Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doesn't matter you've admitted about the DN and anyway where have you done that and to whom?   by assignment arrows are the creditor regardless to your acking of that fact or not.      
    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH       For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes    …………………..     This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.      My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.    POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.   docs1.pdf
  • Our picks

Recommended Posts

Hi,

I’ve recently received a letter from a high court enforcement company regarding an old energy debt.

I’ve spoken with the company regarding the debt but would like some advice on the following as I’m confused.

Firstly

- The letter states that they are to claim the debt in full, if the debt cannot be paid in full then a payment arrange can be made.

 

On the reverse it also states (and I’ve asked and received email confirmation) that they will only enter into an arrangement once an Agent has visited the property

“In order to establish for himself whether payment in full can or cannot be made.

If satisfied payment in full cannot be made, he would discuss an arrangement and ask you to enter in to controlled goods agreement.”

Obviously this will increase the debt and they will get a fee, Is this right? 

Secondly - They compliance fee has had VAT added to it. From what I have seen this is a fixed fee??

Lastly - I have an email from the Creditor to confirm they are happy to proceed with a payment arrange that I’ve proposed so long as it’s paid via the HCE company.

As they work on behalf of the creditor surely the have to follow their instruction? 

Any my advice would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the energy supplier have a CCJ for this, as it looks like they are coming out to Enforce and Take control of your goods?

 

Moved to Bailiffs and Enforcement Industry Forum, as you will get better advice there.


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

They have a CCJ for it for the debt. I’m trying to address the debt but want to avoid their attendance fee (which is just racketeering to me). I’m assuming that I do not have to allow entry to the property? We also have a vulnerable disabled (learning difficulties) living within the property. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make sure all doors are locked, and they cannot force entry, move any motor vehicles away.  Who was the debt to and how much was it, what is the total the HCEO is asking for at the moment?

 

Others will be along soon to help you explore options.


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

Original debt was to Certas energy for £880 and is now £1038 so they are asking for the full amount

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did you know that Certas energy had gotten a CCJ against you?

tell us the history of the debt please

 

the fees etc will be correct as its above £600 HCEO can be used and there are no fixed fees like court bailiffs 

no you do not invite them in, and no you dont 'have' to prove you can afford what you say.

the 'meeting' is a rouse to gain extra seizure of goods powers.

 


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

I was aware that Certas had obtained a CCJ against me, however at the time I was working away so couldn’t represent myself.

 

I was paying £150 a month towards the energy bill but they wanted to up monthly DD and at the time we couldn’t meet what they wanted.

 

This meant the account was passed to their in house collection team and that we had to make any subsequent orders on a pro forma basis.

 

With the cold winter we had to cancel the monthly DD and put that towards an order of fuel (it does or cooking, hot water and heating).

 

When we went to re-instate the DD they insisted on full payment of the account which we couldn’t do.

 

I thought I’d we let it go to court we could represent and put forward a payment schedule but as I said above i was working away at the time of the court hearing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and you didn't learn from all your past dealing with debt and bailiffs?

 

how long ago was this CCJ and why oh why didn't you come here for help?

 

stick in an n245!!

 

dx

  • Like 1

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

And get a court imposed payment set up, they can't argue with that once Court have agreed paymernts.

  • Like 1

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

I’ve sent in the N245 form and guess who visited Today!

He called me and said that he spoke to my Brother in law at the house

(who has Autism with severe speech and language issues) and that he was going to enter the property.

 

I said that without a signed controlled goods agreement he couldn’t and the fact a vulnerable person was the only one home he wouldn’t be allowed.

 

He got very Shirty and said if I don’t pay in full by the end of the month he would be back with a warrant from the court to enter the property.

 

I’ve opened the letter up that was left and the total is now £2091, nearly £1000 more in fees and VAT!!!

 

Also the guy that visited isn’t listed as a HCEO

but the person who is registered/listed is named on the notice of enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did you tell him you've filed the n245...

 

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

No I didn’t tell him that I filed for the N245, should I have said to him? I was concerned he would attempt to obtain entry if I said anything about submitting the form

 

How do I deal with the extortionate fees that have illegal VAT and the fact that he isn’t hceo registered but acting in behalf is someone that is!!! DX100uk, your right I should have learnt my lesson from past dealings with these companies and their subordinates 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what were you told...

there is no forced right of entry on civil consumer CCJ debt.

 

if your n245 is successful as far as i'm aware that rolls everything back. inc all fees.

 

as for the registration that's not my bag.


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

What HCEO company is this?  They can have a supervisory Certificated HCEO, who controls stuff, and have minions working under them calling as well as Certificate holding bailiffs.  That's why Claire Sandbrook being the Registered HCEO  for DCBL, and her living in the USA so cannot exercise due diligence is such an issue..


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

The company are the HCE Group based in Swansea. I’ve looked at their fees and it appears they have added both stage 1 and 2 at the same time for the first visit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have they listed any goods like a car or garden furniture and tried to get a vulnerable adult to sign it?  Did your B I L let him in? as there is no right of entry except peaceful entry thgrough an unlocked door or being invited in.


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

Oh dear....how unusual....not.. 


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

He wasn’t able to obtain entry or list any goods. I spoke to Northampton courts earlier as they signed for the papers but they have said it was transferred to the high court but couldn’t tell me which one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/08/2019 at 08:35, baz4iow said:

Hi,

I’ve recently received a letter from a high court enforcement company regarding an old energy debt.

