Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Parking Tickets


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6286 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

An interesting issue is emerging within the Decriminalised Parking Enforcement system. This is the part of the Road Traffic Act 1991 which enables local councils to operate thier own parking regime.

 

If you have been issued with a parking ticket and still have the original PCN (the ticket that gets attached to your windscreen), check the following points:

 

1. At the top of the ticket there must be the words "Date Of Issue", simply date or date of offence is not acceptable

 

2. The ticket must not refer to an "offence", the correct term is "contravention"

 

Either of these points render the PCN unenforceable according to Section 66(3) of the RTA1991.

 

This originally came to light in May 2005 when NPAS ruled against Bury Council on the above points (NPAS are the independant parking adjudicators even though they are solely funded by 60p from each PCN - but thats another story)

 

Despite NPAS sending out an urgent memo to all local authorities regarding this some councils have STILL not changed the wording, leaving themselves open to potentially having to refund millions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Apparently, it has been challenged successfully a number of times!!

 

Both of the following contain more information:

 

 

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=845&ArticleID=1444414

 

http://neilherron.blogspot.com/

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes it was mentioned, but this is regarding parking tickets not the warden!!! with or without his hat!!!

 

I also have heard that if the yellow lines are broken - there is something in the law about the lines have to be together/connected! if this is not the case, the ticket is not valid either.

Halifax - Since 2003 £1,186 DPA Request: 24.03.06

PRL - sent Recorded 05.04.06

Letter received 07.04.06 - Thanks but No thanks

LBA - 20.04.06 Refused Money Claim filed 08.05.06

Served 14.05 Acknowledged 16.05.06 - 28 days to go

:D WON - PAID IN FULL 25.05.06

Lloyds [/i]- Since 2000 £780.31 - DPA Request: 23.03.06

PRL - sent recorded 10.04.2006

Letter Rec'd 13.04 - Not interested

LBA - 13.04.06 Money Claim filed 25.04.06

Served 01.05.06 & Acknowledged 03.05.06. - 28 days to go

Defence received 25.05 - Here we go

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also have heard that if the yellow lines are broken - there is something in the law about the lines have to be together/connected! if this is not the case, the ticket is not valid either.

 

Correct. Although I have tried in vain for years to find out if this includes d/y lines that are broken because they go over a storm drain or grid.

 

I think ethank's post is relevant, it's another way of not having to pay because the ticket was wrongly issued.

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

have a look at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/023113ba.gif and the rest of the act. Permitted variants are NONE, so if they are not this size or broken, as far as i can tell they are unenforcable. You would not believe how many places have 'wrong' yellow lines:lol: , fine for tickets :) but not so great if they tow your car, you still have to get it back:-x .....the above act relates to all road signs & gives diagrams .....a bit long winded but worth at least a couple hours of your time.

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post, the good thing about this is you can successfully challenge a parking ticket, but as you said it doesn't help if you have been towed.

 

There has to be a flaw somewhere regarding the laws about towing a vehicle because you might be totally innocent but are having the punishment imposed on you before you have had the chance to clear yourself via appeal etc. It's a disgrace.

 

Our local council have decided that you will be ticketed (or towed) for parking on a footpath (even partly) or more than 12 inches out from the kerb - I'm told that they even carry rulers to check. It gets more ridiculous every day, I mean how is a visitor to know there is a local by-law stating that you can't park more than 12 inches from the kerb?

 

There are many websites and books giving information about what is legal and what isn't but nobody seems to be quite sure how or why they can introduce these by-laws (without signage) or why they can "legally" tow you without a chance to defend yourself or without even having to inform you in advance that they will do so.

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

As for the broken lines it only applies is you park between a broken line, if you park on any part of a yellow line broken or not, then you are parked illegally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

As for the broken lines it only applies is you park between a broken line, if you park on any part of a yellow line broken or not, then you are parked illegally.

 

The point here is that it's grossly unfair of councils to penalise people for not obeying local by-laws if they don't know those by-laws exist, especially if there is no way of knowing if there are no signs up. Do you check every by-law of every locality you enter? Of course you don't! Should you be reasonably expected to? Of course you shouldn't! But councils are using this sort of thing simply to make money out of people and for that there IS no excuse.

 

As for the broken double (or single) yellow lines issue, sorry but you are incorrect. The law states that the line has to be solid, i.e. unbroken. If it isn't it's not a legal yellow line and can't (or shouldn't) be enforced, where you are parked on it is irrelevant.

