Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We need to see the actual document from the IAS where it is written - "The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." You can't just type it up yourself. At the hearing in July or August or whenever the judge will have two Witness Statements. One from Bank's director says you never made a second appeal. You say you did make a second appeal and the IAS concluded that payment was made. The judge will immediately twig that either you or the director is lying.  But who? Fail to show the documentation form the IAS and instead just produce something you've typed yourself will make it look like you just made up the appeal and you are lying and you will lose the case. Please let us see what the IAS adjudicator sent.
    • I used to have a retail outlet in London selling my husband's photography.  We also had a co-op with staff so they weren't directly employed by me, but I paid for the other overheads etc.  When my husband died, I carried on as usual for a while but then I became ill and moved quite far away so logistically was becoming very difficult.  I came to an arrangement (verbal) with one of the guys I trusted, that I would send him the images to print and sell as normal, and I wouldn't take any money, as a short term solution until I got back on my feet and worked out the best way to do things. He would pay all the  rent, insurance etc... Over a year later, not able to give things away for free anymore,  I drew up a contract as a wholesale agreement, so I would get everything printed and sent to him and I would invoice his for what he ordered. I noticed form the beginning that he wasn't ordering enough or frequently enough to be making any money, and was suspicious he was doing his own orders on the sly and ordering just enough from me to keep my happy.  I checked with my printer, which I've been with for 20 years, and he sad he wasn't getting orders for my images from anyone else. I emailed a few other printers to ask them to keep a look out for some images but I soon realised this would be impossible to police.  The only option really would be to buy a print from him and check the stamp on the back of it.  I finally managed to get hold of on the prints on sale, and sure enough, he did not order it through me.   In the contract he signed in 2022 it explicitly states that he must destroy all files I had previously sent him etc etc so e is in breach of that.  When I drew up the contract, I was careful to make sure it was legally binding, but before I let rip at him, I need to know where I stand.  The contract is here: PARTIES This WHOLESALE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made effective as of 30th June, 2022, by and between ############################## The Supplier and the Client, collectively referred to as the "Parties," hereby agree to the following terms: TERMS AND CONDITIONS SALES OF GOODS The Supplier agrees to provide the following goods to the Client (“Goods”): Description of Goods ################################# Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b BOTH PARTIES AGREE: The Client purchases the Goods through the Supplier directly, and agrees to delete/destroy any previously held digital images (Goods) owned by the Supplier, and agrees not to use any such files for monetary gain, outside of this agreement, either directly or through a third party from immediate effect of this agreement. The Client purchases the other materials necessary for resale of the Goods independently of this agreement. The Client shall have exclusive rights for resale of Goods at ###########, and also with permission, as a retailer of the Goods elsewhere, provided that there is no conflict of interest between the Supplier and the Client. The Client is free to decide their own retail prices, for the Goods. The Supplier shall use #####  to provide the printed Goods on Fujifilm Crystal Archive paper, with Lustre finish, and will not use any other Printer unless #### cease to trade, without prior approval from the Client. The Supplier shall not impose restrictions on size or frequency of orders made by the Client. The prices provided by the Supplier shall not increase for a minimum of 3 years, unless the prices of the raw materials rise, in which case the client will be informed immediately. Any discounts/promotional prices of raw materials shall be passed on to the Client by the Supplier, and the invoice will show adjustments for this, as well as credit for return postage of any damaged goods. This agreement can be terminated by the Client without notice; the Supplier must give notice of no less than 90 days, unless the terms of the agreement are breached, in which case, the agreement can be terminated with immediate effect. PAYMENT Orders must be paid for upon receipt of invoice, via Bank transfer: ######### Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b DELIVERY AND INSPECTIONS All orders received by 12.00am (midnight) shall be processed by the Supplier the following working day and delivery of order shall arrive in accordance with the Royal Mail schedule, or DPD, should express delivery be requested. The Client shall be liable for the delivery charge which shall be added to the invoice. The Goods will be delivered to the address specified by the Client. The Client shall be provided with order tracking, and should any problems arise with the ordering system or the couriers (Royal Mail, DPD), the Client shall be informed without delay of any such issues. The Client will inspect the Goods and report any defects or damage to the Goods in transit as soon as possible upon receipt of Goods, and will retain damaged Goods for return to Supplier for refund/replacement. GENERAL PROVISIONS CONFIDENTIALITY The prices of the Goods and other information contained in this Agreement is confidential and will not be disclosed by either party unless with prior written consent of the other party. INDEMNIFICATION The Client indemnifies the Supplier from any claims, liabilities, and expenses made by any third party vendors or customers of the Client. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with UK Law. ACCEPTANCE Both parties understand and accept the wholesale arrangement stipulated under this Agreement. Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Wholesale Agreement as of the day and year set forth above.   Signed by us both electronically.   I haven't broached any of this yet, and I am looking for some advice about what action to take.  The main issue I've got is that he has still go those images.  If I terminate the contract, I will need to know that he no longer has those images and I can't think of a bulletproof way to do this. I'm thinking I might tell him I will continue with the contract but ask for a  sum in damages and say that if I find out he's still doing it down the line I will terminate the contract and sue him for damages. The damages side of things I'm not sure how it would work as he is self employed, and I'm positive he doesn't declare all of his earnings to HMRC, in order to find out how much I have lost, would the court demand to go through his tax self assessments?  I'm not sure how to proceed with this, I don't want to lose that place as an outlet as it is in a prime spot in London, which is why I let him have those images in the first place as I would have had to pull out altogether at that point.  I am regretting it somewhat now though.  Please help.
    • I cannot locate anything in my paper work that states 2 payments were made? Perhaps you could point this out? In reply from IAS it states "The ticketing data has been attached" nothing was sent to me. I made a response to the IAS all this was done online
    • Thanks again for your responses. The concern I have here, is that freeholder of the land (a company, who presumably would have been the ones to have initially instructed PPM to manage the parking here), will have proof of exactly how long the vehicle was on site for, as the driver was meeting operatives from that company on a separate matter. On this basis, if the matter was to get to court, I feel all the other technicalities about signage, size of signage/font, lack of start/finish times, will not be enough to have any case dropped? This PCN was brought up to the freeholder but they have advised that PPM will not waive this charge. 
  • 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

