PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Vehicle Control Services, Gallagher Retail Park Scunthorpe
Yogi_B
post Mon, 22 Feb 2016 - 11:00
Post #1


Member


Group: Validating
Posts: 39
Joined: 15 Feb 2016
Member No.: 82,397



Hello to everyone and I'm hoping for some definitive advice regarding VCS of Sheffield who operate the site at Gallagher Retail park, Scunthorpe adjacent to the ground of Scunthorpe United F.C.

I have received one of their 'invoices' after straying onto the park in a company registered van in December. The circumstances are that at the time I was employed by an agency for a well-known automotive parts company, delivering to clients all over Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and the East Midlands. Instructions had been given to meet one of the clients to drop parts with him near to the retail park, rather than at his business premises, as the parts were needed straight away. On reaching the general area it had been impossible to immediately locate the client and the van was driven onto the retail park with a view to safely stopping in order to contact him by phone and pinpoint him. I was and still am to some degree entirely unfamiliar with the area.

The vehicle was a long wheelbase Sprinter van which is unsuitable to take into most car parks because of its size but as the area in question is a quiet road, bordered both sides by wasteland. Certainly as one enters the retail park, if there were any signs about stopping at the entrance, they were not very noticeable. Furthermore, there was no painted lines on the road surface or kerbs and I believe that any signs asking people not to stop or park are situated on the wasteland adjacent to the road but are not particularly clear. A stop was made within the park, to get out of the van and to make the necessary phone call, but having read the notice I then left the area, two or three minutes later minutes later, as shown by the 'invoice'.

The company received in January an' invoice' from VCS and I informed my manager at the time that this was not a valid notice, such as from the Police or Council, and that she should inform HR to stonewall VCS who had no power to demand the driver's details. Unfortunately, and much to my anger, this advice was not followed and coming back from holiday ten days ago, I found my 'invoice' dated 4th February from VCS, as I was registered as keeper of the vehicle on that day. I might add that since the end of January, my contract with this company expired and I no longer work for them.

Now I'm no expert on all this, which is why I'm asking for advice but from what I can glean from trawling through lots of threads is that VCS are not members of the BPA which means a Popla code is not an option to appeal but they use the not so Independant Appeals Service which are seemingly some kind of kangaroo court. My gut instinct is to totally ignore them and wait for the deluge of junk mail that will inevitably follow but as I believe things have changed somewhat regarding appeals etc, I ask your advice.

I certainly have no intention of paying a penny for a necessary two minute stop on a deserted back street road on a Tuesday lunchtime in December. I can understand that because of the proximity of Scunthorpe United, on match days some kind of restriction on parking might be suitable for this area but even so asking for £100, or £60 if paid quicker, does not represent an accurate charge for parking for two hours, let alone a stop of two minutes as borne out by their ,photographic evidence'.

Your comments and advice are greatly appreciated.

This post has been edited by Yogi_B: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 - 14:57
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
7 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 79)
Advertisement
post Mon, 22 Feb 2016 - 11:00
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Sat, 31 Mar 2018 - 19:56
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



I think I'd be saying to them 'Bring it on, let's get an impartial Judge to sort out this nonsense. I will be claiming costs on the basis of your client's unreasonableness in this matter'. 'Please issue court proceedings within 14 days, or FOAD'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Sat, 31 Mar 2018 - 21:20
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



Or write back and ask on what basis are their costs 'set out by the Independent Parking Committee' who are NOT the IPC Trade Body at all.

And ask what the Protections of Freedom Act is, and is it similar to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012?

And ask how they believe they can say ''it is not a requirement that we provide you with the details of the signage'' when the signage IS the alleged contract, and is a pre-requisite of the requirement for open dealing; i.e. provision and disclosure of information as set out in the debt claims PAP (Oct 2017).

And provide your evidence that the land is Council owned.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 22:16
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Also ask how they are claiming a contract is offered, when the signs are expressly forbidding. State you require you re them to detail the offer that was made. State they need to show how they have complied with the requirement to allow a motorist time to decide whether or not to accept any contract first. Ask how they can prohibit stopping on a road governed by the RTE when stoping is a normal function. Ask where it is the keepers “responsibility “ to name the driver, in what legislation is this defined? Or is this another misrepresentation by them?

State that their firm was named and shamed in parliament and would they like to comment on their disgraceful behaviour to date?

