Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi allets, CCA to whoever is the debt owner today, let us know their response, or lack there of, for further guidance   Or you could read up other like threads and the advice will be the same, so you'll know what to expect   BT
    • OK, let's get stuck into these damn fleecers.  Building on last night's version, new bits in red.   LFI, can you check I've understood the POFA bits properly that you suggested (4.  NO KEEPER LIABILITY)?  Thanks.     IN THE COUNTY COURT SHEFFIELD    CLAIM NO: XXXX   HX PARKING LTD  (CLAIMANT) VS XXX (DEFENDANT)   Date: 3rd May 2022   Witness Statement   1. I, Mr XXX, of xxx am the Defendant against whom this claim is made.   1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX.   1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.   INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE   2. I confirm that i was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma Leisure Centre, Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in (bank statement proof exhibit 1).   2.1. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.   2.2.  In their Witness Statement opposing my set aside application the Claimant includes a site plan showing the position of their signs and a close up of a sign to make it look like it is featured in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest billboard in world history.   2.3.  The reality for the motorist is completely different.  I attach photos, some from Google Earth but most taken by myself, which show what a motorist sees when approaching the site in daylight (exhibit 2).  There is no sign at the entrance.  The car then drives past a gym and a cinema without encountering any signs.  When then parking in the car park outside McDonald's once again there is dearth of signage.  Admittedly a motorist who perhaps came out with binoculars might just about be able to make out signs in the far distance mounted on various buildings.   2.4.  The driver visited the site around midnight.  I further attach photos taken at night from the McDonald's area (exhibit 3) and defy whoever is representing HX Parking at the hearing to point out the signs the driver should have read.  There aren't any.  I have not doctored these photos in any way or deliberately not photographed visible signs.  There simply are no visible signs.   2.5.  Even if the driver had seen the signs, they would have been extremely confusing.  A car is normally allowed to be parked for five hours, yet after midnight this is changed to one hour.  This begs the question for how long a motorist entering at 10pm for example is allowed to stay.  Is it for five hours until 3am or until 1am?   2.6. The PCN/NTK states "period of parking 00:02:05".  It is common sense that a couple of minutes was needed to enter the complex, find McDonald's and find a parking space, before the period of parking began, so it is likely the car entered the car park before midnight allowing the driver to park the car there for five hours.   2.7.  Even if the driver had seen the signage - they did not - the mention of a £100 charge is literally the last word on the last line of a long board of text.   UNFAIR TERM   3.  In an interview with the local newspaper (exhibit 4) Ms Ellie Berkeley, HX PCN administration team leader, said: “The five-hour maximum stay prevents workers from close by abusing the land and parking there for free, without using the shops on site" which makes sense.   3.1.  This therefore begs the question of why this limit is cut by a massive 80% after midnight when the cinema and eateries are still open.  The driver indeed ate at McDonald's.   3.2.  Ms Berkeley continued: "Five hours is sufficient time to visit the cinema and also eat at a restaurant".  Certainly five hours are sufficient.  One hour is not.    3.3.  I would maintain this is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 part 2 section 62 (6) ""A notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer".  Such a term has absolutely nothing to do with efficient management of a car park and everything to do with trying to catch diners or cinema-goers out and thus have an excuse to issue PCNs.   NO KEEPER LIABILITY   4. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.     4.1.  The Claimant's PCN does not comply with Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  POFA states that a parking period must be stated and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit.  All that takes time.   4.2.  To transfer liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper, in their PCN the Claimant must include the wording at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)" but they have not. That in itself makes it non-compliant.   LOCUS STANDI   5.  Looking at the contract with the landowner which the Claimant included when opposing my set aside application, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of who actually signed.   5.1.  There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow court action in pursuit of non payers.   In section 11 which is like an addendum it states "the Company shall provide parking control" but does not state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   ILLEGAL SIGNAGE   6.  After checking, I have found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.   6.1.  The Claimant is supposed to comply with the law and the IPC Code of Conduct and they have done neither.  The new government Private Parking Code of Practice draws attention as well to s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   ABUSE OF PROCESS   7. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.    7.1.  As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice).    7.2.  Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued” (exhibit 5).   7.3.  Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100.    7.4.  Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ‘’Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’’   7.5.  In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ‘’It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''    7.6. The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   Statement of Truth    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.
    • Hi dx100uk. I didn't know about the above. Do I request a new CCA from Cabot? Are you  also suggesting that I stop payments to Cabot until this is sorted out?  I have since then built up a good credit rating from the reference agencies  and would not like to turn this sour again. It took some time to get straight. Allets.
    • ah! FCA their new name (well 15yrs ago) for the FSA.   interesting they helped here this must mean they have had a series of complaints then.   dx      
    • so YOU have already responded to the TfL letter NOT you mother? YOU need to respond by begging not her!!   have you still the original TfL letter please.?   p'haps if you have please scan it up to PDF read upload   and also do this with the summons you have  is this single justice procedure hearing with 3 options as that other thread you posted on above?   dx      
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

LORD ROOFING AND GROUNDS WORKS LTD Refusing to Repair Poorly Laid Driveway and Using Intimidation to Enforce Payment

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 99 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts

You are entitled to have your front patio properly built and be out of pocket only to the tune of £7888.