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

As for the broken lines it only applies is you park between a broken line, if you park on any part of a yellow line broken or not, then you are parked illegally.

 

Yep, that appears to be incorrect, check the link further up, if the yellow lines vary from that pictured on link, as there are permitted variants NONE then the roads markings must be to the specifications in the Act.

 

That may not stop a ticket being issued or being towed but i assume costs i.e towing/release charges, preparation of defence case & possibility damages etc could be claimed in a law court as would for defending (& winning your case) a speeding / section 172 offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, that appears to be incorrect, check the link further up, if the yellow lines vary from that pictured on link, as there are permitted variants NONE then the roads markings must be to the specifications in the Act.

 

That may not stop a ticket being issued or being towed but i assume costs i.e towing/release charges, preparation of defence case & possibility damages etc could be claimed in a law court as would for defending (& winning your case) a speeding / section 172 offence.

 

There are many known cases which have been won and costs/refunds/compensation made due to incorrect signage - this includes broken double yellow lines simply because the relevant act, whatever it is (I'm not looking again! ) does not provide for variations from the general rule. the general rule in this case is of course, that it must be a SOLID yellow line.

 

Technicaly it's possible that every yellow line in the country is invalid because they have to be a certain width too, with a certain sized gap in between ands a certain distance from the kerb.

 

There are actually three acceptable widths:

 

100mm is the standard width, 75mm can be used in areas where the speed limit is less than 40mph (so expect these to be the most common) and 50mm in "environmentally sensitive areas". So the yellow line has to be EXACTLY this width. Again the law doesn't officially permit any deviation from this so if a "75mm" line is 74 or 76mm ALONG IT'S WHOLE LENGTH it's invalid! Hey, we didn't make the rules! ;)

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R 145

Because by s.64(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulation, if a sign the contravention of which is an offence contrary to s.36 is not as prescribed by the regulation, no offence is committed if the sign is contravened, even if the sign is clearly recognisable to a reasonable man as a sign of that kind.

 

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

Any part of the lines from T-Bar to T-Bar broken or damaged render the lines as non compliant. They must be continuous.

 

So the councils should not issue any tickets if any of their lines or signs (which incidently are one of the same in RT law) are not as prescribed.

  • Confused 1

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy, i was only saying.

 

You are all refering to the regulations that tell you what the lines should look like, there width, etc. but they are allowed to be within a variant, can't remeber what it is off my head but something like 30% of what you are all reading.

 

As for the broken line part this is also covered, in the regulations under variations, and it is allowed to be broken but if a certain percentage is missing over a given distance then it doesn't apply otherwise it's still a yellow line and you can't park on it.

 

Think about it, if what you are saying is true then 90% of yellow lines don't count, you have taken one part of the law and made it apply to your argument, and fair play thats what most layers do but the fact is there are other parts of the regulations that render you're argument invalid.

 

and don't have a go at me, i'm only telling you what the regulations are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy, i was only saying.

 

You are all refering to the regulations that tell you what the lines should look like, there width, etc. but they are allowed to be within a variant, can't remeber what it is off my head but something like 30% of what you are all reading.

 

As for the broken line part this is also covered, in the regulations under variations, and it is allowed to be broken but if a certain percentage is missing over a given distance then it doesn't apply otherwise it's still a yellow line and you can't park on it.

 

Think about it, if what you are saying is true then 90% of yellow lines don't count, you have taken one part of the law and made it apply to your argument, and fair play thats what most layers do but the fact is there are other parts of the regulations that render you're argument invalid.

 

and don't have a go at me, i'm only telling you what the regulations are.

 

 

Nobody's having a go at you specifically, just challenging the information.

 

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 diagram 1018.1 below shows the permitted size of double yellow lines. Note the wording in the table below which reads: Permitted variants: NONE

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/023113ba.gif

 

It is true, you have it there in black and white from the government, and yes, probably 90% of all lines are invalid. As I said, we don't make the rules but all I'm saying is that if you are giving statements like "something like a 30% variance" then you need to back it up otherwise the information becomes misleading, and it could be important to somebody so it's important to get it right. The same applies for broken lines or gaps in the lines, there are no regulations allowing any variants, a solid yellow line has to be just that - solid. If I'm wrong I will hold my hands up but please post the relevant regs if they exist because I can't find any!

 

Don't take it personally, it's otherwise a very good and informative thread but if you are goping to make statement and quote them as fact at least do ytour research and back them up..

