PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

130 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 

Aretnap
Posted on: Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 09:56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


QUOTE (samthecat @ Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 10:38) *
QUOTE (BaggieBoy @ Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 10:26) *
QUOTE (Fredd @ Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 23:31) *
It is. Level 5 fines are unlimited, but simple speeding offences are either Level 3 (non-motorway - £1000 max) or Level 4 (motorway - £2500 max). Failure to provide is also Level 3.

Looks like they realised this after the event, fines reduced to £2301 apparently.

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/footbal...t-a8527821.html


That kind of begs the question as to what they fined him for originally. If speeding and fail to provide are both level 3 it wouldn't make any difference to the fine?

According to someone on another forum who is possibly in a position to know, the legal adviser wrongly thought that speeding was level 5 (ie unlimited) rather than level 3. So he made two errors for the price of one. This is apparently too complicated for the newspapers to understand - hence the somewhat garbled reporting.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1414770 · Replies: 95 · Views: 4,768

Aretnap
Posted on: Tue, 19 Sep 2017 - 16:08


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


QUOTE (Jlc @ Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 21:57) *
QUOTE (sprouts73 @ Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 21:47) *
No-one I have spoken to has been able to understand the 8 points. (No-one was injured...)

8 points does seem harsh but injuries are not required. In the 7-9 points range of the guidance it says (as examples) 'Overtaking manoeuvre at speed resulting in collision of vehicles, or driving bordering on the dangerous'. Injuries have a negative impact of course.

That would be under the old guidelines. The new version takes a different approach (page 114)

7-9 points is for cases involving "higher culpability AND greater harm"

Factors indicating greater harm include "damage to other vehicles or property" (check)

Factors indicating higher culpability include "carrying out other tasks while driving" and "tiredness or driving while unwell" - did she admit to any of those things during the "friendly chat"? If so, I can see how they came to the sentence.

QUOTE (sprouts73 @ Mon, 18 Sep 2017 - 21:47) *
Taking advise from a lawyer she pleaded guilty... (didn't realise that this was very bad advice... Now knows better)

Not sure why you think it was very bad advice - if she drove into the back of someone then she would have a very uphill struggle to be aquitted of careless driving at a trial. Pleading guilty reduces the fine and costs that she'd have to pay - but not the points.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1317272 · Replies: 19 · Views: 2,727

Aretnap
Posted on: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 - 15:37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


Cleared of manslaughter but convicted of the wanton or furious charge.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-41028321
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1310692 · Replies: 45 · Views: 5,854

Aretnap
Posted on: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 - 22:12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


If you rent a room out in your own home then the first £7500 of rent is tax free under the rent a room scheme.

https://www.gov.uk/rent-room-in-your-home/t...t-a-room-scheme

There's more info on that site about types of tenancy and how easily you can get rid of a lodger, though not sure if it all applies in Scotland.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1292101 · Replies: 13 · Views: 3,359

Aretnap
Posted on: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 - 09:26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


QUOTE (Dave83 @ Wed, 25 Jan 2017 - 08:15) *
Reading that an MS60 code is not looked upon very well by insurance companies...

It's not, but fortunately they stopped using it for not in proper control offences a few years ago - nowadays you get a CU80 code, same as mobile phone use. (Link) Which is still not a great code to have on your licence, but better than MS60.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1252359 · Replies: 61 · Views: 11,603

Aretnap
Posted on: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 - 12:53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


QUOTE (typefish @ Thu, 29 Dec 2016 - 11:52) *
They have, instead of 5+ at renewal it will be 3 years.

Sounds like there are three possibilities:

(1) A mistake on Admiral's part
(2) The householder has gone back, looked at the fence again, decided it was damaged and made a claim
(3) The householder hasn't actually made a claim, but Admiral are keeping the file open just in case he does. This results in the claim being marked as unresolved and your NCD being reduced until your insurer is confident that a claim isn't going to appear (normally a few months, I believe). Obviously this causes problems if your renewal comes while the case in unsettled, but if you stay with Admiral they should refund any additional premium once it is settled. If you change insurer make sure the new insurer is aware that there is still a potentially outstanding claim, and get them to confirm that they'll give you a refund when it's settles and your NCD is restored.

