PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

585 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 11:24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


2180491337

The Appellant has attended his appeal.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle failed to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign when in Putney High Street on 29 September 2018 at 08.57.
The Appellant has advanced a number of points in relation to the timing on the Penalty Charge Notice and the information contained therein. He also argues that the signage is not proved and other matters in relation to the paperwork and camera officer's statement etc.
I have considered the evidence and I find that this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be upheld for the following reasons:
First, I have been unable to reconcile the CCTV footage and the library photographs produced by the Authority.
Second, I note that the library photographs are neither dated nor provided with anything to identify their location.
Third, I am not satisfied that the Authority has proved the signage at this location.
Fourth, whilst not appeal points in themselves I find the Authority's case to have been presented with a number of errors (see below).
Fifth, the time of the contravention is not correctly recorded, the camera officer's statement also records the time incorrectly, an out of date Traffic Management Order has been produced, and there are also included in the case papers another motorists case papers providing his private details.
Taking these matters together I find that this Penalty Charge Notice is not proved.
The appeal is allowed.

this case shows the value of rebutting the councils sase
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1454017 · Replies: 44 · Views: 1,053

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Today, 10:55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


There is a strong argument to be made in this case that the signage is not adequate from the direction of travel the OP took. IMO this should be part of any representation
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1454006 · Replies: 17 · Views: 248

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 23:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


From a legal point of view it would appear you are stuffed, other than for the fact that dart charge have a reputation for reasonableness in the civil enforcement world.

What you need to do is talk to them, its your fault so be very contrite explain that £1365 + bailiffs fees is very harsh see if you can do a deal or better yet if they will allow an out of time witness statement without objection. If they do you can at least get the Dart ones reset to PCN level and no bailiffs fees for those
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453957 · Replies: 8 · Views: 102

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 23:31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 17:55) *
Don't wait, phone them and ask for an update. If a Notice of Rejection gets lost in the post it's not the end of the world, but it's hassle that's best avoided.


The contravention was 27/11 so the could not have sent a NTO then. The PCN acts as a NTO in moving traffic cases. It is quite likely they have not yet dealt with your representations (its only been 5 weeks or so and Xmas and new year in them)


Interesting that the traffic lights show an arrow instructing you to turn right and underneath it says except buses, confusing or what
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453953 · Replies: 16 · Views: 289

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 23:16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


I am well into the appeal that will serve this case as well as the person I am writing it for , I am waiting for a bit more info then can finish off. Don't worry you have plenty of time left to appeal and I will be don in time


I need to know the time of contravention as stated on the PCN
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453951 · Replies: 10 · Views: 164

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 21:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


I intend to throw the kitchen sink at this You have until the 3rd of Feb to submit so lets get it right.

I need to know a little about your representations. Was it purely as per Micks post or did you add anything about signs or anything else


Also just looking at the PCN, its not clear but the time on the photo appears to be 01.35 can you confirm. If not PM me the PCN number and your reg so I can check
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453920 · Replies: 29 · Views: 580

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 21:09


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (Neil B @ Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 20:59) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 20:53) *
(b)
such longer period as a traffic adjudicator may allow,

and missing that too.


Yep and is crucial if the tribunal misinformed the OP of his right to appeal
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453908 · Replies: 29 · Views: 266

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 21:05


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Just a snapshot from my files

216022028A

Belinda pearce

. The second contention concerns wording in the Notice of Rejection letter which Mr Dishman maintains is not compliant with the governing legislation by dint of its employment (again) of the word will instead of may.
Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires that the Notice of Rejection contains certain information including that the Enforcement Authority may serve a charge certificate.
The Notice of Rejection in this matter states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate.
Again the inclusion of the word 'will' imports a fixed and persistent intent, as distinguished from 'may' which expresses a possibility.
The legislature chose the word may, to my mind, to reflect the fact that the Enforcement Authority is bestowed with discretion which may be invoked at any stage, thus the issue of a charge certificate cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion.
I do not accept the theory that the word will reflects a greater warning element, since its meaning is distinctly at variance to that of the word may.
Mr Dishman cites previous PATAS/ETA Cases in support.
The Enforcement Authority quote from PATAS/ETA Case Decisions.
Each Case is determined upon its individual evidential merit and an Adjudicator's interpretation of the governing law; my finding in this Case is that the Notice of Rejection letter is substantially non-compliant since I consider that there to be manifest distinction between 'may' and 'will' which is substantial as opposed to semantics. Therefore I find the Notice of Rejection to be invalid, thus this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be enforced.
Accordingly, In light of my findings, I allow this Appeal.
2160211959

