driver) please answer the following questions....

 

1 The date of infringement? 01/10/2014.

 

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? No as attached letter is first correspondence from TPS/BWLegal.

 

Have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days]

what date is on it No (As above. Attached letter is first contact from TPS/BWLegal)

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? Have not received NTK or any other evidence apart from attached letter(s).

 

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) No as did not receive NTK.

 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK,

did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process?

[it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances] N/A

 

5 Who is the parking company? Total Parking Solutions.

 

6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? B&Q, Neath, Neath Port-Talbot.   B&Q have subsequently moved out of this location. Unsure if TPS still manage site.

PCN.pdf

 

No, she still lives at the same address btw. Cheers, DDW


If you believe that this post has helped in any way please click on the star to the left

 

DDWales Vs Barclaycard-*Won* http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/174860-ddwales-barclaycard.html

DDWales Vs Natwest-*Won*

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/210090-ddwales-natwest.html

 

-Reclaim the Right-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well no such rule as leaving the site.

they cant keep you there

pers i'd ignore this until/unless you get a letter of claim.

 

so she remembers getting a windscreen ticket?

I doubt it

they don't issue PCN windscreen tickets for that I don't think

will be CCTV capture I bet

 

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi dx.  Thanks for your response- much appreciated.

 

Just as I thought...no such rule and cant keep you there!

 

She received nothing (no initial windscreen ticket, NTK or anything else) prior to these letters.

If she had received any threatograms or invoices I would have definitely raised on this great site at the time so am very sure of that.

 

I am unsure about CCTV but 100% sure that there was (and still is) no ANPR cameras on that particular site.

With that in mind, (and as this is her first notification) this must surely out of time in terms of POFA.

 

Wouldn't that alone be enough to beat TPS if they do gown down the claims route?

And of course will ignore in any case unless they do. 😀

 


If you believe that this post has helped in any way please click on the star to the left

 

DDWales Vs Barclaycard-*Won* http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/174860-ddwales-barclaycard.html

DDWales Vs Natwest-*Won*

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/210090-ddwales-natwest.html

 

-Reclaim the Right-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick question, as this was 2014, does your mother still own the  same car as  mentioned in the Invoice?   Did she buy it after that date.   Just checking that TPS havent done a recent DVLA check and  a possible previous keeper had the Invoice originally.  If so GDPR breach alert.


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 OTHER

 

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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Brassnecked.

No, she sold the car in question approx 7 months ago.

 

Cheers, DDW


If you believe that this post has helped in any way please click on the star to the left

 

DDWales Vs Barclaycard-*Won* http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/174860-ddwales-barclaycard.html

DDWales Vs Natwest-*Won*

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/210090-ddwales-natwest.html

 

-Reclaim the Right-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that what brassnecked was asking in the above post, was your mother the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence in 2014. Not that it makes much difference to the recommendations to ignore until a letter before claim is received, it is asked to rationalize the fact that no previous correspondence has been received.


My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gick. 

Thank you for your response.

Yes, she was the RO of the car at the time in 2014 but definitely received no correspondence until now.

Cheers, DDW


If you believe that this post has helped in any way please click on the star to the left

 

DDWales Vs Barclaycard-*Won* http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/174860-ddwales-barclaycard.html

DDWales Vs Natwest-*Won*

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/210090-ddwales-natwest.html

 

-Reclaim the Right-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes thanks Gick, that was the reasoning there, just to make sure there is no chance of any backdoor CCJ or that they have tried it on with a previous keeper's invoice being that the alleged infringement was 5 years ago.  PPC's and BW aren't exactly squeaky always.


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 OTHER

 

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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again.

 

No chance of a backdoor CCJ. I shall sit tight and wait for their next steps.

Appreciate all the responses. DDW 😀

  • Thanks 1

If you believe that this post has helped in any way please click on the star to the left

 

DDWales Vs Barclaycard-*Won* http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/174860-ddwales-barclaycard.html

DDWales Vs Natwest-*Won*

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/210090-ddwales-natwest.html

 

-Reclaim the Right-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really is time that BW legal got a real kicking. They are totally useless. You would think that they would know that the registered keeper and the driver can often be two different people. Therefore they cannot demand the extra 54 pounds since that would only be contractually due  [if indeed there was a contract anyway] by the driver as per POFA.

 

Further is it disingenuous to infer that even if she did lose in Court [highly unlikely with BW legal in charge] that as long as the debt is settled within 30 days a ccj will not be issued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully an acidic letter to BW legal will send them back under their rock if they did send a Letter bfeore claim, shame the courts don't check the numerous dodgy POC's that include the Unicorn Food tax in a claim that tries to  sue keeper..


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 OTHER

 

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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is likely that they are hoping that you wet your pants upon the receipt of a threatogram from a company of solicitors.

I would be tempted to ignore this and see what they want to do next and if it is a LBA then you respond with a reminder that VCS v Ibbotson is the persuasive case here

 

it is unlikely that their clients have the authority of the ICO to go round spying on people's movements and put it to "strict proof" that they do have this authority from the landlord and the ICO

 

that anyone observed leaving the site was contractually obliged to remain there as it would only apply to the driver at the time if in a parallel universe such a clause was enforceable as the keeper wasnt the driver at the time so why are they wasting their time writing now?