First step is obviously to contact Admiral and ask which it is

QUOTE
(the excess on my policy is £600 more than the cost of repairs, so even a new fence, if required, would be paid for by myself)

For future reference, in at least 99% of cases your excess is only payable if you claim for damage to your own car - it's not applicable to the third party section of your policy. So a claim for damage to the fence would have been paid in full, even if it was under £600.

(A very small number of rather specialist companies at the bottom end of the market do charge an excess on 3rd party claims, but Admiral is not one of them, nor AFAIK is any other household name insurer. The only one I can think of that does is XS Direct)
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1244091 · Replies: 21 · Views: 2,203

Aretnap
Posted on: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 - 13:33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 14 Dec 2016 - 12:32) *
When did they remove the maximum level 5 penalty?

Last year apparently - Level 5 now means unlimited.

http://www.nabarro.com/insight/briefings/2...strates-courts/
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1240259 · Replies: 17 · Views: 2,587

Aretnap
Posted on: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 - 13:52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Thu, 3 Nov 2016 - 13:21) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Thu, 3 Nov 2016 - 12:39) *
QUOTE (emanresu @ Thu, 3 Nov 2016 - 06:57) *
And don't stop for shopping or a bite to eat etc. Drive straight to the MOT garage.


Why not? As long as the stops/detours are incidental to the main purpose of getting to the MOT station, it is perfectly legal.

I would suggest that your interpretation of the law is incorrect. The purpose parliament clearly intended (which I believe is a 'test' you normally apply to such things) was that a vehicle could only be taken for test to avoid having to transport it there on a trailer. Stopping off for a reason connected with the journey, such as putting petrol in, would still be 1 journey, but stopping for a newspaper for instance would actually be 2 journeys and outside the wording and spirit of the legislation.

On the 3 occasions i have come across this situation all 3 drivers were convicted with the bench stating very clearly that the driver was not travelling to an mot but using the vehicle for another purpose.

Conversely a driver who was stopped on the M1 going from Dover to a garage in Birmingham on his return from holiday was acquitted as his route was both direct and there was no other purpose to the journey.

None of these decisions is binding of course, but I believe they all accurately reflect the correct situation.

I believe the main authority is a 1991 case in which the driver stopped twice - once at a petrol station to buy petrol and a second time at a shop to buy cigarettes and have a natter with the shopkeeper. The magistrates convicted the driver, the Crown Court acquitted him on appeal, and the High Court decided that the Crown Court was within its rights to do so. So a stop which isn't essential to the journey doesn't automatically mean that the driver is breaking the law, but OTOH it's ultimately a question of fact and degree for the court to decide whether the exemption is satisfied in any particular case. Which I suppose makes it as clear as mud.

(PS Haven't looked in as much lately as I once did - but it's great to see you're posting again).
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1227064 · Replies: 18 · Views: 1,672

Aretnap
Posted on: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 - 16:03


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 7 Sep 2016 - 13:17) *
So the same would apply for multiple speeding offences?

I think there's a distinction between speeding and using a mobile phone. It's easy to speed by mistake - with the best will in the world a driver can fail to spot a speed limit sign or drift over the speed limit momentarily. But picking up a mobile phone... that's not really something you can do by accident. Just leave the damn thing in your pocket.

I think a court would be quite justified in asking if your licence is important to you, why the hell are you picking up the phone when you're already on 9 points? That isn't quite such a powerful question when applied to (say) doing 35 in a 30.

I know the law doesn't (clearly) distinguish between deliberate and inadvertent (or at least potentially inadvertent) offences in this situation... perhaps it should.
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1209783 · Replies: 38 · Views: 2,189

Aretnap
Posted on: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 - 20:44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


Ultimately if people who tick box A have fewer accidents than people who tick box B, insurers will offer people who tick box A cheaper premiums than people who tick box B. WHY people who tick box A have fewer accidents doesn't feature too strongly in their thinking - the important thing is that they do.