John Lane


Regulation 6 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that a notice of rejection shall:
(a) state that a charge certificate may be served unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection
(i) the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii) the person on whom the notice is served appeals to an Adjudicator against the penalty charge;
(b) indicate the nature of an Adjudicator’s power to award costs; and
© describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an Adjudicator must be made.
A notice of rejection duly served may contain such other information as the enforcement authority considers appropriate.
The local authority's notice of rejection states that they "Will" issue a charge certificate.
I accept that this is a fundamental error.
I will therefore allow the appeal.
2160210490

Sean stanton-Dunn

Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that a notice of rejection served by an enforcement authority shall state that a charge certificate may be served unless the penalty charge has been paid or an appeal to an adjudicator made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection.
The notice of rejection served on Lexbow Limited stated that a charge certificate will be served and not that a charge certificate may be served. The use of the wording is mandatory and not optional. This means that the notice of rejection does not comply with the requirements of Regulation 6 so that there has been a procedural impropriety. The word will conveys an entirely different meaning to the motorist than the use of the word may.
2160211926

Christopher Rayner


Mrs Goldmeier’s car was unlawfully parked. The burden is therefore on her to establish an exemption. She submits that there is an error on Barnet’s notice to owner forms such that it amounts to a procedural impropriety, so that any penalty that reaches that stage of enforcement is unenforceable. Regulation 6(1) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 states that the notice to owner shall state that a charge certificate “may be served” if certain conditions are fulfilled. It is not disputed that Barnet’s notice to owner form states that “will serve” a charge certificate if those conditions are fulfilled.
Mrs Goldmeier references appeals before this Tribunal where adjudicators have found a procedural impropriety in these circumstances, and Barnet refer to another case where an adjudicator refused an appeal. The situation is unsatisfactory, particularly where there is no obvious prejudice to a motorist. However, enforcement authorities require full compliance with parking restrictions from motorists, and it is reasonable to expect the same of them. The wording on the notice to owner form does not comply with statutory requirements, and it would presumably be a relatively straightforward matter for Barnet to remedy that. On balance I follow what appears to be the majority view of adjudicators in this Tribunal and find that Barnet’s notice to owner form is not compliant with the Regulations, such that it amounts to a procedural impropriety and allow the appeal on that basis
2160422149

Michael Lawrence

The Appellant attended this hearing.
One of points raised by the Appellant concerned the wording of the Notice of Rejection letter (NOR) which he said was not compliant with the relevant legislation in that it used the word will instead of may.
Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 requires that the NOR contains certain information including that the Enforcement Authority may serve a charge certificate. This NOR states that the Enforcement Authority will serve a charge certificate if the recipient does not appeal or pay. Clearly there is a difference between may and will that is not just semantics, but substantial. The latter excludes the possibility that the Enforcement Authority have a discretion whether or not to proceed to the next stage of a charge certificate and an increased penalty charge.
The Notice of Rejection letter is substantially non compliant and invalid and therefore this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be enforced.
2150379790

Joanne Oxlade


The Appellant has raised a number of points in this appeal.
I allow the appeal on the basis that the notice of rejection does not substantially comply with Regulation 6 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, in that it says that if the Appellant neither appeals nor pays the PCN, the EA "will" serve a charge certificate, whereas the legislation requires that the NOR contains certain information, which is that the Notice of rejection "may" be served. "Will" and "may" are entirely different, and fails to recognise that the EA have discretion as to whether (and if so at what rate) they enforce the PCN subject to upper limits. There is something of a body of case law within the Tribunal, which the EA have not successfully challenged. The applicable case law is R (Hackney Drivers Association) v The Parking Adjudicator and Lancashire CC [2012] EWHC 3394, which provides that the question is whether or not a document is substantially compliant. For the above reasons, I find that it does not
2150479729

Neeti haria

In addition Mr Dishman contends that the Notice of Rejection misrepresents the position as it states that if the penalty charge is not paid or an appeal made the Authority will serve a Charge Certificate. Mr Dishman correctly points out that Regulation 6 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that under the circumstances specified a Charge Certificate may be served. The relevant parts of Regulation 6 provides:
“ Where representations are made under regulation 4 and the enforcement authority serves a Notice of Rejection …..that notice shall
(a) state that a Charge Certificate may be served unless…..”
Having considered the matter I agree with Mr Dishman that the Notice of Rejection fails to comply with a mandatory requirement of the legislation. I find that this amounts to a procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority.
Accordingly I allow the appeal.
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453902 · Replies: 24 · Views: 681

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 20:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


Have you now made representations? If so what
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453896 · Replies: 74 · Views: 2,073

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 20:53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


I don't think any one of the regular poster here would claim to know everything, we give advice based on our experience of the tribunal and councils responses to representations /appeals.
We offer up technical arguments re the validity of signage and or documents based on what the regulations require. Sometimes adjudicators agree as per the case I posted other times they do not. Ce la vie.