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are correct with the tolerance allowance (for road signs, i think 10%) i remember reading it, will have a look later at the Act and post the relevant part if i find it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there is an allowance for the size of road signs.

 

It's not a set percentage but varies dependant on certain factors although I'm not sure what those factors are off the top of my head.

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about it, if what you are saying is true then 90% of yellow lines don't count, you have taken one part of the law and made it apply to your argument, and fair play thats what most layers do but the fact is there are other parts of the regulations that render you're argument invalid.

 

That 90% figure cannot be far off if you consider Holyhead town, the only 'correct' yellow lines as far as i can tell from the Regs in Holyhead (town centre) are those which surround the police & court building!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Variation of Dimensions 12 (10) ...Table 2 as yellow lines are Schedule 6 markings.

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#11

 

Table 2 Diagrams in Schedule 6 - All dimensions

 

Item Dimensions shown in diagrams Permitted variations

 

1. 1.3 metres or more

 

(i) Up to 15% of the dimension where the varied dimension is greater than the specified dimension; or

 

(ii) Up to 10% of the dimension where the varied dimension is less than the specified dimension

 

2. 300 millimetres or more, but less than 3 metres

 

(i) Up to 20% of the dimension where the varied dimension is greater than the specified dimension; or

 

(ii) Up to 10% of the dimension where the varied dimension is less than the specified dimension

 

3. 50 millimetres or more but less than 300 millimetres

 

(i) Up to 30% of the dimension where the varied dimension is greater than the specified dimension; or

 

(ii) Up to 10% of the dimension where the varied dimension is less than the specified dimension

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a read.

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#sch19pII2

 

 

This then explains the changes:

 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_508278.pdf

 

Be warned, not bedtime reading. :D

If the name of the claim is blue and underlined, click it to see how I did it.

  • Halifax - 1st Request for £3748.80 sent 10/06 Settled in full and 5% donated


  • Goldfish - Unable to comment further, have a read


  • Lloyds - Data Protection Act sent 19/04 1st estimated request for £1500 sent15/08 LBA sent 08/09


  • Carphone Warehouse - Data Protection Act sent 19/04 Chased 04/07 ICO complaint 18/07


  • First National - 1st Request for £280 sent 05/05 Settled in full and 5% donated


  • Yes car credit - LBA sent 19/07 Court Action launched 26/09


  • HFC Bank - 1st Request for £100 sent 06/06 Settled in full and 5% donated


Like what I said? Hit the scales on the top right of my post. Cheers

 

Disclaimer - By giving advice, I am not putting myself across as a legal expert. Always seek professional advice.

Help the site, donate 5%, I have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, for the info on the updates.

 

I am sure the three sizes allowed for Yellow lines, in brackets on diagram, correspond to limits under 40mph, sensitive areas and one other situation....if you know the three situations please let me know ......i know i have seen it in writing but i can't find it now.

 

.....oh there it is in Seylectric's post further up.......do you recall were the info came from?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are actually three acceptable widths:

 

100mm is the standard width, 75mm can be used in areas where the speed limit is less than 40mph (so expect these to be the most common) and 50mm in "environmentally sensitive areas". So the yellow line has to be EXACTLY this width. Again the law doesn't officially permit any deviation from this so if a "75mm" line is 74 or 76mm ALONG IT'S WHOLE LENGTH it's invalid! Hey, we didn't make the rules! ;)

 

I guess it all means that yellow lines in areas under 40 mph must be between 130 - 67.5mm (+30%/-10% of 100mm & 75mm) to be enforcable (not inc sensitive areas) considering the allowable tolerance (permitted variations) for Sch. 6 marking in the regs.

 

But don't forget the bars on the ends there is only one size for these and the tolerances would mean they have to be no more than 195mm or no less than 135mm (+30%/-10% of 150mm) from the edge of the continuous yellow line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contradicts the other regs I mentioned then. So one lot says variations are not permitted, another says they are. Which are to be taken as legally correct?

 

 

 

 

 

*wanders away quietly.....*

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Permitted Variations & Permitted Variants....slight difference in wording.

 

So you could have permitted variations of permitted variants......i.e. allowed tolerance of the different allowed sizes.

 

had me thinking it contradicted itself for a while:confused: .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers, ive just sent the guy a letter asking fo all the relevent documenation, that should stall em for a while. the guy said himself all the docs where in transit awaiting to be archived, probably lost in other words.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6286 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...