PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

684 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 22:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


All private parking tickets are a scam IMHO, all are appealable.

Just follow the advice in this thread on MSE, on day 26 online, being careful NOT to fill in boxes admitting who was driving, of course:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=4816822

Template appeal is there. POPLA appeal templates are in post #3.

No-one on either forum pays NCP. EVER.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1376098 · Replies: 2 · Views: 115

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 22:18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Good points well made, I agree in this case.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1376097 · Replies: 22 · Views: 401

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 19:41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Typical PCM predatory ticket in seconds, DO NOT PAY, read this:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...-scam-site.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...arade-scam.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...e-contract.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...th-1500_29.html

QUOTE
As the registered owner,
No such thing. You are the registered keeper.


QUOTE
I am looking to appeal
So, it doesn't work. This is an IPC firm, cases are won at court hearings.

Read the MSE NEWBIES thread to learn what Parliament thinks of this industry of 'bloodsuckers' (Hansard) and for a template appeal that a keeper can send just to look reasonable later when the Judge looks at the case and throws PCM's baseless claim out!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=4816822

Post #1 has the template appeal and the Parliamentary quotes from the debate in February, so you can see the scam you are caught up in. Post #2 if for you to read in readiness for a useless LBC from Gladstones and an even more useless court claim, so you can see what to do and when.

You might like to try an IAS appeal, purely because it's PCM, as they seem to enter 'no contests' sometimes (I think they might be on a sticky wicket with the Trade Body, could be wrong). Don't expect to win the appeal but they might back off, as it;s PCM.

Normally we say 'no IAS' but with PCM it might be worth prodding the snakes nest. Whether they bite or slither away, nothing is lost.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1376050 · Replies: 1 · Views: 92

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 19:29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
Defence Statement

...

I believe that these facts stated in this defence are true.

Thought it was your witness statement?

Reads very well as a WS apart from that, IMHO, except I would expect section 3 to have already been covered in your defence, if this is a WS?
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1376046 · Replies: 61 · Views: 2,834

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Yesterday, 16:51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


If you have a POPLA code, use. it. Do you?
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1376014 · Replies: 22 · Views: 401

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 23:51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
how do I tackle the address side.
How wrong is it, do you mean the place they say the car was at, is in another County?

Read what happens when, what boxes to tick in your N180, here in the second post:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...d.php?t=4816822

QUOTE
It also alleges that I had parked without a permit but I have photographic evidence that their signage does not specify a permit is required, only permission which I had as I was at my Dad's flat.
Did you put that in your defence?

You can elaborate at Witness Statement and evidence stage, as per the link where it says in the 2nd post about what happens when.

Loading & unloading with permission at a flat is covered by Jopson v Homeguard, so search here or MSE for that case.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1375788 · Replies: 8 · Views: 177

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 - 18:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Same incident date mentioned on the NTK?

You need to report them to the DVLA for getting the data within the 28 days following a windscreen PCN, and complain at the DVLA for giving out that data without reasonable cause, too early.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1374280 · Replies: 12 · Views: 524

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 - 18:51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


I'd leave it - you are not going to get a POPLA code, IMHO. That;s not a NTK, it's a liability notice (2nd letter) therefore no POPLA.

Don't prod them, wait for the daft threatograms and (unless they offer POPLA after all) ignore them unless the recipient gets a court claim.

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1374278 · Replies: 44 · Views: 1,566

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 - 17:59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Why are we talking about offers instead of:

Plan A - complaining to the landowner, or

Plan B - POPLA?

If you have not yet tried POPLA, that comes AFTER a major complaint to whoever owns the land, and a POPLA code will work for 32 days(ish).
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1374271 · Replies: 4 · Views: 161

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (emanresu @ Mon, 29 Jan 2018 - 08:19) *
KPS are a BPA member. Did you get a POPLA code from ZZPS following your appeal. If not complain to the British Parking Association at aos@britishparking.co.uk.

Add the question "is it a requirement to name to driver to get a POPLA code?" and see what they come back with.

Did you do the above? Normally the BPA sort out lack of POPLA codes quite quickly.

This is easy to handle and easy to win at POPLA, and there will be no court.

We assume you got no POPLA code when your appeal was first rejected in January?
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1373145 · Replies: 40 · Views: 1,555

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
No Evidence of Landowner authority

The above is normally a longer template, taken from post #3 of the MSE NEWBIES thread where the POPLA templates are set out:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

You can also add the deliberately long one about unclear signage. F1rst tend not to like it when they see a long forum appeal, can be enough in itself to make them fold. IMHO your appeal is far too short, and they will contest it. I prefer long POPLA appeals, so they don't.