Any claim you make must eventually leave you with a properly built front patio which has cost you £7888.

As far as I understand it, you are proposing to sue them for £12,500 which would give you 6000 odd pounds for the remedial work and leave you about £7888 in pocket.

I'm going to say once again – it's very unhelpful the way that you visit, make a post – get a pretty quick response and then you disappear for two or three days or longer before dealing with the point.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bankfodder,


I understand what you're saying now. Thank you for your help. I see that I've made a mistake here with my claim.


Should I do anything else right now or wait? I could claim for a reduced amount for the front patio to offset my previous claim, correct? I work shifts so apologies for the erratic reply times.


I have heard nothing else from the high court enforcers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not the most numerate person myself so maybe I have miscalculated. However do I now get the impression that the sum for which you claimed last time is also put you in profit?

In other words was your last claim not only for the cost of remedial work but also the cost of doing the patio work in the first place even though you hadn't actually paid for it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that we are still talking at cross purposes here.

I know that you have told us earlier – but what was the value of the contract for that rear patio?
How much did you pay towards that work?
What was the price quoted to undo their poor workmanship and to put the patio into a proper state?


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Bankfodder,

Work 1 Rear Patio, total £2,650.00. Deposit Paid - £530.00


Work 2 Front Drive total £7,888.00. Deposit Paid - £1,577.60


Quote for remedial work attached.


I've posted and attached all this material previously




GG quote.pdf

Edited by Chipsticks
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I know that you've posted it previously and I've already explained why I'm losing track and it's difficult to follow. There are lots of other people here who are being assisted and frankly who engage rather more closely with the assistance they are getting.

I'm only interested in the moment in the patio for which you claimed and obtained judgement.

So you are out of pocket on the rear patio only to the tune of £530. What was the quote for the remedial work on this patio? And how much did you claim in your court action?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And in respect of the front patio, the most you can claim is
[£1577 .00+ the cost of remedial work] less (7888-1577) = [the amount you can claim]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just posted in a previous entry all the information including a PDF file detailing the quote for the front and rear patio.


With respect Bankfodder, I work in the NHS full time, in the middle of what is likely to be one of the most difficult winters we have seen. I appreciate all the help I'm receiving here. I don't find helpful all the remarks you keep making towards me regarding my engagement. You have asked me multiple times the same questions time and time again, despite me already providing the information. I've provided what you asked without any issue or complaint. I've tried my best to provide what I have thought is required. I'm not a mind reader. I've never done all of this before and I've been trying my best.


I have a full time job in addition to dealing with this mess of situation I am in. Whilst I'm very grateful for all the help and advice, I feel a little kindness would go a long way


"So you are out of pocket on the rear patio only to the tune of £530. What was the quote for the remedial work on this patio? And how much did you claim in your court action? "


Please see the PDF I have attached again

GG quote.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure we need any lessons in kindness here.

People working in the NHS are of course extremely important and under great pressure at the moment – but so are a huge number of other workers in other sectors.
A particular feature of all of the sectors is that the employees get paid and I suppose most of them wouldn't do the job if they didn't get paid.

On this forum, we also have our own lives, families, commitments – difficulties. We also have to cope with all the difficulties of the current pandemic which seems to be scheduled to last well into the next year.

However if you want a measure of kindness, then you should understand that the people who try to give advice on this forum – the site team – don't get paid for the time they give and the work they do.

Everything we do is truly an act of kindness.

I can tell you that we live a hand to mouth existence and every month we just about pay our bills for our server and Webmaster support et cetera and if we are lucky we can save a little bit for our accountants bill in January.

I understand that you work for the NHS. Maybe that's the first emergency service. Maybe we are only the 47th emergency service – but we do it for free.
You managed to get yourself involved with a fairly ruthless firm of builders who according to the reports you have received have done a very bad job and despite that have attempted to make you bankrupt as a shortcut to getting paid.

Our unpaid act of kindness was to stick with you and to give you the advice that you needed and help you draft the documents that you needed to successfully protect you against bankruptcy.
We have helped you devise a strategy so that you were able to make at least one claim relatively risk-free by avoiding the small claims limit of £10,000.
You succeeded in this claim and you have now moved to enforcement.
This is because we have been spending a lot of time trying to advise you – free of charge.
In the NHS I expect that you have support services, people who look after the various functions that make your job possible. We don't have any of that. We have no administration. We have nobody to organise our files or documents.

