Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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

SLC Cannot Supply The Original Agreement


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5449 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

In the case of a bank loan where the money was debited into your account , then the monthly payments were made , would this not be considered evidence that the loan was in place in the absence of a agreemant and used in the loan providers defence. If you coninue with the repayments is this not acknowledgement that there is an awareness of a contract being in place.

 

Nope Tumble,

 

We have many people who have written saying they cannot affor repayments etc etc. It does not matter.

 

What does matter is if the creditor can enforce the debt. That is where the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is so powerful and provides us with some protection. See my earlier posts which attempt to explain what it is and how I intend to use it.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

However, credit card agreements entered into by post/phone before the regs., although non-cancellable by definition, were given cancellable status by the lenders. I'm not sure when this practice started though so it is possible that some very old credit card agreements may not have been cancellable

 

Sorry to be picky but consumer credit cannot be entered into by phone.

 

And since the cancellation period only lasts 14days what relavance does what happend 3 years ago have unless you list time travell amongst your black arts.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of a bank loan where the money was debited into your account , then the monthly payments were made , would this not be considered evidence that the loan was in place in the absence of a agreemant and used in the loan providers defence. If you coninue with the repayments is this not acknowledgement that there is an awareness of a contract being in place.

 

Tumble, ordinarily the courts would take the sort of evidence that you have outlined to show that a contract is in place because that's how case law have defined it. However CCA specifically says that irrespective of any other evidence if there are any of the specified requirements of the Act not fully complied with, the agreement whether it exists or not cannot be enforced so any attempt to take you to court would fail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to be picky but consumer credit cannot be entered into by phone.

 

And since the cancellation period only lasts 14days what relavance does what happend 3 years ago have unless you list time travell amongst your black arts.

 

Peter

 

Hi

 

Consumer credit can be applied for by phone e.g. overdrafts, orders from catalogues, loans etc.

 

The relevance of whether or not an agreement is cancellable is whether the agreement contained all the required notices of cancellation etc. and whether you had been sent the 2nd copy of agreement/separate cancellation notice etc. and was therefore properly executed and enforceable.

 

E.g. my agreement with the loan company that was declared wholly unenforceable was a cancellable one. Yes, I had 14 days to cancel BUT the creditor did not send me the separate cancellation notice and form so technically my cancellation period was indefinite! So the relevance of what happened 11 years before I discovered the omission was extremely important!

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said consumer credit canot be entered into by phone not applied for.Which it cannot.

 

The relevance of whether or not an agreement is cancellable is whether the agreement contained all the required notices of cancellation etc. and whether you had been sent the 2nd copy of agreement/separate cancellation notice etc. and was therefore properly executed and enforceable

 

Sorry no i am confused i thought we were saying card greement agreement prior to 2004 being non cancelabele.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had conflicting advice regarding the validity of a CCA 77 Request after a loan as been subjected to a court order. On one hand the agreement under the CCA Act 1974 as been broken therefore the Request as no merit, on the other hand when a debt is subjected to a court order it is just enforcing the contractal rights Legally, this being the case, then i assume i still have rights under the contract and one of my rights being a Legally binding CCA Request.

 

Any thoughts

 

Paul.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pam just to clarify for other readers


  1. 17.23 Can the contract be concluded by telephone?
  2. In principle, Reg 8(1)(b) permits contracting by telephone because it provides that the information specified in Sch 1, together with the contract terms, may be provided immediately after the conclusion of the contract where this was concluded at the consumer’s request using a means of distance communication which does not enable provision in accordance with Reg 8(1)(a).

    However, in the case of consumer credit agreements the CCA requires that the unexecuted agreement as presented or sent to the debtor for signature must be on paper or another durable medium. A CCA-regulated agreement may not therefore be entered into orally.

     

    Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Paul

 

Most certinly you do.

I have been downo this path myself From a slightly deifferent angle in that i had the CCJ set aside on the grounds that the orriginal agreeement was not made available. and needed time to issue a 77 in order to prepare a defense.

Peter

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry no i am confused i thought we were saying card greement agreement prior to 2004 being non cancelabele.

 

 

Hi Peter

 

No, what I said, which started all this off, is that a credit card agreement is by definition a non-cancellable agreement, i.e. signed away from trade premises and with no face-to-face contact between creditor and borrower.

 

I then said that although strictly speaking non-cancellable, these agreements were (prior to 2004) given cancellable status by the lenders - an optional choice by them before the distance regs. came into force.

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what I said, which started all this off, is that a credit card agreement is by definition a non-cancellable agreement, i.e. signed away from trade premises and with no face-to-face contact between creditor and borrower.

 

I do not think that that section was meant to apply to credit cards anyway.

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I do not think that that section was meant to apply to credit cards anyway.

Peter

 

Hi

 

It must have applied (prior to 2004!) because there is no other, or different definition for a credit card agreement.

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MMM

None that i can fin but i am still looking. The example shown in Butterworths doesnt mention credit cards and i think that this was the sections intention.

I wonder if there was a regulation.

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if there was a regulation.

 

 

If you can find you I'll eat my pointy hat! :D

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now theres a challenge

 

What if i was to say just for the sake of argument that the distance signature on a crdit agreement fell outside the remit of the cca 1974. Don't forget Credtt cards i believe (Iwas far to young to reember) only really took off in this country in the early 70s.

 

Haven't researched this yet but i will so get your salt and pepper ready.