Car Insurance - Proof on NCB & a surprise!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5297 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

I've been insuring my various vehicles for years, and the only thing I've ever been asked to supply is proof of my NCB. Having left esure and switched to 'Insure & Go' I received a request to supply not only my proof of NCD, but they want a copy of my driving licence, including paper counterpart etc etc.

 

Now, as a sensitive codger - I've got nothing to hide, my licence is clean and all disclosures on the policy were honest and truthful, however I see no reason why I should even be asked to provide this additional 'evidence' of my existance - never mind provide them with a phontocopy of it and the possible misuse this information can be put to, either by this firm, or if the copies don't even make it safely through the postal system.

 

I'm plannig to deny their request, stating that I see no reason why I should provide them with Photo ID especially as they already have my money and have issued the policy.

 

Have YOU had a similar request from your motor insurer, and is this a new ploy to obtain more (and needless) data for their files?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It used to be standard practice for most insurers to ask for a copy of your driving licence. Direct insurers started the trend of not requesting it until a claim occurred so that they could save on administration costs.

 

Insurers do not request this item as proof of who you are, it is often requested as proof that you have no endorsements and that you have a full licence.

Cahoot - Rejection of offer sent 14/06/07

 

Barclaycard - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 22/03/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

That may seem to be the reason at first glance, but just as Helth insurers don't ask you to supply a photocopy of the medical records held by your doctor, the insurer is then happy to reject your claim(s) if you did not disclose a pre-existing condition.

 

Moving this to the car insurance arena, if I have made a misleading declaration then the company is entitled to load my claim or even cancel the insurance. Asking for a copy of my licence (to my mind) is none of their concerm, as it provides them with far more information than they require, and with the latest Insurance equivalent of a CRA credit file, they are ramping up 'Insurance Huinter' as a new database to hold client details in a centralised for for use by ANY insurance company. Their reason for creating 'to identify and control fraud'! Fine - now I'm guilty and providing data without having done anything wrong!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurance contracts are contracts of Utmost Good Faith. This means that the onus is on the proposer to disclose all information which is relevant for the insurer to assess the risk and decide whether or not to accept the proposal, and if so on what terms.