PS: Why are you not showing proof that your son is not a named driver, insured on this car? I would.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1373144 · Replies: 32 · Views: 921

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


OK, so you have no hope of winning by talking about that, so do as advised, you can use two of the templates, go & copy them:

QUOTE
try the usual template points from the MSE NEWBIES thread post #3


plus the new ANPR point about the DPA, that I have just suggested to someone else here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...ry1%20%20373112

You will need to adapt that point a bit, because that one is about the inappropriate use of ANPR in a loading bay area, so it will need edits.

Call it:

3. Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Code of Practice' applicable to ANPR (no information about SAR rights, no privacy statement, no evaluation to justify that 24/7 ANPR enforcement at this site is justified, fair and proportionate). A serious BPA CoP breach.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1373141 · Replies: 26 · Views: 1,365

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 21:52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
parking looked after by VCS.


No, it's really not ''looked after''. No-one is looked after except the interests of VCS. They are not offering you any service whatsoever, and the amount of threads and blogs about people penalised just like you, shows these firms look and set out to penalise residents at any given opportunity. For example, why did they issue new permits, think about it, WHY would you need a new one each Christmas, pointlessly being expected to change it over, and running the risk of being caught out.

PPCs do this all the time, you can imagine their reason.

Why have you even got a PPC here? If it's a secure car park, they are not needed and are a nuisance to residents, plain and simple, and should be kicked out, surely the residents realise this?

No idea why residents agree to parking firms/permit schemes, or move into properties where a PPC infests it. I guess people just don't realise the threat, and the significance of having a peaceful, relaxed car park with no PPC, compared to one infested by a PPC. I would NEVER move to a flat with any PPC. Would rather live in a tent!

I suggest you read all the zillions of other ''own space'' threads on here and on MSE parking forum where they are rife.

This is a scam that even Parliament has noticed, at last, unanimously calling for regulation of this rogue industry. Every resident should be complaining to your MP and Sir Greg Knight MP. These are some of the comments made by the MPs in Parliament concerning the unregulated parking industry (Feb 2018):

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5787731

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-...OfPractice)Bill

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; unfair treatment; signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; bloodsuckers; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; extortionate fines; rogue operators; ''sense of injustice''; unfair charges and notices; wilfully misleading; signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; unreasonable; a curse; harassing; operating in a disgusting way; appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing; loathed; outrageous scam; dodgy practice; outrageous abuse; unscrupulous practices; and finally, by way of unanimous conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if they want further information about this scam.

You could offer VCS £20 for the one you never knew about (to try to shut them up, but I bet they have you down on a mugs list now, as you were so quick and happy to pay them twenty quid last time - OUCH!!) and/or ignore them...

... until you get a small claim, which is where these cases are won. You do realise you have a firm that offers no independent appeal worth trying, leaving ALL residents up the creek without paddle? What a horrible situation to live with at your own home, every day worrying that your permit is going to slip down, or if yu ever have a visitor that they will be penalised like you, and if you ever use a courtesy car when yours is in the garage, that will be targeted, etc.

I don't think you know the scale of this scam. Watch the Parliamentary debate now. It's not boring and will open your eyes to IPC firms like VCS:

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f038...918?in=12:49:41

Terrible firm to have on site.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1373132 · Replies: 15 · Views: 483

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 21:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
the mortgage broker has suggested trying to get the CCj's set aside, as a starting point and I just wondered if anybody can offer any helpful advice.

If you pay them off, you will NOT wipe them from your record, and might not get the mortgage anyway, as they will still show as satisfied CCJS (not good). So do not try to pay them off.

Get both set aside, but it will need two x N244 and 2 x £255 court fees up front.

Ring the CCBC in Northampton, who process these claims, and ask them for the details of both the claims - who the claimant was (not the solicitor, not Gladstones, who was the actual Claimant parking firm) and ask what date/details of parking event, and location of car park, were on the particulars.

