Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I did ask them why, but seems they have more spare cash than we do .. ;-( .. I doubt their bank would even support a chargeback after a year has passed. Anyway I've constructed my first DRAFT Snotty Letter .. so here goes ..   RE: PCN 4xxxxx Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept, Thank you for your dubious Letter Of Claim (dated 29th April 2024) of £100 for just 2 minutes of overstay. The family rolled around on the floor in amazement of the idea you actually think they’d accept this nonsense, let alone being confused over the extra unlawful £70 you had added. Shall we raise that related VAT issue with HMRC, or perhaps the custodians of the unicorn grain silos? Apart from the serious GDPR breach you’ve made with the DVLA and your complete failure in identifying the driver, we’re dumbfounded that the PCN is still not compliant with the PoFA (2012 Schedule 4 Under Section 9.2.f) even after 12 years of pathetic trial and error. We also doubt a judge would be very impressed at your bone idleness and lack of due diligence regarding the ANPR entry / exit periods compared with actual valid parking periods. Especially with no consideration of the legally allowed grace periods and the topological nature of the Cornish landscape versus a traditional multi-storey. And don’t even get us started on the invisible signage during the ultra busy bank holiday carnage, that is otherwise known as the random parking chaos in the several unmarked over-spill fields, or indeed the tedious “frustration of contract” attempting to get a data connection to Justpark.  We suggest your clients drop this extreme foolishness or get an absolute hammering in court. We are more than ready to raise the issues with a fair minded judge, who will most likely laugh your clients out in less time than it takes to capture more useless ANPR photos. We will of course be requesting “an unreasonable costs order” under CPR 27.14.2.g and put it toward future taxis to Harlyn Bay instead.  We all look forward to your clients' deafening silence. Legal Counsel on behalf of the Vehicle Keeper.  
    • Hi,t I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right subsection but General Retail appears to be the closest to it I think... About a year and a half ago I got a new phone so I listed my iPhone 10 on eBay.  The listed stated 'UK only' and 'no returns accepted'. Considering I had had the phone for about 4 years, I myself was amazed that I had kept it in such good condition all that time - apart from being slightly scuffed around the charging port there was absolutely nothing wrong with it. It had the original box, its unopened original Apple cable, plug, and earbuds, and I threw in a case for it and It had always had a screen protector on it. Someone wanted it from Armenia, and I stupidly agreed to it.  She paid and I sent it off, fully insured. Not long after she received it, she sent a message saying it 'was not as described', so I asked to see photos of whatever was the problem.  She sent two photographs of the box.  Just the box.  I said I wasn't even going to consider refunding her unless she told me what she meant by 'not as described'.  I thought, if it's been damaged in transit, then it would be covered by the insurance. Anyway, she didn't respond at all, even though I had messaged her several times, so she opened a case with eBay. I have sold a fair few things of mine on eBay in the past buy had never had had anyone come back to me asking for a refund.  I got in touch with eBay several times by phone and by email, and found out they always side with the buyer, no matter what with their 'eBay Seller Guarantee'.  She had been told she could keep the phone and told me they would recover the money from me from my account blah blah.  So I unlinked all of my cards etc and changed my bank account to one that I never use with no money in it. My account got suspended.  I continued to try to explain to eBay that I had been scammed but I got nowhere. My account was permanently inaccessible by this point. I reported the phone stolen and the IMEI blacklisted but I'm not sure if that would make any difference being in Armenia, but it was all I could think of to piss the buyer off. A couple of months later I was contacted by email by a debt recovery company (I can' remember who now), to whom I explained I will not discuss the matter with them until I had received an SAR I had requested from eBay. As I could no longer access my account, I couldn't review the communication I needed to show I was not in the wrong. The SAR was produced but I was advised that the information I was looking for would not be included but I said I wanted it anyway.  There were so many codes etc. and hoops to jump through to access it, that even after trying whilst on the phone to them, I still couldn't get into it, so I never got to see it in the end.  I think they said they would send the code by post but they never did and I forgot about it after a while. I've just come across a couple of emails from Moorgroup, asking me to phone them to discuss a private matter regarding eBay.  I haven't replied or done anything at all yet.  The amount they are trying to recover from me is £200ish from what I remember. I know it's not that much but I don't want to pay the b*astards on general principle. I've had a lot of useful advice from CAG in the past about debt collectors but it has always been about being chased by creditors, I've never been in this situation before. I don't know what power they legally have to recover the 'debt', and most importantly, I am two years into a DRO, and the last thing I want is another CCJ to shake off if I'm cutting my nose off to spite my face.   Any advice gratefully received!!
    • Hi, I have the Sims 4 on Macbook. Over the last year I have paid for multiple add on packs spending a lot of money on them. I bought them all in good faith as my Mac met all the minimum requirements to play them. I have been playing happily for about a year and bought my latest pack just over a week ago. The games were all working fine yesterday. Then suddenly today EA released a new app to launch the games and this new app requires a MAC OS that my computer cannot use. Now suddenly none of my games are accessible and I am unable to play anything. They did not warn us about this change in requirements and if I had known they would be doing this I wouldn't have bought all these add ons as they are now all totally unusable. The games themselves have not changed, only their app to launch them and I can't afford to buy a brand new mac just to play. So my question is how can they change the minimum requirements after I have paid for a game? I agreed to pay for them based on the fact my mac met their requirements and was not informed when purchasing that this would be an issue in the future. I understand new games (like Sims 5 which is to be released next year) might not be compatible but this is a 10yr old game that they have suddenly made inaccessible due to their new launch app. Does anybody know if I can do anything or anyway to get a partial refund from them? Thanks   Here are their T&C... I can't find anything in there about them being able to do this so not sure what to do https://tos.ea.com/legalapp/WEBTERMS/US/en/PC/
    • OK. Thank you all for the input.  I'll ignore their letters of demand but NEVER ignore a letter of claim. I'm bracing myself for the stress as their demands £££ goes up and the case gets sent to debt collectors. 
    • OK.  It was worth a try. Their case is still pants and they have broken their own Code of Practice numerous times.
  • 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