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pam just to clarify for other readers



    1. 17.23 Can the contract be concluded by telephone?
    2. In principle, Reg 8(1)(b) permits contracting by telephone because it provides that the information specified in Sch 1, together with the contract terms, may be provided immediately after the conclusion of the contract where this was concluded at the consumer’s request using a means of distance communication which does not enable provision in accordance with Reg 8(1)(a).

      However, in the case of consumer credit agreements the CCA requires that the unexecuted agreement as presented or sent to the debtor for signature must be on paper or another durable medium. A CCA-regulated agreement may not therefore be entered into orally.

       

      Peter

       

      True but the 2006 act will allow for electronic signatures. How scary is that

Link to post
Share on other sites

True but the 2006 act will allow for electronic signatures. How scary is that

 

Very - especially as it will just involve ticking a box - it wouldn't be too bad if it was like the microsoft passport system where you have one username and password which you can use to access loads of sites and services - but, just having a tick box covered, it's insane!!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now theres a challenge

 

What if i was to say just for the sake of argument that the distance signature on a crdit agreement fell outside the remit of the cca 1974. Don't forget Credtt cards i believe (Iwas far to young to reember) only really took off in this country in the early 70s.

 

Haven't researched this yet but i will so get your salt and pepper ready.

Peter

 

Hi

 

No, that won't get my hat on a plate!

 

Credit card (token) agreements from 1974 have always been subject to the CCA - hence the sections dealing with credit tokens and s85.

 

Below is the definition of a consumer credit agreement taken from the original 1974 Act (i.e. before modified by any S.I.s):

 

8.—(1) A personal credit agreement is an agreement between an individual (" the debtor ") and any other person (" the creditor") by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit of any amount. (2) A consumer credit agreement is a personal credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £5,000.

(3) A consumer credit agreement is a regulated agreement within the meaning of this Act if it is not an agreement (an " exempt agreement ") specified in or under section

16.

 

 

14.—( 1) A credit-token is a card, check, voucher, coupon, stamp, form, booklet or other document or thing given to an individual by a person carrying on a consumer credit business, who undertakes—

(a) that on the production of it (whether or not. some other action is also required) he will supply cash, goods and services (or any of them) on credit, or

(b) that where, on the production of it to a third party (whether or not any other action is also required), the third party supplies cash, goods and services (or any

of them), he will pay the third party for them (whether or not deducting any discount or commission), in return for payment to him by the individual.

 

(2) A credit-token agreement is a regulated agreement for the provision of credit in connection with the use of a credit-token.

 

There have always been consumer credit agreements that have been signed away from trade premises (at a distance) - and they are generally non-cancellable.

 

Put the salt and pepper back! :)

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you say away from trade premises being non-cancellable do you mean those agreements where the benefit starts or obtained by the consumer at the time of signing or very shortly thereafter?

 

Hi

 

Quote:

 

A cancellable credit agreement is one where:

during the negotiations before the agreement is made, a trader (who, in this case, may be the creditor, the credit broker or the supplier) – in the presence of the

customer – discusses the prospective agreement or a transaction to be financed by credit provided under it, and

the unexecuted agreement (that is the document embodying the prospective agreement which has not yet been signed by both trader and customer) is signed by

the customer off trade premises.

 

In all other circumstances (except for credit card agreements) any agreement entered into is non-cancellable.

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, with relation to this can I ask if this applies to credit cards as well as loans?

 

Thanks

George

 

It is important that you follow the procedure set out in the Consumer Credit Act and make a statutory request under sections 77(1) and 78(1). A draft letter is shown elsewhere on the forum - and as stated, you need to send the £1 fee.

 

It is only when they have defaulted under this that the debt becomes unenforceable after 12 working days (you can legally suspend payments at this point until they provide the agreement) - and after one month they have committed an offence.

 

Should they then seek to enforce the debt they will have to explain to the court why they defaulted, and seek permission to continue - and you can also report them to Trading Standards and the FSA.

 

However, remember that all this only applies after sending the letter under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, with relation to this can I ask if this applies to credit cards as well as loans?

 

Thanks

George

 

Yes - the CCA discusses these as credit tokens.

 

There are essentially two critical sections - look at Section 78 - this covers the creditors obligations to provide you with a copy of your executed agreement including all the prescribed terms

 

and Section 85, which places a further requirement on the creditor to ALWAYS provide you with a copy of your executed agreement whenever they replace the credit token - eg, at replacement re loss, at replacement re expiry date, at replacement to introduce chip n pin etc

 

you would be well advised to read a very long thread here - there are 164 pages and it will take time but worth the investment

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/33174-consumer-credit-act-agreements-164.html#post596879

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, with relation to this can I ask if this applies to credit cards as well as loans?

 

Thanks

George

 

Hi and welcome to CAG :)

 

It most certainly does apply to credit card agreements as well. Send your request via recorded delivery with either a £1 PO or cheque. The letter you need is letter N from the following link:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/20758-creditors-dcas-letter-templates.html

 

Post back with any update.

 

Regards, Pam

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi

Just to repeat

yes use section 78 as mentioned .Minor point in that should the agreement be produced after the timescale the creditor a perfectly within their rights to enforce they do not need permission from amy one.

They are liabel to criminal prossecution but that is a differentr matter and they may wish to let sleeping dogs lie rather that risk a heafty fine and possible imprisonment if you can get the CPS to persue it.

 

Peter

 

Peter

 

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...