But rationalising it is a fun parlour game, so if I were to guess I'd say that having a "lady driver" on your cover is a possible sign that you're growing up and getting sensible - maybe blokes in relationships tend on average to drive more sensibly that those who are still young free and single. Plus even if she's not driving the car, there's a fair chance that she'll be sitting next to you telling you not to drive so bloody fast. (Of course nowadays insurers aren't allowed to discriminate by gender so the fact that she's a lady should make no odds - but the same effect will be there to an extent for a partner of either gender)

Homeowner - possibly the same type of thing (sign that you're growing up and settling down), plus there's a strong correlation between social class and claims rate, and things like occupation, postcode and home ownership are all essentially measures of social class.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1208202 · Replies: 17 · Views: 1,473

Aretnap
Posted on: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 - 15:01


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


You would need to make a formal complaint to your insurer - the procedure should be set out in your policy documents. If you're not satisfied with their response (or if they haven't responded after, IIRC, 8 weeks) then you can escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Be aware that the Ombudsman doesn't place a great deal of weight on adverts for similar cars when it comes to vehicle valuation. The fact that someone advertises a car for (say) £3000 doesn't mean that it will sell for £3000 - it may not sell at all unless they cut the price. The trade guides - which are based on actual selling prices - carry more weight. However they may accept adverts as evidence if it's a genuinely rare model which isn't well covered by the trade guides. See here - http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publ...-valuation.html
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1207659 · Replies: 65 · Views: 4,741

Aretnap
Posted on: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 - 15:53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Wed, 31 Aug 2016 - 16:31) *
QUOTE (rosysparkle @ Tue, 30 Aug 2016 - 21:26) *
Maybe she was angry because her car is not taxed.


How do you know this since Tax Discs are no longer issued?

https://www.vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/

(Don't have sound on my computer at work - but I do hope she shouted something like "I pay bloody road tax")
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1207348 · Replies: 46 · Views: 4,667

Aretnap
Posted on: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 - 10:53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


QUOTE (Michael 194 @ Mon, 15 Aug 2016 - 01:34) *
Look at it another way, say the ins co paid out enough to buy a similar car with similar mileage, how do i know that I wont have trouble with that car? It may need the cambelt doing, even though I've just done mine, etc etc.

You don't. OTOH you don't know that you are going to have problems with it? And how do you know that you wouldn't have had problems with your old car? True, you've changed some bits and pieces on it, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a ten year old car with quite a few things that might still go wrong with it.

Ultimately you're entitled to have your financial loss put right - which means enough money to buy a car of similar age, mileage and mechanical condition. You can't claim compensation for intangible things like "attachment" to a car or a vague feeling of "confidence" in it. If you think your car was in better than average mechanical condition for its age and mileage (and can prove it) then you can use that to argue for a higher value - but you have to be realistic about just how much a good condition adds to the value.

Evidence of substantial recent work might be evidence of it being in good condition at the time of the accident, but I'm afraid you won't get anything like the full £1400 back. Any ten year old will have had a fair amount of money spent on maintenance over the years and will have have some new or nearly new parts - this is already assumed to a large extent in the valuation. And while it's certainly frustrating to have your car written off just after you've spent a few hundred quid on a new cambelt, if you were to go out and buy a ten year old Volvo to replace it, there's nothing to say that the replacement car wouldn't have a new cambelt as well - so it's not obvious that you've actually lost out. And if it doesn't have a new cambelt, then it might well be that the replacement car has, say, a new clutch and catalytic converter, whereas unknown to you yours only had a few months left in them, so what you lose with one hand you can gain with the other.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1202428 · Replies: 65 · Views: 4,741

Aretnap
Posted on: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 - 13:42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 3 Aug 2016 - 07:00) *
The NIP concerns careless or dangerous driving on the A55. From what we have been vicariously told, there seems to be no suggestion that there was anything wrong with the motorist's driving on that road, but that the condition of the vehicle was potentially dangerous. My understanding is that that would be using a vehicle in a dangerous condition (s. 40A RTA 1988), rather than a careless or dangerous driving offence.

