Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, 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 credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
  • 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

My 6+ Year Claim Against HSBC


Spiceskull
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6175 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

  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I seen a lot of it, but now have broadband in and plan to revisit (that thread DESERVES broadband :D ).

 

On the 'downside', lack of time means I'm picking at this job which should have a lot more attention, on the 'upside' I've got court papers in simply to get hold of the full credit card statements that I should have had last JUNE :mad: so until I've got proper figures I can't start the true claim for charges [in other words, I've got time ;) ]

 

I'm not sure if that other thread I read was self-limiting to 6 years because that's all the data they could get. My having older paper gives me different options (I think!).

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few issues regarding SOLA 1980 that need to be examined, not least of which is that somewhere in CPR (not sure, but will find out where) there is an argument that helps the bank negate the exemption clauses of SOLA.

 

I want to try to build an argument that effectively says that SOLA is an enshrined act, passed by parliament, whereas CPR is a set of guidelines to ensure best practice. It would be reasonable to assume that where there is contradiction between an Act and CPR, then the Act must surely take precedence...

 

I am moving back to Cornwall next week, so do not have any time to devote to this for the next ten days. However, once I am settled I will go after DG/HSBC (again) with all guns blazing, assuming that the call I have been "invited to make at my convenience" doesn't make a diversion to my plans...

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh - and to really get my dander up...my parachute account was with Nat West, and I opened it ONLY on condition that there was NOT an overdraft facility...

 

Three days after opening the account they wanted to know if I wanted an "account review..." - I can't repeat what I said at the time...

 

Yesterday I got a letter saying that a £500 overdraft limit has been authorised for my account (authorised by who?) and that this is to be a benefit to ME...if I don't want this "facility" then I have to give notice in writing within ten days (tomorrow...) or call a premium number...

 

That aside, I was more concerned with the Ts&Cs...they have certainly changed over the last six months:

 

Overlimit charge = £38 (gone up, not down as suggested by OFT)

This covers the "facility," and should they need to make the charge then they will notify in writing BEFORE applying the charge

But, a bit further down, it states that the charge will be applied IMMEDIATELY the cheque/credit is authorised...so a contradiction in the terms there...(are they really trying to tempt me - I have had no beef with NW to date...)

 

The best one (as far as I am concerned) is that using the facility seems to open you up to unlimited expenses/costs when the bank makes recovery - "if we have to write to you/DCA/courts for recovery etc...you will be liable for FULL amount..."

 

I will go through them again in more detail, but this really is a case of agreeing to sell your soul in return for a service/facility you neither need or asked for...

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

how does the Statute of Limitations not apply here? How come you are able to sue for further back than 6 years?
Okay - the main principles of a "normal" refund claim are that:
  • The terms invoked to apply penalty charges are unfair terms
  • That the penalties are unlawful

Suggest reading around the forum to fully understand these two principles, because if you don't understand them then you will meet obstacles along the way...

 

SOLA 1980 has an exemption clause to cover this:

  • That the bank either knew and withheld the fact that the terms were unfair and the penalties unlawful
  • That the bank was genuinely unaware that the terms were unfair and the penalties unlawful, in which case they were mistaken, and your claim will be for relief from the consequences of a mistake

My own threads (Spice and Phoenix) cover the ground for these things, but then so do many, many others. If you look for threads that have "limitations" in the title, especially those ones started by moderators/admin, then you will get a much clearer picture...

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

32.--

  • (1) .... where in the case of any action for which a period of limitation is prescribed by this Act, either-
    • (a) the action is based upon the fraud of the defendant; or
    • (b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; or
    • © the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;

Link to post
Share on other sites

SOLA 1980 has an exemption clause to cover this:

  • That the bank either knew and withheld the fact that the terms were unfair and the penalties unlawful
  • That the bank was genuinely unaware that the terms were unfair and the penalties unlawful, in which case they were mistaken, and your claim will be for relief from the consequences of a mistake

 

hi Phoenix,

 

just picking up on your second point here - that the bank was mistaken.

 

I don't think you would succeed in claiming that the bank was mistaken, the onus would be on you to prove it if they said they were not acting under a mistake and that you are speculating. It would become a matter of trying to show what was in someone elses intention, when you couldn't really know.