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 22:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yogi_B
post Mon, 2 Apr 2018 - 19:13
Post #64


Member


Group: Validating
Posts: 39
Joined: 15 Feb 2016
Member No.: 82,397



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sat, 31 Mar 2018 - 21:20) *
Or write back and ask on what basis are their costs 'set out by the Independent Parking Committee' who are NOT the IPC Trade Body at all.


They are unbelievable SRM and thanks for your input. They can't even get the name right, Community not Committee rolleyes.gif I've downloaded IPC latest COP dated June 2017 and nowhere can I find any mention of a legal firms costs being listed, unless I'm missing something?

IPC COP

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sat, 31 Mar 2018 - 21:20) *
And ask what the Protections of Freedom Act is, and is it similar to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
Just sloppy, they can't even copy and paste correctly, totally unprofessional.

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sat, 31 Mar 2018 - 21:20) *
And ask how they believe they can say ''it is not a requirement that we provide you with the details of the signage'' when the signage IS the alleged contract, and is a pre-requisite of the requirement for open dealing; i.e. provision and disclosure of information as set out in the debt claims PAP (Oct 2017).


Again I don't know how they honestly believe that their client won't be questioned on this. The ICP guidelines are very vague, subjective and certainly don't determine size of text etc, just
'The size of text on a sign will be determined by a number of factors such as the position of it, to whom it is aimed and the information that it needs to convey. Text should be of such a size and in a font that can be easily read by a motorist having regard to the likely position of the motorist in relation to the sign.'

so without further detail how can they be claim to be compliant, I'd be very surprised if any District Judge, other than a very poor one, would just take their word that the signage was even adequate?

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sat, 31 Mar 2018 - 21:20) *
And provide your evidence that the land is Council owned.

The case in February last year VCS v Hedley certainly resulted in the case being dismissed because a large part of the roadway in question had been adopted by the local authority. The judge was unreceptive to other arguments interestingly, but on this after a plan obtained from the local authority was produced, he dismissed the case. I will be contacting the LA directly over the next few days.

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 22:16) *
Also ask how they are claiming a contract is offered, when the signs are expressly forbidding. State you require you re them to detail the offer that was made. State they need to show how they have complied with the requirement to allow a motorist time to decide whether or not to accept any contract first.


Thanks Nosferatu, on the subject of contracts and forbidding signs, I think that I've got several excuses from them ranging from unilateral contract, mutual promise to implied agreement. Of course despite their beloved IPC's conditions stating a motorist must have time to make a consideration of contract when parking, this is conveniently ignored in this case.

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 22:16) *
Ask how they can prohibit stopping on a road governed by the RTE when stoping is a normal function.


Hoping to establish for definite from the Local Authority that it has been adopted in which case this will be headlining in my next letter.

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 22:16) *
Ask where it is the keepers “responsibility “ to name the driver, in what legislation is this defined? Or is this another misrepresentation by them?


I saw that and yes, as I've said before, they just make it up as they go along and ultimately if it does end up in court, I will make sure that their untruths/ misrepresentations and obfuscations are mentioned in my defence.

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sun, 1 Apr 2018 - 22:16) *
State that their firm was named and shamed in parliament and would they like to comment on their disgraceful behaviour to date?


I'm looking forward to putting this in my next communication with them, you just can't believe their arrogance though; they are on record, named in the Parliamentary debate as a bunch of shysters and still they persist with their shameless lies.

QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Sat, 31 Mar 2018 - 19:56) *
I think I'd be saying to them 'Bring it on, let's get an impartial Judge to sort out this nonsense. I will be claiming costs on the basis of your client's unreasonableness in this matter'. 'Please issue court proceedings within 14 days, or FOAD'.


Together with the other points, I think this will be the closing statement of my next letter, thanks for your input.

This post has been edited by Yogi_B: Mon, 2 Apr 2018 - 19:16
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Mon, 2 Apr 2018 - 19:45
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,124
Joined: 8 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,842



QUOTE
QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sat, 31 Mar 2018 - 21:20) *
Or write back and ask on what basis are their costs 'set out by the Independent Parking Committee' who are NOT the IPC Trade Body at all.