If the condition of his vehicle was such that it would be obvious to a competent, careful driver that it was dangerous to drive, that would constitute dangerous driving - RTA 2A(2).

Conversely, there's no equivalent clause that says that driving a vehicle whose condition is "a bit dodgy" can amount to careless driving - that would be using a vehicle in a dangerous condition instead. So I'm not sure what careless driving is doing on there, unless it relates to the accident itself, or the police getting the law wrong (surely not).
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1199094 · Replies: 36 · Views: 4,185

Aretnap
Posted on: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 - 15:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 3 Aug 2016 - 16:41) *
Good point - perhaps they can convince the defendent to appeal their sentence...?

"My Lords, I would like to appeal against my lottery win... sorry, I mean sentence" biggrin.gif
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1198748 · Replies: 33 · Views: 2,640

Aretnap
Posted on: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 - 15:32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 3 Aug 2016 - 16:17) *
QUOTE (Aretnap @ Wed, 3 Aug 2016 - 15:58) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 3 Aug 2016 - 09:05) *
Bit of uproar on the local news last night. The Police are also outraged and are seeking to challenge the sentence.

I wonder how they plan to do that?

This?

Only applies to Crown Court sentences for particularly serious offences - see the "Offences subject to review" section. AFAIK there's no process for the prosecution to appeal against an unduly lenient sentence in the Magistrates Court.
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1198735 · Replies: 33 · Views: 2,640

Aretnap
Posted on: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 - 14:58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 3 Aug 2016 - 09:05) *
Bit of uproar on the local news last night. The Police are also outraged and are seeking to challenge the sentence.

I wonder how they plan to do that?
  Forum: News / Press Articles · Post Preview: #1198719 · Replies: 33 · Views: 2,640

Aretnap
Posted on: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 - 16:28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 29 Jul 2016 - 15:50) *
I'm not too well up on these things but would expect insurance to handle any part of claim FOC, including personal injury claims.
But T&Cs may restrict this.
Or they may be trying it on.

Personal injury is an uninsured loss, and would not normally be handled by your insurer at all - you would either deal with it yourself (not recommended for anything but the simplest claims for the most minor injuries) or appoint a solicitor of your own to pursue the third party.

If you have the "Motor Legal Protection" add on (essentially a separate insurance policy to cover legal expenses) then your insurer will pay for a solicitor to do the work for you.

If you don't have MLP then your insurer might recommend a friendly firm of solicitors (in exchange for a nice referral fee), which seems to be what's happened here. The solicitors will do the job under standard no win no fee terms, which generally means being paid with a percentage of your compensation. There's no particular reason why you have to use the firm your insurer recommends (even if they "recommend" them rather forcefully).
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1197446 · Replies: 5 · Views: 883

Aretnap
Posted on: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 - 16:14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


I thought Motor Legal Protection came as standard on Admiral Group Policies, but maybe it's just if you insure with Admiral itself...

No win no fee solicitors these days get paid by taking an agreed percentage of your compensation. 25% is the maximum they're allowed to take - the terms and conditions should say exactly how much they'll actually take (they should be more specific than "up to 25%, depending on how we feel on the day". If you shop around you might find an alternative no win no fee firm who'll do it for a smaller percentage, but on the other hand you shouldn't choose a solicitor (or any other professional) purely because he's cheap. I can't comment on the merits of Diamond Law.

  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1197436 · Replies: 5 · Views: 883

Aretnap
Posted on: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 - 22:05


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


If he says he took the car without permission he's making his own offence look worse; if he says he did have permission he's commuting a (further) serious offence, and potentially laying his partner open to a charge of permitting him to drive without insurance.* So it is probably best that he avoids bringing up the question of permission altogether if possible. He should just say that he's very sorry, that he realises how stupid it was and he's glad that he was lucky enough not to cause an accident etc etc. If he's asked whether he had permission to take the car nobody here is going to advocate lying - but if he isn't asked he doesn't have to volunteer the information.