I’ve spoken with the company regarding the debt but would like some advice on the following as I’m confused.

Firstly

- The letter states that they are to claim the debt in full, if the debt cannot be paid in full then a payment arrange can be made.

 

On the reverse it also states (and I’ve asked and received email confirmation) that they will only enter into an arrangement once an Agent has visited the property

 

“In order to establish for himself whether payment in full can or cannot be made.

If satisfied payment in full cannot be made, he would discuss an arrangement and ask you to enter in to controlled goods agreement.”

 

Obviously this will increase the debt and they will get a fee, Is this right? 

 

 

This is a very common situation I'm afraid and the reason why a visit would need to be made (before a payment proposal could be accepted) is outlined under Item 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum supporting the Taking Control of Goods Fees Regulations 2014 which states as follows:

 

Quote

While the fee structure applies across debt streams, there are two separate fee levels – one for High Court Enforcement and one for non-High Court Enforcement, with the High Court level containing higher fees. This reflects the findings in the 2009 independent report that High Court Enforcement has a higher cost base due to the personal responsibility of a High Court Enforcement Officer (who has writs addressed directly to them) and the fact that they enforce higher value debts.

 

The personal liability of the High Court Enforcement Officer has also necessitated the need for High Court enforcement to have first and second enforcement stages with the associated fees. 

 

The fee structure for High Court cases also introduces an incentive to enter into, and adhere to, an affordable controlled goods agreement. Unless a debtor pays in full at the compliance stage, the enforcement agent is obliged to visit the debtor in every High Court case in order to take control of goods, thereby triggering the first enforcement stage.

 

If the enforcement agent is then unable to enter into a controlled goods agreement (and has to take control of goods in another manner) or a debtor defaults on a controlled goods agreement, the enforcement agent will be under an obligation to remove goods and therefore the second enforcement stage fee will also apply.

 

For non-High Court debt there is no such obligation and therefore we have introduced an incentive to enter into an agreement without taking control of goods at the (earlier) compliance stage which avoids triggering the enforcement stage with its larger fee.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/pdfs/uksiem_20140001_en.pdf

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please can you state where in the legislation it says that in order to enter a payment arrangement a visit must be undertaken?

the supporting document was sent pre-legislation and I cannot find anything in the actual law that outlines this! 

 

The document you’ve linked to is not statutory guidance but a memorandum and does not hold the same weighting as the enacted law....

 

Can you advise the part of the law that states a visit is a must?

Particularly where the client has already written to and instructed the agent to accept the payment arrangement pre-visit? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about here within the explanatory notes, who by the way take the form of a SI, and are law.

 

The fee structure for High Court cases also introduces an incentive to enter into, and adhere to, an affordable controlled goods agreement. Unless a debtor pays in full at the compliance stage, the enforcement agent is obliged to visit the debtor in every High Court case in order to take control of goods, thereby triggering the first enforcement stage. If the enforcement agent is then unable to enter into a controlled goods agreement (and has to take control of goods in another manner) or a debtor defaults on a controlled goods agreement, the enforcement agent will be under an obligation to remove goods and therefore the second enforcement stage fee will also apply. For non-High Court debt there is no such obligation and therefore we have introduced an incentive to enter into an agreement without taking control of goods at the (earlier) compliance stage which avoids triggering the enforcement stage with its larger fee.  

 

Hope that helps, you are wrong in the regards to VAT also, a HCEO is within his wrights to charge them to the debtor, as he himself is billed, by the exchequer. 
 
 


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

Lol sorry BA. Great minds.


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
Posted (edited)

I had an idea that this nonsense would come up, I think thr OP needs to look into the earlier rules.

 

However this guidance does pass through parliament, and is included within the legislation courtesy of Gov,com

 

In truth, it is the reason for the HCEO adopting the two tiered approach, or one of them. So the question is trite.

Edited by Dodgeball

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

Thanks so to follow on ... what would you suggest the OP does?

 

What routes ref returning the case to court would be appropriate in this instance?

 

are you not suggesting to submit the N244- would doing that be futile for the OP in your view?

 

Is it incorrect to suggest putting the N244/45 in to stay the writ and vary the order?

 

Would it be appropriate to put it to the courts for an assessment of fees in this case?

 

It seems the fees allocated aren’t in line with the fed outlined in correspondence and are about £200 over the permitted calculated fees as per the regard quoted above.

 

are people generally not successful when putting N244/45 forms back to court and what happens to the bailiffs fees when they do?

 

im sure the OP is open to balanced information on both sides. 

Thanks /)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I do not know what you mean by "balanced information", sorry. What I give are facts not opinion, o if opinion is proffered I will mention it.

 

Applications to stay and to vary a judgement are often successful, and the procedure is well detailed on here.

 

The rest is not advisable, the matter should be addressed with the EA before any action is considered . If no attempt is made to avoid a court hearing, it may have a negative impacts on the debtors costs bill.

 

EAs do fiddle fees of course and HCEOs are the worst(in my opinion)

As far as I know , wins are rare,.People are often goaded into taking action on fictitious causes of action, then end up with outrageous costs bills.

I know that the adviser mentioned here has had no winning cases, and several costs bills awarded against his "clients". I suppose it depends on the facts of the case, and the ability of the sol.

Edited by Dodgeball
typos

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

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...