Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • English school leaders despair over new rules on Covid tests and  masks   https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/feb/25/english-school-leaders-despair-at-soft-line-on-covid-tests-and-masks
    • They've estimated 10 years to agree a trade deal haven't they, UB? I think the Tories believed Trump when he said the UK would be at the front of the queue and have a quick trade deal and thought it would look good as an announcement after Brexit happened. It didn't dawn on them until quite late on that Donald might lose the election.   Why they ever thought US negotiators would do any favours is beyond me and now you see how other countries have asserted themselves over trade deals, the Tories global ambitions are starting to look naive.
    • It takes a long time to agree trade deals because there are so many aspects to consider.    UK companies trade with US consumers including US Government every day of the year, with the previous trade arrangements still in place.   There is no hurry to agree a new trade deal. It takes thousands of civil servants in both Governments to go into every aspect and they just don't have the people available to do this work.    
    • Hi thanks so much for the update and all the information. I will get my reading glasses on and look at the claim info and court info.  I agree let’s proceed issuing a letter straight away.  I am happy to stump the fees for court and am confident we will win.  The police officer I have dealt with has secured further CCTV evidence which I will ask a solicitor friend to get hold of from the Hermes parcel shop should we need any further evidence the parcel was dropped and collected.  Once I have read all the pages on here I will start putting the letter together and post on here for further advice.  thanks again,  mark 
    • The reason that I have indicated that it is the seller who should bring an action against Hermes is not because they are the seller – but because they are the person who suffered the loss. If you haven't suffered a loss then you probably don't have the status – locus standi – to bring a court action. Of course there is a slight problem that you didn't enter into the contract with Hermes – the purchaser did. Until 1999 this would have been a problem and would have prevented you from bringing any kind of action at all – at least on the basis of contract. However, since 1999, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act gives the beneficiary of any contract full third party rights as if they were a contracting party. The only exception to this is that if the contract specifically excluded non-contracting parties – and I'm not aware that Hermes has yet amended their contract to try and prevent this. Of course as usual, Hermes will make a big point about the fact that no insurance was purchased. Hopefully you have been reading around the threads on this sub- forum and you have seen that our view is that it is completely unfair and in fact it is absurd to require a customer to pay money to protect Hermes or any other service provider from the consequences of their own negligence or the criminality of their own employees. Every time this point has been raised with Hermes in mediation, Hermes have settled and we consider that it is because they want to avoid going to court to get a definitive judgement that their insurance scam – is precisely that – a scam. On the basis of what I understand here, this is more than just negligence there is criminality and your bike has been stolen. You've already begun a complaint and you have been knocked back and so I think there's no point in mucking around and I think that you should simply issue a letter of claim to Hermes giving them 14 days to settle in full or else you will begin a court action. Make sure that you have read around the forum about taking a small claim in the County Court. It's very easy but you need to be aware of the steps. If you send the letter of claim, then don't expect that they are suddenly going to refund you your money. They won't. They will force you to issue the court papers and who will then force you to pay the hearing fee. At this point, they will opt for mediation and they will try to knock you down and get your compromise in your claim. You should stand your ground and refused to compromise even a single penny. We will help you all the way. You seem to be a seller and a purchaser here who are getting on very well together and so as you are motivated by a common purpose, you may want to get an agreement where you decide to share the fees of court action – which won't be very much. I haven't checked the court fees for this value claim – but I expect that the whole thing will be only about £120. Of course you will get that back when you win – but bear in mind there is a is a slight risk factor and that means that £120 would be the extent of your risk and would be the maximum that you would lose. It is inconceivable that you would lose. You should be claiming the cost of the bike, the cost of delivery, plus interest which is presently 8% – a very good rate in today's economic climate. Of course you will also claim back your court fees. If you want to proceed then please let us know and let us know also that you have read around the stories and also the steps involved taking a small claim in the County Court and that you understand what you are doing. If you do your basic reading over the next couple of days then we can help you draft a letter of claim on Sunday and you can send it off on Monday. I would recommend that you post your draft letter of claim on this forum so we can check it. Keep it short and to the point.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Fred_Funk v NatWest


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 719 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Guys

 

I was hoping one or more of you may be able to offer me some advice.

 

It's like this... I put in a claim in February 2008 which, as you might imagine, was stayed pending the result of the test case. Clearly, this reached a conclusion some months ago now.