They are unbelievable SRM and thanks for your input. They can't even get the name right, Community not Committee rolleyes.gif I've downloaded IPC latest COP dated June 2017 and nowhere can I find any mention of a legal firms costs being listed, unless I'm missing something?

Or even 'International'!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 3 Apr 2018 - 09:20
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Youre missing the point that SRM gave you

SRM knows that theyre spouting rubbish. But you ask them to prove it. Because you can then show a court that you askedthm to clarify, they dissembled again, so please draw the obvious conclusion - that they lied in a written comunication to you.

And, again: you ask them all the questions> theyre not for you to answer, but them. By asking them you put them on a fork: if they answer correctly, they admit they lied. If they answer untruthfully, youve caught them in another lie. If they dont answer, you can point out to the court that not only have they been obstructive, clearly - they lied to you in the first communication and are hoping you didnt realise.

Same as my point on having time to accept or reject - you ask them again why their client is free to ignore not only how contracts are formed, but also their own ATAs code of practice which was stated to be "effectively binding" by the supreme court?


RTEs govern ALL PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE ***ROADS*** which this one certainly is. Regardless of ownership.

You ask everything weve told you to ask NOW. Not just in your defence. NOW. It shows they are NOT open dealing. mention the PAP requirements on them. Youre not writing letters for THEIR benefit - they KNOW theyre lying! - but for a judge. You can show you asked questions about their conduct they refused to answer....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yogi_B
post Sat, 21 Apr 2018 - 15:18
Post #67


Member


Group: Validating
Posts: 39
Joined: 15 Feb 2016
Member No.: 82,397



Right unfortunately from the perspective of writing back to BW Legal, I have been working away and just haven't had the opportunity to sit down and compose my next letter to them yet. I will however make a start on it today and post it up for critique. I take your comments onboard Nosferatu and will use those together with SRM's too.

My check with the local authority website does confirm that a part of the roadway in question is indeed adopted and I will be asking for a certified copy of the plan if it does end up in court.

And finally I got back home yesterday and there was in the post sent out this week a letter in a BW Legal envelope. On opening it, I found one letter from VCS saying that as payment hadn't been made they had passed this to their legal team BW Legal and it was accompanied by an introductory letter from BW Legal.

I've scrutinised both letters and they are carbon copies of letters I received back in July 2016 apart from they are dated April 2018 and the BWL one has their new company address on it. I had posted these up originally (see post #26) but for some reason these aren't viewable now, but they are the standard letters that others have posted up on other threads.

I'm tending to think that this is down to their total incompetence rather than some new tactic by them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yogi_BB
post Sun, 22 Apr 2018 - 10:16
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 22 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,626



Well having made the mistake of trying to change my email address to a hotmail account, I find that I am locked out of my original account and cannot add anything, so I have had to open a new account in order to post here. Sorry if that's some sort of breach of rules or etiquette but I could think of no other way as I was unable to contact an administrator and needed to get this post on quickly to submit my draft letter for review.

My draft:

I refer to your letter dated xx March 2018 with regard to the above matter. The letter in no way satisfies my requests as asked in my letter of xx March and indeed throws up even more questions.

• I ask again on what basis is your client claiming a contract has been made and to detail the offer made by your client? You have so far quoted one of ‘mutual promise’, one of ‘unilateral contract’ and now introduce that of ‘implied agreement’; while again conveniently ignoring the prerequisites of English contract law that is ‘offer and consideration’. As any signs displayed on the date in question were expressly forbidding, how has your client complied with IPC and BPA requirements that allows a motorist time to decide whether to accept or decline any contract? The Supreme Court has previously ruled that Approved Trade Associations (IPC & BPA) codes of practice are "effectively binding" on private parking companies?

• Continuing with the subject of the signs you have been repeatedly asked for details of all signs in use on the date in question but have refused categorically to provide any details. If according to the claimant the signage at the site forms the contract with motorists, as you say ‘throughout the site’, it must be that there is a record of these signs. As I have asked for these and as a result of your response, you and your clients are in breach of section 5.2 of the Pre-Action Protocols (PAP) October 2017 which require the creditor to provide the document or information or explain why it is unavailable, within 30 days of the debtor requesting it.

• Similarly you have been asked to supply a suitably redacted copy of your client’s alleged contract with the landowner/holder that covers the section of roadway in question. This is not an unreasonable request as I only have the word of your client that they had any entitlement to issue invoices for this site. I feel sure that any court would see the refusal to provide a copy as, not only unreasonable on the claimant’s part but a further breach of under section 5.2 PAP.