NCP/BW PCN PAPLOC now claimform - New Gatwick Drop Off Zone - I thought I had paid for both visits? ***Claim Dismissed***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 186 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

Looks good, not a lot to change in 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 OTHERS

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

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

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was without Internet access for a lot of the time this weekend, but here goes. Fortunately your draft WS and the BPA's CoP are downloadable!

 

Your WS is magnificent – but if it can be improved even further, why not?

 

Above your current (10) write the title NO KEEPER LIABILITY.

 

I think before the DOUBLE RECOVERY section your should add a section FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT. State that your case is that you did not enter into a contract with the Claimant, but if the court were to disagree you would state that any such contract was frustrated. Emphasise that it was the Claimant's equipment that didn't work, that family members witnessed this (add their short WSs as exhibits), that you bent over backwards to try to pay by calling their helpline, that not only were you not helped but you know the Claimant couldn't be bothered to keep a record of the call as there is not mention of it in the SAR you requested (add exhibit), that you “should” have received a second PCN which in itself shows that the software was knackered, and that you ask yourself whether the parking company are quite happy to have systems with “issues” which they refuse to sort out over the phone as this gives them an excuse to issue PCNs, and that such predatory tactics are forbidden by clause 9.5 of the BPA's CoP,

 

Yes, I know you have referred to a lot of this in your introduction but it's one of your aces and needs its own section IMO.

 

Between your current (8.3) and (9) you might as well put a new section ILLEGAL SIGNAGE and hammer home the point that lack of planning permission is a criminal offence and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.

 

I think you are dangerously close to outing the driver in (4.2) so I would change “I attempted a payment of £5 for the vehicle XXXXX, for which I am the registered keeper, using the online portal” to “I attempted a payment of £5 for the vehicle XXXXX, for which I am the registered keeper, on behalf of the driver and their party, using the online portal”.

 

More later.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

With FTMDaves tweaks added it should be good to go.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

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

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to you all for your comments. I will be getting this all tweaked fully tomorrow.