 

When my claim was stayed, the court ordered that: 'Unless the Court has given directions in the meantime [it hasn't], the Defendant shall upon notice to the Claimant apply for directions within 3 months of the ultimate determination of the Commercial Court litigation.'

 

Now, my reading of this is that NatWest/Cobbetts should by now have applied for directions.

 

Given I haven't heard anything, from anyone, can someone please confirm that I'm reading this right and, furthermore, exactly what 'applying for directions' amounts too?!

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 224
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Contact the Court Fred to clarify what is meant bud ;)

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Contact the Court Fred to clarify what is meant bud ;)

 

Already contacted the court. Unfortunately, the person I spoke to knew less than me and was, frankly, rather less helpful than a chocolate teapot.

 

No matter, I have now heard from Cobbetts, shock horror, who have written to the court, making reference to the Supreme Court Case, and saying my claim has 'no prospect of success and should be struck out. In the alternative, the Defendant respectfully proposes that the Court orders the following case management directions.

 

IT IS ORDERED that:

 

The claim be stayed generally.

 

Either party may apply to remove the stay on application to the court. Such an application may be made by way of a letter (accompanied by the appropriate court fee). The application must state:

 

by reference to the decision of the Supreme Court the grounds upon which the application to remove the stay are based; and

 

wether, and if so, what attempts have been made to settle the claim.

 

If no application to remove the stay is made by 4pm on 30 November 2010, the claim shall then be struck out without further order.

 

I presume before the claim can be struck out, the court will write to me at which point I should point out that my claim did make reference to article 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 - which, as I understand it, could yet offer us a way forward - and that, this being the case, I object to this course of action.

 

Of course, I appreciate that in light of the Supreme Court decision I will need to submit amended Particulars of Claim, making particular reference to article 5(1) of the UTCCR 1999 and also s.140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

What I'm less clear on is why Cobbetts mention this option and what their motivation is for doing so. Why don't they simply ask that the claim should be struck out and leave it at that? Why do they bring the possibility of a further stay into the equation and, moreover, isn't it up to the court rather than Cobbetts to dictate the terms of any such stay or is it legitimate for them to do so?

 

Thanks in anticipation of your help and co-operation

Fred_Funk

cobbetts1a.pdf

cobbetts2.pdf

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fred

Though I'm not an expert on this process, I think the answers are within your above posts.

Basically you will need an amended POC, thereby taking your claim in a new direction, invoking different legal principles and arguments and I would not wait for any action from the other side to initiate that.

 

It seems Cobbetts simply want you to make that very clear as you do not appear to have changed your plea, they will ask for a Strike Out against your original case has that has now been decided by the SC.

 

By asking for a Strike out (if you don't contest it or ask for grounds to amend POC) or further stay, they are giving you the opportunity, should the Court allow, for you to re-apply and re-start your claim. Maybe they suspect they won't just get the strike out or it may be seen by the Judge as a bit heavy handed - who knows.

 

Dependant on what Cobbetts have already pleaded prior to and subsequent to the SC ruling, you would probably want to be able to use anything they have historically said against them, wherever possible.

 

It may therefore be better to ask to amend your POC rather than have to re-apply later.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fred , this is the usual mish mash of half-truths and mis-directions being applied by the banks solicitors......... they don't say anything about the Supreme Court advising that a claim under Regilation 5(1) and others may be successful ...........

 

 

I think I'd be inclined to write to the court , referring to the letter ......and agree to a stay until 30 November.... (funny , other courts have come up with this date recently too .....) .Inform them that , after taking further legal advice , you intend to submit amended POC's in due course to address the recommendations of the Supreme Court and would be grateful if the court would grant this stay to enable you to do so.

 

Send a copy to Cobbett's and then see what the court comes back with ......

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. 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.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Fred , this is the usual mish mash of half-truths and mis-directions being applied by the banks solicitors......... they don't say anything about the Supreme Court advising that a claim under Regilation 5(1) and others may be successful ...........

 

 

I think I'd be inclined to write to the court , referring to the letter ......and agree to a stay until 30 November.... (funny , other courts have come up with this date recently too .....) .Inform them that , after taking further legal advice , you intend to submit amended POC's in due course to address the recommendations of the Supreme Court and would be grateful if the court would grant this stay to enable you to do so.