• Despite me pointing out several times that your costs (you are claiming £54) are not recoverable in the small claims track as set out in Civil Procedure Rules (27.14) you know go on to say that they are set out by the Independent Parking Committee (IPC). I can find no current existence of any such body. The nearest equivalent being the International Parking Community (also IPC) whose current code of practice, version 6 dated April 2017, makes no mention, that I can see, of these costs at all let alone them being recoverable.


• You go on to say that your client is not using the’ Protections of Freedom Act’ (I suspect that you actually mean the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) and as the registered keeper it is my responsibility to provide driver details. Can you please confirm under which current legislation this requirement is made? The only current one that I am aware of is under section 172(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which is, I am almost sure, only capable of being used by the Police, not private parking companies who have no regulatory powers.

• You state that ‘it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure that they are fully compliant with the Terms and Conditions in the area in question’. Can you please provide details of any legislation applicable to this effect which covers the area in question?


• As the current legal representatives of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) and almost certainly the same in February 2017, I am surprised that you and your clients seem to have failed to remember the case of VCS v Hedley (Case number C8DP3H0H) on 20/02/2017 in the County Court at Kingston upon Hull.
In this case the resident judge dismissed your client’s claim against Mr Hedley for stopping on the roadway at Gallagher retail park in Scunthorpe because it was proven that a significant part of what VCS claim as under their control it, is actually adopted and repairable at public expense. A cursory check of the North Lincolnshire council website confirms this fact.
The layout of the roadway, which is entirely accessible by any motorist, means that what is adopted and possibly privately owned is indistinguishable to a motorist, cyclist or even a pedestrian. Your client’s signs make mention of yellow or red lines but surprisingly have still to this date made no efforts to add these to the road surface in order to deter parking or stopping.
I say that you seem to have failed to remember this case but wonder if this is a deliberate omission to accompany a series of misrepresentations that seems to grow with each letter that you send.

• This week I have since received in a BW Legal envelope two letters one from yourselves and the other from your client VCS, both dated 16th April. These are both identical copies, save the date, of previous letters sent out in July 2016.

With regard to all the above I was not surprised that in the recent Parliamentary debate that your client’s industry, it’s trade body the IPC and in your particular your company BW Legal, were referenced throughout its unopposed passage in entirely unflattering terms.

I will attempt to make my position clear to you once again. This debt is denied and unless ordered by a court I will not pay your clients anything.

You must therefore either issue court proceedings to recover what they say is owed or save to write to me on one more occasion to confirm closure of this farce, never contact me again. Any further letters will be seen as harassment and on that basis I will consider court action myself. This includes third-party debt collection agents if your clients, VCS, decide to sell on the ‘debt’


Yours faithfully

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yogi_BB
post Mon, 14 May 2018 - 18:42
Post #69


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 22 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,626



I sent the above letter with one or two minor amendments to BW Legal several weeks ago. It was, as is advised, sent first class with proof of postage so I can assume that they have received it.

No response from them to this but they have sent me a 'Final Notice', an exact copy of a letter received (apart from the dates) in August 2016, saying that as I have failed to respond to their 'First Letter' (see previous post), they now require me to pay within 17 days or court procedings will be commenced.

I can't for the life of me see where they are going with this as some sort of tactic, so think rightly or wrongly that it is down to their incompetence. I had told them to start court procedings or not contact me again or I will consider action for harrassment myself- I'm wondering now whether to start something going but would welcome any advice on it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 14 May 2018 - 19:53
Post #70


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,751
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



It's all part of the pointless letter chain of harassment, and yes they do sometimes repeat letters from before. You've replied already.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yogi_BB
post Mon, 14 May 2018 - 20:11
Post #71


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 22 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,626



QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Mon, 14 May 2018 - 20:53) *
It's all part of the pointless letter chain of harassment, and yes they do sometimes repeat letters from before. You've replied already.


Thanks SRM, I'll await their next then but can't help thinking that I ought to carry out my 'threat' of action for harrassment if it continues.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yogi_BB
post Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 13:38
Post #72


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 22 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,626



Having still not received any reply to my letter as drafted in post #69 sent to BWL in May, last week a fresh 'Letter of Claim' identical, save the date and a few extra quid in estimated interest added, to the one received in January appeared on the mat last week.

