PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Fistral Beach PCN, Overstay of 35 mins
flossykazzie
post Mon, 3 Aug 2020 - 10:07
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 15 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,982



Hi All

The RK received this PCN for an overstay of 35mins at the car park at Fistral beach.

Is there anything wrong in the issuing of it please.

Are Initial Parking litigious?

Any advise on how to go with this wouldbe very welcome.

Many thanks.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Mon, 3 Aug 2020 - 10:07
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Wed, 5 Aug 2020 - 05:30
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 4 Aug 2020 - 13:50) *
Uncertainty and sharp practice is the bread and butter of private parking. Any contract is clearly to stay in a space - generally, the margins around this are sufficient to cover most circumstances but there are other times like this...

Agreed. However stripping out the many implications of the Beavis decision it was quite apparent that the Lords saw ParkingEye's management as necessary to allow a turnover of customers using the car park. That could really only be for the use of the bays themselves so any extension to it being for people still on the roads around the site cannot be implied


--------------------
The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
flossykazzie
post Wed, 19 Aug 2020 - 15:49
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 15 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,982



Hi All

Back again, well it will be no surprise that they have rejected the appeal and given the POPLA code, I am wondering whether or not it is worth submitting it to POPLA as the way things are they seem to be rejecting too.

Any advice please.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Wed, 19 Aug 2020 - 16:08
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Yes submit to POPLA using all the information you have. Yes, the signs now say "duration of stay" but the heavy traffic preventing timely exit would be frustration of contract.

It probably will get to court but a court would be more understanding.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
flossykazzie
post Thu, 20 Aug 2020 - 09:22
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 15 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,982



Hi Ostell

Well the POPLA appeal is somewhat very scary to put together, really do not know where to begin so any pointers would help greatly. The most important is the signage I understand but I have no photos of the signage and are very unlikely to be able to get any, then I think it is the authority and who is the landowner, I hope I am on the right lines here, also the appeal has to be thousands of words I think I read somewhere.

Do you really think that they would do court action??

Thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 20 Aug 2020 - 11:08
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Use google street view and you just might get a photo of the signs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Thu, 20 Aug 2020 - 11:22
Post #26


Member


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



QUOTE
Well the POPLA appeal is somewhat very scary to put together

I've heard the process being called many things in the past, but 'scary'? There are so many POPLA appeals from which to copy and paste here and on MSE, your cup overfloweth. Just make sure you proofread that anything you do C&P makes sense for your case.

QUOTE
The most important is the signage I understand but I have no photos of the signage and are very unlikely to be able to get any


Ask on this Facebook page - others have previously.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/newquayweb/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Fri, 21 Aug 2020 - 19:18
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Thu, 20 Aug 2020 - 12:22) *
QUOTE
Well the POPLA appeal is somewhat very scary to put together

I've heard the process being called many things in the past, but 'scary'? There are so many POPLA appeals from which to copy and paste here and on MSE, your cup overfloweth. Just make sure you proofread that anything you do C&P makes sense for your case.

QUOTE
The most important is the signage I understand but I have no photos of the signage and are very unlikely to be able to get any


Ask on this Facebook page - others have previously.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/newquayweb/

Signs ANPR is also near the entry

T & C's but too small to read. Looks like a comprehensive and potentially confusing alphabetti spaghetti

They have to be joking surely. T & C's halfway up a dune

This post has been edited by Lynnzer: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 - 19:24


--------------------
The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Umkomaas
post Fri, 21 Aug 2020 - 20:16
Post #28


Member


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



There's more small print on that signage than would be likely in a contract to build a nuclear power station!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Sat, 22 Aug 2020 - 07:32
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,582
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Fri, 21 Aug 2020 - 21:16) *
There's more small print on that signage than would be likely in a contract to build a nuclear power station!

Here's another from Smart who ran this site once. Similarity is overwhelming. I suspect that Initial (don't they do laundry?) has just replaced the motifs and company info.