 

Send a copy to Cobbett's and then see what the court comes back with ......

 

johnnymitch

 

Thanks for your input which pretty much tallies with what I thought.

 

A couple of things though:

 

(1) At this point, Cobbetts have merely copied me in on a letter they've sent to the court. That being the case, should I write to the court now requesting a further stay or should I wait for the court to write to me in response to Cobbetts' letter (I'm assuming the claim can't be struck without the court doing this)?

 

(2) Why do Cobbetts bring the question of a further stay into the equation? How do the benefit from this? Why don't they simply request that the claim is struck out? I'm guessing that they must think they glean some advantage from this but I'm unclear what it is.

 

Thanks again

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites
A couple of things though:

 

(1) At this point, Cobbetts have merely copied me in on a letter they've sent to the court. That being the case, should I write to the court now requesting a further stay or should I wait for the court to write to me in response to Cobbetts' letter (I'm assuming the claim can't be struck without the court doing this)?

 

(2) Why do Cobbetts bring the question of a further stay into the equation? How do the benefit from this? Why don't they simply request that the claim is struck out? I'm guessing that they must think they glean some advantage from this but I'm unclear what it is.

 

 

1. I'd say go ahead and write to the court anyway , just in case a 'strikeout ' sneaks through accidentally ... that way the court will know you're aware of the application and it may save them time by going straight to a letter of agreement to the stay ........

 

2. My thoughts on this is that it may be a legal requirement, or jst to make Cobbett's look reasonable instead of the 'Big Bad Wolf' approach for 'a Strikeout and nothing else will do .... ':rolleyes:

 

But maybe I'm just an old cynic lol! :D

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. 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.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes...don't lose sleep over their tactics FF, best get your letter in before a strike out is accidentally granted.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

My claim that was stayed has been lifted wuth Cahoot, I have to get all my paperwork to them by 26th July.

 

Do I now need to change things, can I change things. I dont want this to fall apart as it will be going on the original argument that was being used in 2008...

 

Thanks

 

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

:confused: Are you kidding Bob?

Do I now need to change things, can I change things.

Of course you do, this is the whole point. If your argument has not changed and you are still using the old bank charges POC then you can expect to lose as the SC has ruled against it. I must ask where you've been in the last ten months when all this was being thrashed out.

 

I dont want this to fall apart as it will be going on the original argment that was being used in 2008...

It most certainly will if you don't make changes to your pleas. Look into these threads in detail and you will come away with much clarity on how you ought to position yourself.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/248873-post-test-case-amended.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/248268-sheriff-puts-bank-scotland.html

 

...and of course the templates...

 

The Consumer Forums - Bank charges templates (consumer)

Hope it helps.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
by BTM : I must ask where you've been in the last ten months when all this was being thrashed out.

 

I'd say that's none of your business BTM .... apart from being downright rude .... Bob came on here to ask for help,,,, which I know you can supply in abundance.... without the superior sounding "I know and you don't attitude"

 

Lighten up mate ! :)

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. 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.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thanks guys.

 

Had alot on for the last year, made redundant, lost a second job, and seperation.

 

I will get stuck back into it now and let you know the outcome.

 

Cheers

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I am going to get it printed off. Now the court has said I need to send copies of all paperwork to the defendant (Cahoot) by 26th of July.

 

I was going to send in the spreadsheet I sent 2 years ago, but updated with the more recent charges that have gone on. Do I also send a copy of the post test case amendment aswell as to the court?

 

Thanks in Advance..

 

Bob

 

PS I have my own thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/cahoot/262874-bobsp-cahoot.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read and printed off the form. There is a new problem and it asks for the first and last date you are claiming from, not a problem, but it also asks the amount, I can not confirm this as Cahoot have deactivated my online account, so can not see the charges from Jan 2009. I have called them and they are not prepared to tell me over the phone, they have told me I will have to write a letter requesting, I suppose like a SAR.

I have to get this off to the court asap as the hearing date is 9th August and all paperwork is to be sent to the court and defendant by 26th July. There is no way they will get back to me with the remaining charges by then.

Therefore what should I put for the amount, I don’t want to guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they won't send you the info you need in time for the court appearance , you should ask the court to change the date to enable you to form a full and proper case....