 

I think the only avenues here are concealment, if you could show that they have breached their duty to reveal what their actual costs were, and that YOU were acting under a mistake in paying them.

 

There is a new line of thought emerging in someone else's thread, which seems to be quite exciting and there is case law to back it up, which is that the limitation period did not start to run until we sent our first letter demanding repayment. That is our cause of action, and we have six years in which to bring it to court if they don't pay. I'm still trying to get my head round this, but I have understood this to mean that the charges were not an actual breach of contract and our claims do not arise out of us having breached the contract to stay within our o/d limit. I think the bank when barring more than 6 years charges has been alluding to OUR breach of contract (exceeding limit etc) when in actual fact that is not the cause of action. The member who used the argument and succeeded (before the hearing) was dad, the bank dropped the limitation argument. the post is here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/60534-beyond-6-years-3.html#post547737

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a new line of thought emerging in someone else's thread, which seems to be quite exciting and there is case law to back it up, which is that the limitation period did not start to run until we sent our first letter demanding repayment.
We have to be very careful how SOLA 1980 is interpreted - Bookie and I have been arguing about this by email for ages...(we just love to argue!!!)

 

A claim from, say, ten years ago would ordinarily be statute barred, and your interpretation here suggests that if I made a Prelim now, then the six-year period starts now. That is wrong, as clearly the argument negates the whole of SOLA.

 

I think what you meant was that you can claim backwards from the date you sent the prelim - the banks would try to argue that you can only claim backwards from the date the claim was raised.

 

My view is the former, as this is the only provable point at which I can say I was aware of any error/concealment. If we went with the latter, then the banks would do everything they could to delay the claim being raised, and then "...oh dear, your six years is up..."

 

CPR seems to indicate in favour of the banks view, but SOLA 1980 implicitly states for the former...and as an Act of Parliament I believe it would take precedence in any event of a contradiction...

 

As for the differences between withheld/concealment and error - you have a point, and this is what I am trying to juggle at the moment...again, there are various ways of interpreting the exemptions...withheld would mean that they knew that the terms were unfair and unlawful, a point they could argue against until the OFT corrected them...at which point I would then argue that their belief was mistaken...lather, rinse, repeat...

 

Watch this space...but keep throwing counter arguments and titbits...I am determined to get there one way or another...

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi phoenix,

 

I understand where you are coming from as regards SOLA ordinarily working to include debts 6 years back from the date you issue your claim at court. I have been involved in debates before about whether it works 6 years back from the date of your prelim, and the conclusion was that this isn't correct. That is, if we continue to assume that the cause of action was the debit of the charges to the account.

 

However, I think you are misunderstanding what I said in my last post which wouldn't be hard, as I didn't explain it very clearly. What dad was saying (in my interpretation, which seems to have been effective enough to get the bank to drop the limitation argument) was that the debt did not become due to us until we formally made demand on the bank. At that point we got our cause of action and, as they refused repayment, we have 6 years in which to pursue recovery through the courts, otherwise it becomes statute barred. I think what that old case stood for, was the fact that there has to be a demand of payment before a limitation period starts to run.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand where you are coming from as regards SOLA ordinarily working to include debts 6 years back from the date you issue your claim at court. I have been involved in debates before about whether it works 6 years back from the date of your prelim, and the conclusion was that this isn't correct.
He he he - there are two very strong sides to the actual start date, and SOLA implicitly says that the start date is from (to paraphrase) the date you became aware of the error/concealment.

 

In my view this is the date at which you send the prelim (technically, and because we all know why we do this, you could argue that it is the date you make your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)) as this letter clearly says that you now believe the penalties/terms to be unlawful/unfair. You can PROVE this date without contest...