--------------------
The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
flossykazzie
post Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 11:52
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 15 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,982



Hi All

Finally received the outcome of the POPLA appeal, see below their reply:-

Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Gemma West
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant purchased insufficient parking time.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator has not provided a grace period. The appellant states there is no entrance signs. She says that the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking space. She explains that there is no marked parking bay nor boundary of the venue. The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authority. The appellant states the operator has failed to comply with the data protection applicable to Automatic Number Plate Recognition. The appellant states there is no evidence of period parked and the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The appellant states the vehicles images do not comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant states the ANPR is neither reliable or accurate. The appellant states the signage fails to transparently warn drivers what the ANPR data will be used for.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The appellant has indicated that she was the registered keeper on the date of the contravention. I will therefore be considering her liability as the keeper of the vehicle. The terms and conditions of the site state: “Parking tariffs apply from 08:00...Failure to comply with the terms & conditions will result in a Parking Charge of: £100.” The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant purchased insufficient parking time. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle entering the car park at 13:04:50 and exiting at16:51:54, totalling a stay of three hours and 47 minutes. On the face of the evidence, I consider it looks like there is a contract between the appellant and the operator, and the evidence suggests the terms have been breached. I now turn to the appellant’s grounds of appeal to determine if they make a material difference to the validity of the parking charge notice. The appellant states the operator has not provided a grace period. Section 13.1 of the BPA Code of Practice states “The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary dependant on site size and type but it must be a minimum of 5 minutes.” The operator has provided a system print out which shows the appellant made a payment for three hours at 13:15, 11 minutes after the appellant exceeded the grace period. Section 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice states “parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN.” From the evidence provided I can see that the appellant vacated the site 36 minutes after the parking session expired. I note the appellant has stated that due to an emergency the vehicle tyre needed changing. however, the appellant has not provided any evidence of additional payment. Furthermore, the appellant could have contacted the parking operator using the helpline number on the signage for further assistance. The appellant states there is no entrance signs. She says that the signage is not prominent, clear or legible from all parking space. She explains that there is no marked parking bay nor boundary of the venue. I note the appellant’s comments however; the operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage on site. From the evidence provided, including the site map I can see that there is signage located all around the site informing motorists of the terms and conditions. Given this, I must consider the signage in place at this location to see if it was sufficient to bring the terms and conditions to the attention of the driver when entering and parking at the location. Within Section 19.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that “In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” In addition to this, Section 19.2 of the BPA Code of Practice states that “Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of.” Having considered the evidence provided, I am satisfied that the operator had installed a suitable entrance sign at this location, and this was sufficient to make motorists aware that the parking is managed on this particular piece of land. Furthermore, within Section 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states that: “Specific parking-terms signage tells drivers what your terms and conditions are, including your parking charges. You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” Having considered the signage in place, I am satisfied that the operator has installed a number of signs throughout the car park and these are sufficient to bring the specific terms and conditions to the motorists’ attention. In my view, these are “conspicuous”, “legible and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” I can see from the evidence provided, the appellant has made a payment, as such I am satisfied they was aware of the terms and conditions. The appellant states there is no evidence of landowner authority. While I appreciate these comments, the operator has provided a contract agreement which demonstrates that they have the authority to issue Parking Charges on the land. The appellant states the operator has failed to comply with the data protection applicable to Automatic Number Plate Recognition. Whilst I appreciate these comments, if the appellant has concerns regarding how the operator has failed to comply with the data protection, the appellant may wish to raise his concerns with Information Commissioners Office. The appellant states there is no evidence of period parked and the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the PoFA 2012. In order for the keeper to be liable for the parking charge, the operator has to follow the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Having reviewed the evidence, I consider that there looks to be a contract between the driver and the parking operator, and the appellant has not provided a current name and address for service for the driver. Further, the notice sent complies with the relevant provisions. I am satisfied that the operator has met POFA to transfer liability. The appellant states the vehicles images do not comply with the BPA Code of Practice. Furthermore, the appellant states the ANPR is neither reliable or accurate. Whilst I appreciate these comments, I must state ANPR is generally reliable and POPLA accepts it as evidence of entry and exit times of a vehicle. Operators use ANPR at entries and exit points of their car parks; they don't routinely set them up elsewhere. Therefore, if the operator states the appellant has been captured at the entrance to its car park by its ANPR camera, then on the balance of probabilities, POPLA would accept that as evidence that the appellant was on site. I have reviewed the images provided by the operator and I am satisfied they comply with the BPA Code of Practice. Furthermore, the appellant has not provided any evidence which demonstrates that the vehicle was not on site for the times stipulated by the ANPR cameras. The appellant states the signage fails to transparently warn drivers what the ANPR data will be used for. Whilst I appreciate these comments, if the appellant has concerns regarding the use of his data relating to the signage, the appellant may wish to raise his concerns with Information Commissioners Office. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the motorist to comply with the terms and conditions displayed on the signage. On this occasion, the driver purchased insufficient parking time and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions. I conclude the PCN was issued correctly. I must refuse the appeal.