I'll post up a draft response to this over the next few days, they are again asking for the account to be settled 35 days from the date of the letter, into July, but as always I welcome advice on what to include in any response.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whjohnson
post Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 13:51
Post #73


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 442
Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,738



They just have to keep trying it on don't they? Wear the 'defendent' down to a bag of nerves and asee who blinks first.

Anything for the money.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yogi_BB
post Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 14:50
Post #74


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 22 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,626



QUOTE (whjohnson @ Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 14:51) *
They just have to keep trying it on don't they? Wear the 'defendent' down to a bag of nerves and asee who blinks first.

Anything for the money.


You are of course right but I also can't help thinking that they know they haven't got a prayer otherwise they would have taken up my offer to 'see them in court' and rather than just accept and back down, they have to carry on sending their pathetic letters out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 22 Jun 2018 - 23:15
Post #75


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Point out they've failed to respond to your letter of x, in response to their original letter of y, and your position is unchanged. Should they be so foolish as to file a claim their misleading and obstructive actions in refusing to c9mplynwith the pap will be raised, and additional costs requested when you prevail.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yogi_BB
post Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 09:48
Post #76


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 22 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,626



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 00:15) *
Point out they've failed to respond to your letter of x, in response to their original letter of y, and your position is unchanged. Should they be so foolish as to file a claim their misleading and obstructive actions in refusing to c9mplynwith the pap will be raised, and additional costs requested when you prevail.


Thanks Nosferatu, I will get something composed and post up the draft on here over the next week or so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yogi_BB
post Sat, 7 Jul 2018 - 12:23
Post #77


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 22 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,626



Put the following together, any suggestions for additions or improvements please.

I refer to your most recent letter headed ‘Letter of Claim’ dated X June 2018 with regard to the above matter. As this communication is a repeat of a previous ‘Letter of Claim’ dated X January 2018 I will not be responding to this latest one as my position remains unchanged, a position that if you have indeed bothered to read is that any alleged debt is denied.

I would also like to point out that your company has failed to respond to my last letter sent of X April 2018(1st Class signed-for therefore deemed delivered), a point that I will highlight as a breach of Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) should your client be foolish enough to pursue this through court.

To touch on one the points made in my last letter, I am surprised given the scathing references to your client’s industry and your company’s less than flattering mention in the recent Parliamentary debate that you continue to mislead, obfuscate and be obstructive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sat, 7 Jul 2018 - 13:05
Post #78


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



I would keep it brief and avoid commenting on their reputation

Dear Sir

Ref ****

I have received your Letter Before Claim dated * June 2018
I refer you to my reply to the previous Letter Before Claim that you sent in January

I note that you have ignored my request for information dated * April to clarify the issues in accordance with the Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims
You cannot deny receiving this letter that was signed for

In the event that you issue a claim while in breach of the Protocol, I will bring your contumacious behaviour to the attention of the Court

Yours Faithfully


This post has been edited by Redivi: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 - 13:07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yogi_BB
post Sat, 7 Jul 2018 - 13:10
Post #79


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 22 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,626



QUOTE (Redivi @ Sat, 7 Jul 2018 - 14:05) *
I would keep it brief and avoid commenting on their reputation

Dear Sir

Ref ****

I have received your Letter Before Claim dated * June 2018
I refer you to my reply to the previous Letter Before Claim that you sent in January

I note that you have ignored my request for information dated * April to clarify the issues in accordance with the Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims
You cannot deny receiving this letter that was signed for

In the event that you issue a claim while in breach of the Protocol, I will bring your obstructive behaviour to the attention of the Court

Yours Faithfully


Thanks for that Redivi, I'll take your advice on not having a dig at their reputation, difficult as it is not to!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Sat, 7 Jul 2018 - 18:20
Post #80


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



It's always tempting but, unless a letter is marked "Without Prejudice", it can be presented in Court

As far as the judge is concerned, BWL is a reputable legal company that has followed the Protocol and sent a Letter Before Claim
Additional comments may lead him to believe that you're not taking the matter seriously

I'm not the best example and often suggest advising a solicitor to refer to Arkell v Pressdram

This post has been edited by Redivi: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 - 18:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

7 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 12:15
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here