*Causing or permitting someone to drive without insurance carries the same penalty as driving without insurance yourself - 6 to 8 penalty points and a hefty fine.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1196166 · Replies: 7 · Views: 1,250

Aretnap
Posted on: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 - 10:11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


Sexual Offences Act 2003, Section 1

QUOTE
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the ******, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his *****,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

©A does not reasonably believe that B consents


So in the OP's world rape isn't a crime either - it's just an offence.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1194090 · Replies: 21 · Views: 1,603

Aretnap
Posted on: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 - 08:40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 12 Jul 2016 - 07:33) *
Just a thought - if the CoFP was offered and complied with and then subsequently 'rescinded' incorrectly can a prosecution succeed?

A prosecution cannot be brought if he pays the fixed penalty according to the terms of the offer (RTOA 76(3))

The exception is where "it appears to the clerk" that conviction for the offence would trigger the totting up procedure (RTOA 76(4))

So does the exception apply if the reason that "it appears to the clerk" that the OP's dad would be liable to a totting ban is because the clerk isn't wearing his glasses and misreads the dates? Arguably.

If push came to shove I rather doubt that the court would interpret the law in a manner which allows the dad to escape punishment altogether because of an administrative mistake. If that's right the fixed penalty is the best he can realistically hope for - so he might as well get on the phone to the fixed penalty office and ask for it.
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1192301 · Replies: 20 · Views: 2,937

Aretnap
Posted on: Sun, 15 May 2016 - 20:49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


QUOTE (Unzippy @ Sat, 14 May 2016 - 20:49) *
QUOTE (Gan @ Fri, 13 May 2016 - 16:46) *
My personal view is that there should be a big red "Are you sure?" warning whenever a motorist attempts to buy SDP-only if any of the named drivers has declared an occupation



That's the thing though. I specify SDP and they still ask what I do for a living - compulsory question apparently.

It's irrelevant, the car is nothing to do with work in any shape or form. What does it matter what I do?

Risk profiling. Even if you're not driving to work, your occupation still says something about you. Who would you rather lend your car to - a vicar or a footballer?

To a large extent it's as a marker for social class (as is postcode) - people from lower socioeconomic groups tend to have more clams, and this is reflected in their premiums. Yes it's a generalisation, but insurance prices are based on generalisations.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1176058 · Replies: 51 · Views: 4,000

Aretnap
Posted on: Fri, 13 May 2016 - 18:54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


Something else to be aware of is that that level of alcohol will mean that he/she comes under the DVLA high risk offender scheme, and at the end of the ban he/she will have to undergo some medical tests to show that he doesn't (or no longer has) a drink problem on order to reapply for a licence.

The court won't necessarily inform him/her that the high risk offender scheme applies as it's administered by the DVLA rather than the courts.

More info here

http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_...VLA_medical.php
  Forum: Speeding and other Criminal Offences · Post Preview: #1175708 · Replies: 20 · Views: 3,749

Aretnap
Posted on: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 - 21:24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,291
Joined: 27 Aug 2010
Member No.: 40,109


It's a bit tough on the other driver who did nothing wrong, but on the other hand your dad did nothing wrong either, by the sound of it. And that's the crux of it. Most car accidents are the result of carelessness on the part of one driver or another, but a few are pure bad luck, and could not have been prevented with any reasonable amount of care or foresight. In those cases everybody has to either carry their own losses, or claim on their own insurance, if they have any.

After all, why should your dad have to pay for damage that wasn't his fault, just because it wasn't the other guy's fault either? The fact that your dad has insurance doesn't change this line of argument - the purpose of his insurance is to cover his own liabilities, so his insurers only have to pay for things he would otherwise have to pay for himself.

So yes, his insurers are right. No point making a complaint - especially as he's not the one losing out.
  Forum: The Flame Pit · Post Preview: #1169614 · Replies: 24 · Views: 2,073

130 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: Thursday, 18th October 2018 - 12:40
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.