 

If there has been a non-disclosure of information, then insurer may void your policy or apply an additional premium (load), depending on whether they would not have accepted the policy in the first place had they been aware of the non-disclosure of whether they would have accepted it but at a higher premium.

 

Most insurers check the information you provided only when you make a claim. However, they are within their rights to check whenever it is deemed necessary, such as when the policy is taken out. It is a condition of the policy that you provide any information requested by the insurer, so long as the information requested is relevant to the insurer.

 

It is my understanding therefore that they are within their rights to request a copy of your licence at this stage. Although I'm surprised they have asked for your photo-card. Any motoring convictions or fixed penalties are shown on your counterpart and there is no reason for them to see the photo-card too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Although I'm surprised they have asked for your photo-card. Any motoring convictions or fixed penalties are shown on your counterpart and there is no reason for them to see the photo-card too."

 

Its easier to forge a counterpart than a photocard...

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue is that they are entitled to all the information required to assess the risk - all of which I have provided. They are wanting copies of the physical evidence of this, and it is this I object to, for the reasons outlined earlier. I don;t plan to be an unwilling participant in adding data to the Insurance Hunter database, when all I reequire is a policy. No claim or related action is involved at this stage. I think I'll require them to disclose that they intend doing with the documents I provide, and see what the response is. I dislike copies of official documents being stored by unconnected third parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is a condition of the policy that a copy licence is supplied that you must do so. The insurer will be within their right to cancel the policy or refuse to pay any damage claim.

This is a safeguard on their behalf to ensure that you have a valid UK licence. It is a fair request in view of the significant number of people driving without a valid licence never mind without insurance.

Such risk management helps to reduce premiums and not for any "big brother" purpose.

There is no need for you to be concerned. They will no doubt scan the copy then destroy it as I suspect all data will be held electronically.

:p :p If my advice as been of help, please give me a quick click on the scales to your right ;) ;) :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

The request for the copy licence only came through after they accepted my proof of NCD. If they want to cancel the policy due to non compliance, that's their concern.

As for it being a 'safeguard' that I have a licence? You'll need to explain that to me slowly. The indistry practice is that the police require the licence after an accident, and the insurance company are advised of any problems with your documentation. For example, a condition requires that in addition to a licence, my vehicle also needs to have a current MoT and Tax Disc. Why don't they want a copy of that? Wait! They have access to the DVLA via the Motor Insurers computer system.... and this will link me to all policies I have and claims made. As for scanning the info, this increases my concens even more. What system will this be stored on? Who can access it and for what purposes? I could provide the data on deep red paper meaning it could be scanned at all....

 

At the moment I'm trying to discover whether my company is starting the trend, and it appears to be - hence my lack of enthusiasm to disclose details that are not relevant. There is little point claiming to have a licence when you don't, as no cover attaches if you don't have a licence. Hence their reason to have sight of the documentation still eludes me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can appreciate your concerns and hopefully I cam allay your fears.

 

Firstly, the fact that the police may request a copy of your licence is nothing to do with the insurance policy. They have the right to request all relevent documentation i.e. the producer to ensure that you are legally entitled to drive in the UK and that you have the necessary insurance cover. Once that's done, that is generally the end of their interest - unless injury or an illegal act has occurred. Whether the vehicle is taxed or MOT'd is not an issue to the insurer unless a claim occurs and they may not pay the full amount that may be due to you. They are obliged however to deal with the Third Party under RTA rules & regs.

 

The databases insurers have access to are the MID ( every insured vehicle registered and Insured in the UK is logged on this - or should be ) which is a safeguard against uninsured drivers. The police also have access to this. However the insurers will not have direct access to the DVLA database nor to a claims database. ( Can a personal lines UW advise me different ? ).

 

Regarding scanning - Most organisations no longer retain paper files whether it be Insurance, banking or any other company as "files" are now stored electronically and access will be restricted to employees or authorised users only.