This thread has now run for 10 pages and 234 exchanges. A lot of this has been caused by the fact that you don't respond quickly and that causes a big problem and taxes our sense of kindness even more – but nevertheless, we stick with it – and we stick by you.

Yes I have repeatedly asked you to post up documents and the reason for that is that I can't face going through all 234 exchanges to find the bits of information that we need – and I'm assuming that you have got it all to hand and in one file.
You're not the only person here who needs help. We are helping many other people and by the way, we have been helping people free of charge for 16 years.

I still don't understand completely the calculation of your first claim but I am worried that you may have claimed too much and caused an injustice to the builders and if I'm right, then unless it's handled carefully you may find yourself having to pay court fees which might have been avoided.
I'm grateful to my site team colleague @FTMDave who as a further unpaid act of kindness has offered to spend some of his quality time this weekend going through this thread and trying to understand the figures and see whether in fact your initial successful claim was for the correct amount or whether in fact you have managed to claim money to which you are not entitled.

If you have over-claimed then frankly I'm not too sure how to handle it. I would certainly like to know whether you have over-claimed and if so, then by how much. 


I'm going to leave this first claim now and try to concentrate on the second one.

And yes I probably will have to ask you for further information about it.

You said that you wanted to claim £12,500 and it seems to me that on that basis, you were claiming for the entire cost of installing the front patio plus also the cost of undoing the shoddy workmanship carried out by the defendants.
Claiming for the entire cost of installing the front patio would be what one might normally set out to do – if one had paid the full price and so you were trying to get your money back.

However, you haven't paid the full price. You paid a deposit and you would only be entitled to recover that deposit plus the cost of making good so that eventually the only money you had paid was the value of the agreed price for the work in the first place.

I understand that the original quote for the cost of installing the front patio was £7888. The outcome of successful litigation would leave you in a position where you had a patio properly installed and you are out of pocket only by £7888 – which was your original expectation.

So your claim must be calculated on that basis to achieve a zero balance.

Please will you in short detail set out how you have calculated £12,500 as being the value of your next claim

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Please will you in short detail their out how you have calculated £12,500 as being the value of your next claim "


The £12,500 is the incorrect amount as I mentioned in earlier posts I calculated wrongly. The total cost of remedial work by the builders who quoted me was this.


Deposit paid for front drive was £1577.60.


£12,500-£1,577.60 = £10922.40


Therefore my claim would be for £10922.40. I should not have to pay more than the price Lord quoted me £7888.00 due to their incompetence, should I?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

Could I ask if the £10992 figure leaves you with a completed driveway please?




Yes, we have the answer to this please.

Also, in answer to your question – you are correct, you should not have to pay anything more than the agreed price of £7888.
However by the same token, you would not be entitled to pay anything less than that. If your claims result in you paying less than that then you are over-claiming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My site team colleague @FTMDave has now gone through the entire thread – or 238 posts across 10 pages.

He agrees that on your first judgement you have claimed too much because you have included the entire cost of producing the rear patio when in fact you have only paid a deposit.

Whereas your judgement is for almost £3000, your claim should have been:



£2550 - £2650 + £530 + £355 = £785

remedial work - contract price + deposit + survey = total




And instead you claimed £2905 and got a judgement for that figure and for which you have just instructed the sheriffs.


Firstly, this clearly is an unjust result because as shoddy and as brutal as they appear to have been, the judgement should only have been for £795.
Secondly, when you began the claim, you paid fees calculated on a claim of £2905 but the true claim fee should have been calculated on a claim of £785.
This means that not only have you claimed too much in terms of damages but also you have incurred claim fees which were unnecessarily high.

In my view this matter needs to be addressed and frankly I think the first thing you should do is that you should contact the sheriffs on Monday and tell them there has been an error and tell them to suspend the enforcement.
After that I'm not too sure how to proceed and I have asked my site team colleague @Andyorch for his view about it.

On the second claim, you were about to make the same error – but by a far more serious margin. In fact your margin of error was going to take you off the small claims track onto the fast track.

Of course none of this has been helped by the failure of Lords to engage with the claim at all. However, the fact that they didn't mount a defence doesn't mean that you were entitled to the judgement which you sought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the second claim – for the front patio and in respect of which you haven't so far issue the claim, as far as we can make out – once again with the kind assistance of my site team colleague @FTMDave, we think that the correct claim should be




           £12,750 - £7888+ £1577.60 = 6,439.60

 remedial work - contract price + deposit = total



This would leave you with a patio which had cost you £7888 – and which is the price that you originally contracted for .