 

Just a quick question to FTMDave, would it not be better to group together sections on the legality of entering someone into a contract, as the circumstances are not fair in airport DOZs as per the Consumer Rights Act 2015, then a bit about the signage and it's illegal status and then finally put the argument forward for Frustration of Contract? That would then be followed by the NO KEEPER LIABILITY section in to the final DOUBLE RECOVERY bit.

 

How does that sound? If you think that's a good idea. I'll get that sorted and tweeked tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing to remember is you're writing for the judge.

 

The judge will be "looking" for a reason to chuck the thing out, so the clearer the arguments are, the better.

 

I think putting all the bits about the legality of entering someone into a contract need to be split up - although of course one following the other - otherwise the judge will just get lost.

 

Sequence of Events

 

Locus Standi

Illegal Signage

No Keeper Liability

(All the reasons together why there was never any contract.  On "No Keeper Liability" you should win hands down)

 

Frustration of Contract

(But if the court disagrees, and says a contract was entered into, well it was frustrated.  To me it makes more sense to go in this order)

 

Double Recovery

(You won't win on this basis, so the least important section and therefore at the end, but the section still shows the fleecers for what they are and if by some horror you lost would get the extra £60 deducted)

 

Still, see what the others have to say today.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. I hear FTMD. Makes total sense.

 

I'm afraid, my section numbering went out of sync in the draft I posted up. So, the keeper liability section is currently starting from 12. Should I put this top of the Locus Standi with arguments around PoFA and fishing for liability, before moving into the issues with contract between Gatwick & NCP, then illegal signage and then the questionable legality of the contract between keeper & NCP and then finally the issues around the frustration of contract?

 

Currently, the first section of the Locus Standi (sections 6-9) deals with the contract between NCP & Gatwick and the lack of evidence of it, and then it currently goes on to deal with the contract they claim that I entered into (sections 10 & 11) and which I argue is not legal, as it's not a fair contract as per the Consumer Rights Act. I think these need breaking up with titles. How do you think I should title these two arguments? I would then add in a section on the illegal signage either after or in-between the arguments?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all getting a little confusing (not helped by me replying between work commitments and watching bits of World Cup games 🤣). 

 

Can you please post up the current draft?  It doesn't matter if the numbering is wrong.  Then we can comment on what we have in front of us. 

Edited by FTMDave
Typo

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I've finally found the time to go through the fleecers' trade association's CoP.  You can use these paragraphs against them -

 

9.5 You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure
drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will
be viewed as a serious and sanctionable instance of non-
compliance and may go to the Professional Conduct Panel.

 

22.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your
car parks in good working order. You need to make sure
the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and
cannot be tampered with. The processes that you use
to manage your ANPR system may be audited by our
compliance team or our agents.
 

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_Code_of_Practice_January_2020_v8(2).pdf

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

that C.O.P could well be useful going forward where there are payment issues.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

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

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

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys.

 

Thank you FTMDave for taking time to have a look at CoP in more detail.

 

I had found the sections you have quoted. However, I was concerned that they are only referring to APNR systems and not payment systems. Technically their APNR systems were working perfectly, it was their payment systems that failed to process payment. 

 

Do you think this will be a problem.

 

I am also sorry, its been my turn to be ridiculously busy,. I will continue to be so until 22nd December. I am on the road continuously with work. Once I have gotten to the end of this run. It's a priority for to polish up the WS and hopefully include your research above.

 

Thanks again for all this!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I doubt the court would be so pernickety as to distinguish between ANPR and other equipment that wasn't working properly.

  • 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 OTHERS

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO this is a very important issue and needs to be highlighted suitably to the judge.......

 

it's all very well an ANPR computer controlled camera system having a hick ups, as any PC controlled system does in time.

 

a faulty Payment system is a totally Diff kettle of fish as it involves a payment...CASH.

 

thus a monetary issue, - a county court issue.

 

an anpr failure leading to a loss to them never can result result in a court claim..

 

 

  • Like 2

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

  • 2 months later...

This post is well off topic, but here goes.