What dad was saying (in my interpretation, which seems to have been effective enough to get the bank to drop the limitation argument)
Nice - I will go and read Dad's thread - if the bank back off from the argument altogether then that can only be a VERY good thing...
I think what that old case stood for, was the fact that there has to be a demand of payment before a limitation period starts to run.
Again, the Prelim is an official demand for repayment, and indeed, it gives the bank an opportunity to settle without a claim being raised. In my view (and the view of many others) this demonstrates that you are being reasonable, and more importantly, that you are following the spirit of the overriding objective (CPR 1.1) most, if not all sections and parts...but especially (2)(b) and © (Statutory Instruments 1998 No. 3132 (L. 17))

 

We (Bookie and I) were thinking of bringing in a new thread devoted exclusively to hammering out the different interpretations of SOLA, but you seem to have pre-empted us in this...:cool:

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To add further to what I wrote above, this line of argument stems from the contractual nature of the bank-customer relationship. When you pay money into the bank it becomes the bank's money, in effect we are allowing them to borrow it until we want it back. When you want it back, you have to make formal demand. Therefore when we send our prelim letter we are saying we now want our money back. Oh you took it? well you didn't have a lawful right to take it, so please give it back now or else...

 

The cause of action is that you have demanded your money and they have refused it and at that point they breach the contract. the fact that we didn't ask for it before is irrelevant, to look at it another way - if you paid money into the bank 7 years ago and left it there, and then wrote out a cheque (your formal demand) today, would you agree that you should be statute barred?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey...now THAT is an argument, and a point of view, that really appeals to my sense of fun.

 

Thinking about the depositing of money more than six years ago, and then asking for it back, is a very logical approach...and one that they use when insisting on the repayment of a long term loan for example...

 

I am going to have to go away and think this through again from a new angle...thanks for that...

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say it beats having to prove concealment or mistake...and I think they might just have to prove the charges were lawful to fight us on this.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the late reply. I am with HSBC and recieved all six years worth about three weeks later. Just sat there for months before I sorted it out and about ten days ago I sent off the secound later with spreadsheet calculations (around £4850). Haven't heard anything yet and will send follow up letter Monday.

 

Just to update you, if it may help. They offered me £2000 which I declined, then £3000 which I also declined. I have started MoneyClaim online and last week I faxed DG my calculation sheet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought here guys...

 

(b) any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant

 

When I sent my pre-lim, the template asked the bank for a detailed breakdown of what it costs to actually deal with the bounced cheques / O/D charges etc. In my response the bank did not include this information.

 

Surely this is a relevant fact which has been concealed from me by the defendant?

 

Any thoughts??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey...now THAT is an argument, and a point of view, that really appeals to my sense of fun.

 

Thinking about the depositing of money more than six years ago, and then asking for it back, is a very logical approach...and one that they use when insisting on the repayment of a long term loan for example...

 

I am going to have to go away and think this through again from a new angle...thanks for that...

Mmmmmmm.

A very interesting argument there bong.

I have just sorted HSBC out for the 3rd time, now its time for the 6+ claim.

Just sorting out my thoughts on it before I have a go :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

crusher I have set up a new thread dedicated to this approach here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/65306-forget-32-limitations-act.html#post557273. Really just waiting to see if BF or Mods will comment on it because those of us who like the idea very much don't seem to be able to take the discussion further. Its turning into a long wait.....tum de tum de tum...then again I am impatient..but why do mods visit the thread and then disappear without word? Probably bowled them over:p

Link to post
Share on other sites

you theorists sort it out and send me the answer on a post card. but - at the risk of starting world war 3 - are we as yet in agreement when the first charge of a bog standard claim can be - 6yr from the first letter or 6 yr from the date of the claim - because dg is def questioning charges over 6yr from claim date - so down here on the ground - what do we tell mr/ms claimant when dg kicks 2 or 3 charges into touch?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways, if...

 

Section 32(1)(b) of the 1980 Limitation Act postpones the commencement of the limitation period where "any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant". In this instance the commencement of the limitation period is postponed and does not begin until the claimant discovers the concealment. and...

Section 32 (2) of the same act states that “for the purposes of subsection (1) above, deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty."

As the banks actions of unlawful charges only came to light on 5th April 2006 as a result of the Office of Fair Trading report on penalty charges, the said charges were unlikely to be discovered until this time, thus postponing the commencement of the limitation period until this date.

That's my take on it anyway, think I might go for it and see what happens!

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6175 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...