 

your mother ought to get on to the DVLA to find out who accessed her keeper details and when.

The DVLA try and avoid telling people the answer because they collude in fraud but don't want to admit their own money grubbing allows other to break the law with impunity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks lookinforinfo.

BW seem to be quite active at the moment as are TPS sending many old invoices out across the UK. As you state above there are immediate discrepancies and issues...

It seems they (along with most others) try the extra 'legal fees' charge en masse.

 

Thanks again brassnecked.

 

Just waiting for the LBC. My mother has already had 2 text messages from BW wanted her to ring them to discuss a 'personal matter'. Suitably ignored of course.

 

Thanks ericsbrother.

 

Just playing the waiting game now....

In terms of getting in touch with the DVLA,  is this simply an SAR to them with £10 to cover costs?

 

Cheers, DDW


If you believe that this post has helped in any way please click on the star to the left

 

DDWales Vs Barclaycard-*Won* http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/174860-ddwales-barclaycard.html

DDWales Vs Natwest-*Won*

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/210090-ddwales-natwest.html

 

-Reclaim the Right-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No just write.

no need to sar..ps which is free now anyway


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a metter of finding the right department as the DVLA has a dozen differetn poscodes for the same building.

Have a look at Karalius' thread about CEL in east London, he got a response so it will have the details of the correct section to write to.

 

She needs to simply ask who accessed her datails, when and for what stated reason.

The last but may well give her ammunition for suing them for breach of the DPA cos they are likey to had told a lie to get the access ( ie they know that Ibbotson determination gives them no "reasonable cause")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks dx and eb- much appreciated. Have written to the DVLA so just waiting for a response. Hopefully they will have 'slipped up' here. Ibbotson certainly makes very interesting reading too!

 

In terms of an update, BW have text my mother 3 times and have now sent a lovely follow up threatogram (attached).

 

I've also undertaken some research on the former B&Q parking site in question.

 

The site is now run by G24 Parking, has new signage and ANPR installed also.

 

I'm going to dig around further in the meantime to determine if TPS had initial authority from the landowner and permission to erect their signage back in 2014.

 

Let's see what I can find! Cheers, DDW

 

PCN2.pdf


If you believe that this post has helped in any way please click on the star to the left

 

DDWales Vs Barclaycard-*Won* http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/174860-ddwales-barclaycard.html

DDWales Vs Natwest-*Won*

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/210090-ddwales-natwest.html

 

-Reclaim the Right-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the fact they were booted out may well be the reason they are chasing this at a late stage, nothing to lose as far as they are concerned.

WRONG.

 

you check with the council about planning consent for signage and equipment like cameras etc. 2 different laws so 2 permissions needed.

also get pictures of what is there now so you can challenge the veracity of what they say about signs etc as a new parking co with shiny new signs can indicate that they were doing it wrong, not enough or clear enough signs or whatever you want to push with this and they cant say that their sub,ission canbe proved.

 

CEL used to jusy use a computer mock up of sigsn and claim they were just like that in any car aprk when the real photographs showed anything but. throw doubt on one bit of thei claim or evidence and the judge will disregad the whole lot as unreliable. that m3eans you ahve to o the research though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks eb! 

 

I have an update....

DVLA letter sent asking for data requests.

 

Have also been in touch with the council planning department and spoke to a lovely lady who totally sympathised as she had recently been caught up with something similar and was very happy to help!

 

I have a telephone call scheduled with her next Monday to confirm if permissions were actually needed by the council

(she couldn't confirm this when I spoke to her but would research for me in terms of private land ownership).

 

In the meantime I checked the planning app portal and can confirm that the council has received no planning for signage or cameras etc from TPS and/or B and Q themselves (there doesn't seem to be planning apps from they new PPC either!).

 

Have attached evidence of this dating back to the mid 1990's.

The only planning permission given has been for security fencing!

 

I have also attached Google Map shots of the site.

I could not go into the car park any further as Maps changes the view to 2016.

 

The photo evidence is from 2011 (none exists for 2014 unfortunately).

 

Looks like there are parking signs as such in those views but when you zoom in they are illegible

- the best I could get are also in the attached.

 

Regards, DDW

BandQsignage.pdf


If you believe that this post has helped in any way please click on the star to the left

 

DDWales Vs Barclaycard-*Won* http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclaycard/174860-ddwales-barclaycard.html

DDWales Vs Natwest-*Won*

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/210090-ddwales-natwest.html

 

-Reclaim the Right-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you get pictures of the current lot and use these against them.

 

The whole point of this is to show that no-one can prove what they are claiming and you can prove that it isnt so now.

 

they will try and show a mock up and you can then challenge this by saying whwere is the real evidence that you had 22 signs all a mile high by showing actual photographs where the background is indisputably that site?

 

So for the second time of asking get the pictures of what is there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, 

 

I have just stumbled across this thread after receiving a PCN, from the same location and also from 2014!

 

I have received 1 letter which i ignored but today received a final warning letter before county court proceedings.

 

Do you have any updates on how the claim is going? any information you can share would be greatly appreciated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

best to create a topic of your own please

this one is for advising SSwales.

click create in the top red banner

 

dx

 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...