You have to look at what is posted and decide what you will do it is not for us to tell you


What I will tell you is that the date by which you may make representations is set in law for a NoR posted on the 20th of December it would be Sunday the 20th of Jan



See

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

schedule 1 4(1)
(1)
Where an enforcing authority serve a notice of rejection, the person who made the representations under paragraph 1 above in respect of which that notice was served may, before—
(a)
the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of that notice; or
(b)
such longer period as a traffic adjudicator may allow,
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453891 · Replies: 29 · Views: 266

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 20:34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


you keep saying the only address from which you have mail forwarding, is this the same as the address on the v5c and if not what did you do to inform the council of the new address, and what proof did you submit that this address is valid?
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453880 · Replies: 74 · Views: 2,073

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 16:02


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (medicinechild @ Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 15:56) *
Should i be doing anything to support my claim in the meantime? unsure.gif



I will be writing your appeal tonight, I dont think I need anything else but will ask if I do
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453755 · Replies: 29 · Views: 580

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 13:57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


also 2140214193


This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited at 20:03:02 on 18 February 2014.



I have reviewed the CCTV footage and this shows that Mr Ahmed's vehicle was not in the box junction at 20:03:02. His vehicle did not enter the box and stop until 20:03:21. It follows that the alleged contravention did not occur.

  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453707 · Replies: 44 · Views: 1,053

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 13:55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (obwan1212 @ Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 13:28) *
Thank you. It doesn't specifically mention a time or date in that bit,and that is what the adjudicator as after. Please could you elaborate? I'm back in at 2pm

Is not as.

And secondly, post 28 above, schedule 1 5(2)(a) is from where, is this the London Local Auth. And transport for London act 2003?

I'm still not able to argue the above clearly.


To argue the point re schedule 1 5(2)(a) yes it is the London local authorities act 2003 The council have given you a date by which if you have not paid or made representations they may serve a CC. this is 28 days beginning with the date of notice of the PCN


PCN date 4/10/2018 +28 days = 31/10/1018


The regulation schedule 1 5(2)(a) allows that they may only serve the PCN 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN


PCN 4/10/2018 + 28 days beginning with date of service The 4/10/ was a Friday so the date of service being 2 working days was the Tuesday the 8/10/2018 + 28 days = 4/11/2018


This effectively reduces the period by which you may make representations by 4 days.


The adjudicator might argue that it doesn't matter because it says later in the PCN that the council may disregard representations recieved 38 days after the date of service.


COUNTER THIS BY MAKING THE POINT THAT THE DATE OF SERVICE IS NOT SPECIFIED NOR DOES IT TELL YOU, YOU MAY MAKE REPRESENTATIONS UP TO THAT DATE ONLY THAT THEY MAY DISREGARD THEM


AS REGARDS THE DATE AND TIME. REFER TO THE CASE I INCLUDED ITN YOUR APPEAL
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453705 · Replies: 44 · Views: 1,053

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Yesterday, 00:17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


I'd go for it. Even if you lose it will be about 3 to 4 months before you would have to pay. Save the cost of a cup of coffee a week til then and you just about save the difference. But you have a better than evens chance that you will not have to pay anything

We will help with drafting your appeal
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453574 · Replies: 19 · Views: 326

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 22:38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 22:30) *
I'm tempted to just go with a PCN out of time representation. If this were a hire car case, they would obviously reply saying a PCN was issued to the RK and in accordance with the legislation liability has been transferred. But I can't see them justifying the fact that the first PCN was sent to the unknown secretary of a non-existent company.