You need a Witness Statement showing the court that you were there to be found, that the claimant should have taken simple steps to trace you, etc, and you need a draft order which you would like the Judge to order, like here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...88#post74125588

You can read a success story linked here by me where I post on MSE as Coupon-mad:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...04#post72832704

You will see that saggi got her £255 back, convincing the Judge to dispose of the meritless claim on the spot, so it's not always money down the drain. It is VITAL that you explain to the Judge that you were unaware of the CCJs and acted immediately you knew about them (the fact you passed the mortgage checks twice in the past year, proves that you and the mortgage firm were unaware of any CCJ, and that this is very recent news and a huge shock, and were cases that you would have defended, with very high prospects of success, had you received a claim.

Also cross reference both the WS/draft orders, stating BOTH claim numbers (get those from the CCBC) asking that the Judge hears both set asides in the same sitting, to minimise your loss of leave & travel costs and court time.

Which is your local court, because you will need to attend a hearing to set these aside. Some are very clued up about the PPC scam (Manchester, Skipton) and some are awful (Wigan, Swansea, Bournemouth).





QUOTE (ostell @ Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 22:40) *
The parking company may agree to a set aside, on the basis that you pay the £100 reduced fee and you pay them the amount due in settlement.


I suspect it is CEL, in which case they won't, and the OP will have to go for the £255 set aside without consent. He will lose time trying...
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1373131 · Replies: 5 · Views: 292

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 21:32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
Is it worth challenging the charge?


ALWAYS. No-one pays these here.

This is a BPA member, so this needs an appeal and then POPLA stage, as an option to try to get it cancelled, and if that fails, you ignore them unless they try a small claim (unlikely, look):

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Premier_Park.html

We would like to see the NTK and know the date you received it/date sent.

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1373126 · Replies: 22 · Views: 361

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 20:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


I found 46 MSE threads about ParkWatch, by searching for their name as a single word.

I think the issues with the NTK wording are minimal and POPLA might find that document compliant with the POFA.

What I would do at POPLA stage is put the PPC to strict proof that the car was not simply unloading in that unloading bay. They have shown one photo of the car with the lights on (if it's the front vehicle) and then another pic a few mins later, headlights off. All that tells me is that the car is being unloaded and the driver has stepped out to fetch the items from adjoining premises.

Put them to proof of that as part of your POPLA appeal because the legend on the road positively allows loading, and there is no evidence that this was not the case. Of course there are then the other usual templates to add to a POPLA appeal as shown in the third post of the NEWBIES thread there, to make it so long that PW might just give up.

You could also add a new point at POPLA stage, a new one I am encouraging people to test in defences and POPLA appeals where ANPR was used, saying that the operator as not complied with the mandatory ICO data protection Code of Practice for surveillance cameras and personal information, full compliance with which is a pre-requisite of the DVLA KADOE contract and the BPA Code of Practice:

https://ico.org.uk/media/1542/cctv-code-of-practice.pdf

QUOTE
This code also covers the use of camera related surveillance equipment
including:
 Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR);

the private sector is required to follow this code to meet its legal obligations under the DPA. Any
organisation using cameras to process personal data should follow the recommendations of this code.

''If you are already using a surveillance system, you should regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.''

''You should also take into account the nature of the problem you are seeking to address; whether a surveillance system would be a justified and an effective solution, whether better solutions exist, what effect its use may have on individuals''

''You should consider these matters objectively as part of an assessment of the scheme’s impact on people’s privacy. The best way to do this is to conduct a privacy impact assessment. The ICO has produced a ‘Conducting privacy impact assessments code of practice’ that explains how to carry out a proper assessment.''

''If you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you undertake a privacy impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary.''


Example:
''A car park operator is looking at whether to use ANPR to enforce parking restrictions. A privacy impact assessment is undertaken which identifies how ANPR will address the problem, the privacy intrusions and the ways to minimise these intrusions,''


'' Note:

... in conducting a privacy impact assessment and an evaluation of proportionality and necessity, you will be looking at concepts that would also impact upon fairness under the first data protection principle. Private sector organisations should therefore also consider these issues.''

'' A privacy impact assessment should look at the pressing need that the surveillance system is intended to address and whether its proposed use has a lawful basis and is justified, necessary and proportionate.''


Clearly aiming an ANPR camera at a loading bay - something that Local Authorities were banned from doing on street a year or more ago - cannot differentiate between drivers who are parked and those who are genuinely loading/unloading (often by necessity, remaining unseen inside premises for several minutes fetching bulky items/getting forms signed, etc.).