 

In the seven years I've been on the site, as a matter of routine regulars point out to motorists that they could have a claim for distress as the PPC didn't respond to a SAR request or breached their GDPR.  Just as regularly no-one goes down this road, totally understandably, as everyone is just happy to have got rid of the invoice they were being harassed for, and wants an easy life.

 

Er, until you - troublemaker - comes along.

 

Since then someone else has seen your thread and sued like you over SAR, and been paid in full.

 

We have another motorist going for both SAR and GDPR.

 

And a third for for GDPR.

 

I obviously meant "troublemaker" as a compliment 😄  Your actions have led to other Caggers seeing your thread, and having the confidence to do the same.  Well done!

 

To get back on topic - any news from the court re a hearing date yet?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • I agree 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 OTHERS

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

FTMDave, this is great news to hear. And I do take 'troublemaker' as a compliment. So no worries there. It is a disgrace that these PPCs treat us like criminals and ignore their own legal obligations in the handling of our private details.

 

In regards to my court date, there has been no news. But I have been tweeking away slowly at my WS. I have also found a copy of a contract between Gatwick Airport and East Sussex County Council that appears to clearly state that all highways are under the jurisdiction of the local council! All will be shared with the updated WS.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that Contract is still in force, that blows thgem right out of the water, as they then only have jurisdiction over car parks.

  • 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 OTHERS

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

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

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi brassnecked, The contract was renewed on 24th May 2022... See the current agreement linked below....

 

See section B of the RECITALS section (I have also linked the 1980 Highways Act for your cross reference as the agreement quotes this as defining the local council and county council's jurisdiction)

 

https://www.gatwickairport.com/globalassets/company/policies/section106.pdf

 

 

WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

An Act to consolidate the Highways Acts 1959 to 1971 and related enactments, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission.

 

Be good to hear your feedback. Maybe I have read it wrong? But I think it's pretty clear.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great work.  They really haven't got a leg to stand on.

 

This a public road, not a car park, so not relevant land under POFA, so no keeper liability.  End of story.

 

Even if by some horror the judge were to reject that argument, they sent their nonsense out too late for POFA so again no keeper liability.

 

Plus all the other reasons their case is pants.

  • 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 OTHERS

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly as FTMDave indicates public highway.

  • 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 OTHERS

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

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

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Moaning,

 

You've certainly had to go digging for that one!

I'm quite adept at finding hidden stuff on websites, but that is hidden quite deep...

Or was it a fortunate Google search?

  • 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 OTHERS

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are people's thoughts on Obligation 5.3 on pg17 of the document.

 

It basically states that Gatwick Airport have an obligation to discourage the use of private car travel to the airport. Could this be present as permission for them to implement Drop Zone charges?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicky Boy... It was a bit of both. I was searching for the agreement between Gatwick Airport and NCP online and stumbled upon this while searching using the Gatwick Airport site search engine.

 

I was also searching through all local authority websites for any planning permissions for the signage etc. I discovered neither Crawley nor Sussex County Councils had any record of any planning at Gatwick airport. I found that I had been barking up the wrong trees, as I found out that in fact Reigate & Banstead Councils seem to handle all planning for Gatwick. 

 

Good news... No mention of Drop Off Zone planning permissions for signage.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

20 minutes ago, MoaningCrusader said:

What are people's thoughts on Obligation 5.3 on pg17 of the document.

I would say that the actual wording makes it clear that strategies should be implemented to "promote" modes of transport other than the private car... Rather than "discourage the use of private cars" as you've read it?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

So... My Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing) has just arrived in the post today (dated 2nd March! How long does it take them to post a document?)

 

Anyway... I guess we are game on soon. I will be definitely presenting to you guys a more complete WS this week.

 

Do any of you have any idea rough ball park timeframe now long until the hearing date?

 

The reason I ask, is that I am leaving for a 10day holiday on Fri 31st March. What happens if the hearing date falls when I am going to be away? 

 

Can you ask for the date to reallocated for this reason?

 

Do you need me to post up a scan of the document? Or are these fairly generic to all small claims cases?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...