I agree but they will use that reasoning anyway and for appeal the will ne debunking
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453544 · Replies: 22 · Views: 378

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 19:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


You need to post what you sent to them and what they have sent to you. It would appear that they have treated the little note from you saying issue a PCN to the correct person as a representation and cancelled the first PCN. They then have 28 days to serve a fresh PCN

But to do this they must serve a notice of acceptance on the person who recieved the first PCN, in this case you would have recieved this, without it there are two PCN's extant for the same contravention and they cannot do that
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453503 · Replies: 22 · Views: 378

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sun, 20 Jan 2019 - 19:05


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


2160248915


Having viewed the CCTV clip and considered the evidence in connection with what has been written about an unsuccessful attempt at unloading I find the claim about an intended but unperformed delivery of flyers insufficiently proved.
I have not identified where on the penalty charge notice received the appellant learnt that by making early representations the discount opportunity would be frozen. Councils are not obliged to freeze from a penalty charge notice of moving traffic type and the scheme of the legislation is that the discount is available for those who wish to pay, and do so by the deadline described. Extensions are at the discretion of the Council. That situation differs from parking tickets issued on street where legislation does give an obligation to freeze the discount in response to early representations.
It does seem to me how that the appellant has made a good point, a procedural one about the notice of rejection arising from what should have been interpreted simply as a request to view. I have accepted there has been some prejudice from that and I have recorded the appeal as allowed.
This case I hope demonstrates to the Council that there is a distinction between something which is simply and unequivocally solely a request to view and something which is in, or also has the character of representations.


no doubt if you look at the sticky thread at the top of this forum you will find others
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453499 · Replies: 11 · Views: 245

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 14:37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


How did you send reps? any confirmation?

No problem to get this reset. you just need to wait for the next document the order for recovery this will allow you to make a statutory declaration to the effect that you made representations and did not receive a reply. This will revoke the CC the council must then refer to the adjudicator for direction which will most likely be an appeal.



If you have proof of the representation then the CC can be shown to be delivered before they are allowed to and is an unlawful demand for money and can win an appeal on its own
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453219 · Replies: 21 · Views: 328

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 14:26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 14:17) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 13:04) *
There's a flaw on the PCN, it has on 0845 number on the rear that makes it invalid. For future reference, could people please check the list of known issues at http://bit.ly/2ALghSS before advising OPs to pay? While no "known issue" is a 100% guaranteed win, OP in this instance should have been able to make an informed decision.



Fair enough but I would not have advised sacrificing the discount to pursue this one on that basis alone. I know PMB is testing 0845 on a case he is supervising.


Both I and CP have cases on the go on this issue. What we do know is that the adjudicator for one of them is taking the matter seriously enough to require further submissions from the council and Nottingham are dropping like hot potatoes before adjudication. and CP has a response from a council thanking him for bringing it to their attention and changing the number
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453214 · Replies: 12 · Views: 165

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 14:21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


There is nothing to use in any of the documents the De minimis is hit or miss we need to see the video to give an opinion on the likelihood of success
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453208 · Replies: 11 · Views: 188

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 14:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 14:00) *
With your car being parked right next to the sign, I don't really think there's much of an argument to be had here. The problem is it's actually two signs, one for the bay behind your car, and one for the bay where your car was parked, and google street view shows the pole is right on the boundary between the two bays. There are no flaws I can spot on the PCN, so subject to the views of others I have to say the discount looks good.


you knew it was a bay so there is a responsibility on you to check the signs and they are clear, I'm with CP the discount looks good
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453200 · Replies: 8 · Views: 173

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 13:57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


I think this should be a sticky or it will get lost
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453189 · Replies: 15 · Views: 287

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 13:55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


post a GSV and the council photos
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453187 · Replies: 7 · Views: 120

PASTMYBEST
Posted on: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 12:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,702
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048


QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sat, 19 Jan 2019 - 11:41) *
I'd be tempted to write back to them now with:

Dear Redbridge parking,

i am in receipt of your rejection to my challenge to PCN no xxxxx in which you state that:

"You were issued a PCN for parking at a point where the pavement slopes down to meet the road."

I understand that this is a misapplication of the law on dropped footways. Section 86 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 states that prohibition of parking at dropped footways applies where:

(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway. (my emphasis).

The sloping portion of the kerbstone does not count for the purposes of the Act.

I therefore ask you to cancel this PCN ahead of issuing an NTO. I understand after taking advice that Redbridge has even misapplying this law in a number of cases and I will not hesitate to seek costs for my time in dealing with this should you proceed with the enforcement process.

Yours


good
  Forum: Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decr... · Post Preview: #1453172 · Replies: 14 · Views: 265

585 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: Tuesday, 22nd January 2019 - 11:31
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.