 

Finally, your insurer is not starting a trend rather reinforcing past requirements. When I worked in personal lines insurance many moons ago, this was the norm for a lot of insurers - especially Lloyds Underwriters. If a company accepts you and you don't have a licence then yes they will repudiate your claim however should a third party be involved, they are obliged under the RTA to deal with this.

 

As I said earlier, the request is fair and helps the insurer to keep costs down by targeting a specific audience i.e. those who the know have got claen and full UK licences. You'd be amazed how many drivers are on the roads with foreign invalid licences etc.

 

And now my whinge - in general, most people complain about the cost of insuring vehicles and anything which helps reduce the cost gets my vote. Ultimately, that is what this company is doing - minimising their exposure.

 

I hope that this goes someway to answering your concerns and I 'm sure some of the other respondents will endorse what I've said.

:p :p If my advice as been of help, please give me a quick click on the scales to your right ;) ;) :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have worked in motor insurance claims for 6 years. I've worked in policyholder claims, fraud and now third party claims.

 

I can verify everything Trojan1401 says.

 

The insurer cannot disclose information to third party's without your permission. Besides, they already have all the information they would need anyway if they intended to pass it to a third party; they wouldn't need you licence to do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to correct you - but I've already taken Admiral Plc to the Information Commissioner for doing just that, and disclosing data without permission to the Insurance Hunter database.

 

As you point out, they have all the information they require already, so the request for photocopies of the licence is needless busywork and further evidence of the consumer having to disclose more personal details than they need to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As you point out, they have all the information they require already, so the request for photocopies of the licence is needless busywork and further evidence of the consumer having to disclose more personal details than they need to know.

 

As i previously said - 'It used to be standard practice for most insurers to ask for a copy of your driving licence at inception. Direct insurers started the trend of not requesting it until a claim occurred so that they could save on administration costs'. You would be surprised at how many times this has shown convictions on a licence that the owner had conveniently forgotten they had and didnt bother to disclose.

 

I am not saying you shouldn't question the information you are requested to provide, after all i do the same on behalf of my clients sometimes, but this just appears to be a spiralling rant now going who knows where rather than a sensible discussion.

Cahoot - Rejection of offer sent 14/06/07

 

Barclaycard - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 22/03/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buzby, I don't understand what you have said about Admiral? You are informed when taking out the policy that they will share information you provide with other insurers via various databases. Every insurer does it. I don't see what Admiral did wrong?

 

By providing your licence you are not giving the insurer 'more information than they need to know'. You have already given them the information yourself. By providing them a copy you are just verifying it.

 

The insurer has a right to see your licence, either now or after you make a claim. You are being unecessarily awkward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't a customer of Admiral at all THAT'S what they did wrong. THey wrote to me concering a third part claim and told me that my data would be used for a string of purposes I did neither agree or permit them to.

 

I'm afraid you take a rather myopic view of what the insurers can do with customer data. For example, the Insurer has no idea of your licence entitlements and classifications to drive, all of which is revealed if a photocopy is provided.

 

Can you point to any part of a contract with an insurer that legally requires me to show or provide a copy of my licence under law? The isn't some hastily thought out 'money laundering' rule that allows financial institutions to take copies of your passport and driving licence for their own protection (not yours). As for being 'awkward' it is only by challenging their imagined 'right' to official documents thatI object to. If consumers do not object, then it will become established as the 'norm', so I see no reason to comply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If consumers do not object, then it will become established as the 'norm', so I see no reason to comply.

 

 

As i have said twice before - it was the norm to request this but many/most insurers dropped this request at inception and chose to request it when a claim arose instead.

Cahoot - Rejection of offer sent 14/06/07

 

Barclaycard - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 22/03/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

As i previously said - 'It used to be standard practice for most insurers to ask for a copy of your driving licence at inception.

 

I am not saying you shouldn't question the information you are requested to provide, after all i do the same on behalf of my clients sometimes, but this just appears to be a spiralling rant now going who knows where rather than a sensible discussion.