 

You are missing information which they are required to provide .... they cannot withhold it , but they'll probably play silly beggars and treat it as a SAR ..i.e. 40 days to reply ...... therefore you should write to the court office and explain that you need time to evaluate the info which the bank have not yet provided.......

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. 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.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I will contact the court. I have all the amounts up to Jan 09, and as I said they have been still charging the account monthly, but want to get all the charges on the claim. I will write a letter this afternoon.

Thanks

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as an afterthought bob , it might be an idea to ring the court office first , ask them for advice , then confirm any agreement by letter ......

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. 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.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be grateful if someone here could me some guidlines etc regarding a claim from Bryan Carter Solicitors on behalf of the Lowell Financial group.It involves a a build up of late payment charges charged at £22 per late payment. The originator was Clydesdale/Barclaycard loans for supplying a loan to purchase a car.At the end of the term of payments,charges of £303 were outstanding which related to a build up of late payments. A refund of the late payment charges were requested and the originators sent a statement of payments and charges. Nothing developed from there except that the loan company put the matter into the hands of debt collectors. All along the way, the collectors changed hands several times and this latest claim has arrived via Northampton Court with a total amount of £730. Any suggestions please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi neddyseegoon ,

 

You've left this a bit late I'm afraid if it's got to court .... but you could try the DCA with a reduced Full & Final Offer (somewhere about 1/3 to 1/2) and see if they accept ..... they may prefer to get something , rather than have to go to court for it .......

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. 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.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay... I've now received a General Form of Judgement or Order from the court saying that my claim has been stayed until 4pm on December 7, when it will be struck out if no application has been made to remove said stay.

 

While I'm happy with this course of action, can someone explain to me why the court has, of its own volition, stayed the claim rather than asking me if I have any objection to Cobbets request for it to be struck out?

 

I may be reading too much into this but it seems to me that if the court though bank charge claims were dead in the water it would make more sense to write to me saying it was going to strike out my claim (unless I could come up with a good reason for it not to do so).

 

What do you guys reckon?!

stay140710.pdf

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just as an afterthought bob , it might be an idea to ring the court office first , ask them for advice , then confirm any agreement by letter ......

 

Ok I have a list of all the charges, nearly 2K of them, and have listed them, but not the interest as i am changing the POC. I intend to send the list in with the amended POC to the court and Cahoot today, as it has to be done by 26th July. Is that the way ahead?

 

Bob

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay... I've now received a General Form of Judgement or Order from the court saying that my claim has been stayed until 4pm on December 7, when it will be struck out if no application has been made to remove said stay.

 

Right Fred , that gives you breathing space to see if better POCs come along .....in the meantime, just watch that the bank doesn't try to sneak in another application to lift the stay/strike out ....... they have been known to give courts the impression that you have agreed to such a move and the court takes their word for it .....

 

While I'm happy with this course of action, can someone explain to me why the court has, of its own volition, stayed the claim rather than asking me if I have any objection to Cobbets request for it to be struck out?

 

I may be reading too much into this but it seems to me that if the court though bank charge claims were dead in the water it would make more sense to write to me saying it was going to strike out my claim (unless I could come up with a good reason for it not to do so).

 

What do you guys reckon?!

 

I reckon that the courts are getting a bit cheesed off with the banks using the judicial system for their own ends ...... and they are aware that several cases are pending, so they're prepared to extend stays until the way ahead is clear ........ I'm sure they're also aware that the Supreme Court left the door ajar for claims under a different Regulation from the OFT one......

btw , have you seen the latest from the Scottish angle .... I'll add the link in a minute for you .... quite encouraging ...... taken with Vince Cable's statements yesterday I think ........ and the thing is , it has nothing to do with Scottish Law , this is Nationwide stuff ......

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/248268-sheriff-puts-bank-scotland-new-post.html

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. 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.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Also do I still use the zip file below? I ask as it states penalty charges all over it, when is is now referred to as “Unfair Terms in the Consumer Contracts Regulations1999 “ (UTCCR)

 

http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/48-bank-templates/119-basic-court-bundle

 

Thanks

 

Bob

Sorry bob :oops:, I didn't realise I was usurping your thread in my answer to Fred there ....

 

Don't use the phrase 'penalty charges' ......it was decided by a judge a while ago now that they aren't as such ....you could describe them as 'Disputed Charges' I suppose , unless someone has a better (still acceptable):roll: description................

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. 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.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 719 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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...