You agreed to pay £7888 for the front patio. If you claimed the £14,000 or so that you are proposing, you would be in a position where you would be getting a front patio almost free of charge


So we think that your claim should properly be for £6439.60 p

However in the circumstances, I should certainly wait until we figure out what to do about the first claim that you put in. I've already suggested that you contact the sheriffs – and maybe you would come back here and let us know that you have done that and what they said.


incidentally, these are our figures – you need to do your own calculations and confirm them independently or come up with a different calculation – independently.
Same for the first claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll contact them on Monday first thing about the error. Will it be the courts, high court bailiffs or both?


I was under the impression that the consensum was I was doing up to this point as I have been posting the numbers and figures etc. I accept that it was my mistake. I didn't realise that I was claiming too much. I appreciate you are helping lots of other people at the same time. I can see its a simple error which I overlooked. I would never want to claim for more than I was entitled to. I agree had they challenged the claim, the judge/they would have seen it was an error and it could have been rectified.


"Could I ask if the £10992 figure leaves you with a completed driveway please?"


The remedial works quoted ensure the driveway is completed to the correct standard and issues rectified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Start off with the sheriffs.

Don't worry I don't think anyone here imagines that you were doing this deliberately.

Let us know what the sheriffs say.

As for knowing what to do about it generally – we will have to do work that one out so watch this space.


Link to post
Share on other sites

For my 2 pennies worth this is how I would view this situation.

You would be suing the builders to bring your situation back to the point that you would be in if they had completed the contract correctly. 

You agreed to pay £7888 for the patio. 

You have paid £1577.60 so far


You still have to pay £6310.40 (To the new remedial builder)


To make the work complete to the required standard will cost £12,750.

This would be made up  from:


£6310.40 (from you). 

£6439.60 (from the original builder via CCJ)


On top of the £6439.60 you can claim the court fee and your expenses (please correct me if I am wrong in this part)


By this point you will have paid £7888 for a patio completed to the required standard in the original contract. 

AFAIK this is how it works when claiming against companies for substandard work, but I am no expert. However this makes sense to me. 


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had a look around and I'm afraid it's a bit of a mess.

Most unusually I think you're going to have to apply to have the judgement set aside. It would be nice to have the judgement substituted for the correct judgement but I don't think you could do this.
I think in fairness you need to write to the defendants and explain that you have miscalculated and that you are applying to have the judgement set aside.

I think that you need to obtain a form N244application notice – and asked for the judgement to be set aside and explain why. I'm afraid this will cost you money. It may even cost as much as £275.

I'm afraid that you will then be saddled with all of your court costs and the enforcement costs that you have spent so far.

Have you contacted the sheriffs? If you haven't then you should have done so already. I suggested this earlier.

You don't want anybody starting to incur costs as a result of this error – which might find their way back to you.

However as far as I can make out, there is nothing to prevent you from starting the second claim and it seems that we probably have the calculations correct there.

Also at the same time you can start the first claim and because the total of the two claims is less than £10,000 – below the small claims limit, you may as well lump them together and sue for both at the same time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"On top of the £6439.60 you can claim the court fee and your expenses (please correct me if I am wrong in this part)"


Thats correct Racer_bod




Hello Bankfodder, I've been doing some of my own research as well and I've come to similar conclusions to you.


I'm going to call the court first thing in the morning to ensure that I can speak to someone and then I will follow it up with an email


I'm assuming as it is my fault that I've claimed for the wrong amount there is nothing I can do to get my fees back? Will the court be sympathetic to me as an individual and refund me the costs?

  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest that you send them a letter of claim – post a draft here – explaining what has happened, but also going on to point out that that doesn't change the principle that they are liable for their shoddy work and for the remedial work needed to address their errors.
Explain that on that basis, although you will be applying for a set-aside of the initial judgement and that you have called off the sheriffs, you will be proceeding to sue for the correct amounts within 14 days unless they want to reimburse you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I've just seen your last post – and I'm afraid no. The costs you have incurred are wasted costs I'm afraid.


Link to post
Share on other sites



Re: Invoice xDated xx


As you know I'm not happy with the quality of the work which was carried out on my premises. I submitted a small court claim against you ref xxx, for the sum of £XXX.
However I now understand that I calculated the cost incorrectly.
To avoid an injustice to yourselves, I will be setting aside this judgement but that still leaves the question of the cost of remedial works to my rear patio of £785


Up to now, you have declined to cooperate in any way.


The estimate I have received for the works needed to address your poor workmanship to the front drive amounts to £6,439.60.


I require reimbursement of both of these sums for both contracts and if you fail to do so within 14 days then I shall start proceedings in the County Court and without any further notice for the total sum of £7224.6 plus interests and costs.


Yours sincerely



Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made some edits to clarify it. You don't need to accept them – but they are my suggestions.

Was there one invoice for both contracts? Or two invoices?


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two invoices and two contracts


A thought, can I not start a new claim for the remaining amount. State to the court that I have made an error and ask the two claims to be combined? Surely speaking to the court first as to possible solutions would be a good idea. Perhaps they can be understanding and come up with a solution?



Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...