 

It may be 'standard practice' where you operate, however I have been paying for motor insurance for almonst 40 years now, with a wide rande of companies, and it is only last week I've been asked to provide this additional 'proof'. It is this I am querying - and it appears (as I have expected) to be an arbitrary exercise, employed by some firms and not others. Therefore its usefulness is questionable.

 

'Spiralling rant'? You must be reading a differentr thread to me. This debate has properly expanded to reveal the nature of the beast, and its implausability, along with the insurance industry's need to populate the Insurance Hunter database with as much information as they possibly can. You may have no issues with the misuse of data, however if you have had your identity stolen you take these matters VERY seriously. I'm sorry if you don't appreciate this, but when it happens to you and you realise you actually don't have any personal information that is 'private', do remember this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be 'standard practice' where you operate, however I have been paying for motor insurance for almonst 40 years now, with a wide rande of companies, and it is only last week I've been asked to provide this additional 'proof'. It is this I am querying - and it appears (as I have expected) to be an arbitrary exercise, employed by some firms and not others. Therefore its usefulness is questionable.

 

Where and how i operate is irrelevant as i have been an insurance broker with varying brokers since the late 80's therefore i have a wide knowledge of what has or hasnt been requested by many different insurers for a considerable time.

 

When i first started out it was normal practice to request a copy of a drivers licence for every motor policy incepted/sold. This, with the advent of direct insurers desire to cut costs, has been dropped by many/most insurers over time but is very often still requested should a claim arise.

Cahoot - Rejection of offer sent 14/06/07

 

Barclaycard - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 22/03/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which does nothing to disprove my experiences. As to your view of relevance, I regret I have no interest in how or where you operate, this cleary is not a national policy, and as you go on to note 'has been dropped by many' - supports my contention that it is neither necessary or cumpulsory. Thanks for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily enough - I would, because we've now got to the stage that the DVLA are disclosing their database to just about anyone that can come up with a half-decent excuse! But in answer to your question, I have no difficulty in showing (or 'exhibiting' in legal parlance) my licence to anyone who may reasonably request to SEE it, which would include any representative of my insurers.

 

However I would only be prepared to show/exhibit the document, not provide them a facsimile or copy of it, ans I cannot see what reason they would have to retain it after their inspector or agent had established that it was genuine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me for stating the obvious but why are you arguing about this? If you're not happy with the requests of the insurer or the terms of the policy then just simply don't insure with them.

If you find the advice I give is useful, then please feel free to click the scales :)

 

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

They've already taken my money, and accepted my proof of NCD as acceptable. In their letter acknowledging receipt of the NCD documentation there is a line highlighted noting, 'we require a phonocopy of your licence, complete with paper counterpart to be returned in the enclosed reply paid envelope.

 

Too late NOT to insure I'm afraid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buzby,

 

Whilst I agree with insurers requesting a copy of your licence, it is a subjectivity and should have been pointed out prior to purchase.

 

Are you dealing direct or via a broker ?

:p :p If my advice as been of help, please give me a quick click on the scales to your right ;) ;) :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Was there anything in the original T&C's about this though? When you set the policy up you would have been sent though a policy booklet a load of docs outlining what they require you to do. Obviously you get a 14 day cooling off period which i'm guessing your outside of now, you can still cancel the policy within the contract but you may be liable for a cancelation charge. Best thing to do is to read your original docs carefully, if there's no mention of the request for your licence then call CS and inquire why they require it, if you're not happy with the answer (will probably be the same as most of the other insurance staff here have mentioned) then ask if they will cancel the policy on a pro rata basis as a goodwill gesture due to them not making this requirement clear in their T&C's. Most decent consultants would agree to that.

If you find the advice I give is useful, then please feel free to click the scales :)

 

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm dealing direct - the company is Insure & Go and on the web pages I accessed it only stated that proof of any discounts claimed would require verification, that was all. At the moment, I've a lot on and am taking the 'mushroom' approach, should they wish to cancel the policy for non-compliance it will be at their behest, not mine so the ball will be in their court. It may just fizzle out, but if they terminate I'll be ensure any pro-rata termination is fairly calculated and correctly reflects the cover provided.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...