Therefore, given that it cannot be assumed by POPLA that a driver is not in fact involved in loading/unloading activity, which never requires a person to be visible at the vehicle at all times, and the ANPR images are incapable of showing what the driver is doing during those minutes it is unfit for purpose at this particular location, not a suitable medium for 'monitoring' a loading bay and so, the use of ANPR here has no lawful basis and is neither justified, necessary nor proportionate.

With no lawful basis to use ANPR, there is no lawful excuse for this parking charge.

Moreover, they have not stated on signage how the ANPR data will be used. A camera icon merely communicates security cameras, not data harvesting for the hidden commercial purpose of issuing parking charge notices for enforcement, which MUST be clearly communicated on signs.

And they have neither stated on signage, nor on the Notice to Keeper (despite the 'DPA' heading on the back) the required Privacy Notice explaining keeper's right to a SAR:

QUOTE
5.3 Staying in control
Once you have followed the guidance in this code and set up the surveillance system, you need to ensure that it continues to comply with the DPA and the code’s requirements in practice.

You should:
 tell people how they can make a subject access request, who it should be sent to and what information needs to be supplied with their request;

'' 7.6 Privacy notices
It is clear that these and similar devices present more difficult challenges in relation to providing individuals with fair processing information, which is a requirement under the first principle of the DPA. For example, it will be difficult to ensure that an individual is fully informed of this information if the surveillance system is airborne, on a person or, in the case of ANPR, not visible at ground level or more prevalent then it may first appear.

One of the main rights that a privacy notice helps deliver is an individual’s right of subject access.''


As such, given the omissions and breaches of the ICO CoP, and in turn the BPA CoP that requires full ICO compliance as a matter of law, POPLA will not be able to find that the PCN was properly given.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1373112 · Replies: 3 · Views: 236

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 20:48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Solicitors can sign letters & forms with the firm's name only.

You can easily download a DQ online from the courts.

  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1373110 · Replies: 126 · Views: 6,566

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 20:46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Appeal showing proof of patronage at Asda (any receipts at all during previous months) as PE sometimes cancel if you do that.

Also make a complaint to Asda Head Office.

Bear in mind that PE have never sued an Asda customer yet, IMHO, rather like their Aldi contract where we think they can't.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1373109 · Replies: 3 · Views: 127

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 - 20:44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


A glimmer of hope, indeed. More power to your elbow and your typing fingers, hexaflexagon!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1373108 · Replies: 264 · Views: 26,082

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 23:47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (Chris789 @ Sun, 25 Feb 2018 - 14:21) *
Hoping to try and get a ‘model answer’ template for those with leased vehicles so they can edit accordingly for their own situations
I think you succeeded, well done!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1372919 · Replies: 45 · Views: 2,185

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 22:57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Appeal as lessee/hirer as per the version of template appeal written by Edna Basher, at the end of the first post on this MSE thread:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4816822

use the example of the lease/hire appeal shown there, this is easy peasy to win, for a lessee. NEVER say who was driving. You win!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1372916 · Replies: 8 · Views: 275

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 22:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE
this is for MCOL submission
No it isn't. It is to be signed/dated and emailed to the CCBCAQ email addy.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1372914 · Replies: 61 · Views: 2,834

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 22:48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


This must be binned, as already advised on MSE:
QUOTE
3. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss


http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5823462

Replace it with the usual template point about the appellant not being shown to be the individual liable.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1372913 · Replies: 13 · Views: 275

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 22:20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


QUOTE (kommando @ Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 16:32) *
And is a visitor to get a permit without first parking and going for the permit, in council ticketing in resident only parking areas vistors are allowed time to go to the resident and return with the permit. By allowing vistors to park with a permit there must be an allowance for the permit to be obtained without them having to do a 'beam me up a permit Scotty'.


This ^^^

I say use the Jopson judgment as evidence - because I think the comments by HHJ Charles Harris do have some application here, arguable based on 'fact and degree' - and if the Judge doesn't like it, move on to Grace Periods. The fact a permit cannot always be in the hands of the person parking, if the permit is indoors in the flat. Hence why a reasonable grace period must be allowed to fetch it.
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1372911 · Replies: 126 · Views: 6,566

SchoolRunMum
Posted on: Sun, 8 Apr 2018 - 22:10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,275
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130


Doesn't matter too much, he wins, it's a golden ticket, LOVE THESE!
  Forum: Private Parking Tickets & Clamping · Post Preview: #1372910 · Replies: 9 · Views: 329

684 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Saturday, 21st April 2018 - 13:12
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.