So there is nothing more that can be done, except to wait for the debt collector letters to arrive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 11:52
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (flossykazzie @ Tue, 24 Nov 2020 - 11:49) *
I conclude the PCN was issued correctly.

As expected...

Now either ignore unless they issue a LBC. Or write to them and tell them that the decision is not binding and why you won't be paying - there's a slim chance it may reduce the chance of a claim (assuming they were going to raise a claim anyway).


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
flossykazzie
post Mon, 7 Jun 2021 - 15:42
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 15 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,982



Hi All

So have now received a Letter Before Claim dated 18th May and saying that you have to reply to it within 30 days.the letter came from SCST Law, Credit Style Limited and is trying to claim £170.

Please advise me if I reply to them or ignore them, or is this now the time to work on a defence, the driver has never been named.

Many thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Mon, 7 Jun 2021 - 16:10
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,510
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



You do not ignore a genuine LBC.

I can see they've added a mythical £70. Challenge that - ask them to prove it's been actually incurred.
Reference the PoFA fails.
Point out the waiting time is not parking.

It won't stop them ploughing ahead though...


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 8 Jun 2021 - 08:23
Post #34


Member


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



1) deny the debt exists but state you are seeking debt advice. This means they must halt processing for at least 30 days
2) if you've not done so already, get a. Sar sent to the ppc
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
flossykazzie
post Tue, 8 Jun 2021 - 08:52
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 15 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,982



Hi All

I have put together this letter and am posting here for critique before posting it which has to be there by 16th June.

"Dear Sirs



I am writing this letter with regards to the Letter Before Claim that I have received from you on the 18th May 2021 concerning unpaid Parking Charge Notice from Initial Parking Limited.

The reference no stated on the letter is ******

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and deny the debt exists and am seeking debt advice.

On the 22nd July 2020 the driver entered Fistral Beach, Newquay’s overcrowded carpark at approximately 13:00 and was waiting for 10 to 15 minutes for a suitable car parking slot to become available, it was an extremely busy and an very hot sunny day. They then made their way to the ticket machine and purchased a paper ticket which was valid for 3 hours for the fee of £6.00 which was paid by cash at 13:15.

Within the paid for time, the driver returned to the vehicle to leave the carpark, but it appeared that the vehicle had a flat tyre which needed attending to. As an emergency was taking place and the female driver was alone with three children, the last thing on their mind was getting another car parking ticket, as well as the £6.00 they had already purchased. Even though the Automatic Number Plate Recognition does pick up details of the vehicle entering the car park 13:04:50 and leaving16:51:54, it does not allow for emergencies that can occur and if a car park warden was present on the day, they would have seen this emergency taking place.

This is an abuse of process by increasing the charge and it is frustrating that for an emergency beyond the driver’s control has led to an excessive charge of £170!!!! the driver did purchase a 3 hour ticket for £6.00 and it is unjustified they have been issued with the same charge of £60 as someone who did not pay anything at all. Also, how can a £2.50 difference in charges of carparking ticket for 50 mins amount to £170???????

Please see below and give answers for the following points listed:-

1. Give proof as to how these spurious charges have been calculated.

2. Provide me with the proof of the alleged losses mentioned, including the extra £110 you have added already to the overinflated penalty of £60.

3. How do you intend to recover a sum larger than the amount in the signs.

4. How do you intend to hold the Keeper liable when you have not complied with the Protection of Freedom Act.

5. POFA disallows all costs in the excess of the value of the original notice to Keeper.

6. Attending to an emergency after leaving the parking bay free is not parking.


So is this good enough to submit to CST Law, do I need to add anything or extract anything else please.

Many thanks.

This post has been edited by flossykazzie: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 - 09:01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Tue, 8 Jun 2021 - 09:15
Post #36


Member


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



It's a mess, frankly.

I don't think this should be so long.
The more you write, the more they can twist.

You're writing to a legal firm yet have not framed in legal terms. For example the br3kdown is frustration of contract.

Multiple ! And ? No.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
flossykazzie
post Tue, 8 Jun 2021 - 09:17
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 15 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,982



Hi Nosferatu1001

I have heard about requesting a SAR but what is the advantage to me for asking for it please, when the POPLA appeal was submitted and subsequently rejected the PPC sent as their evidence all the documents and photos etc.

Also I am not sure if this is a good idea, but a freind mentioned about offering to pay the £2.50 difference in car parking fees, as in £6.00 for 3 hours which was paid for, and £8.50 for 5 hours, but wouldn't that be admitting the debt?? and should the PPC be asked to provide a date stamped photo of the car waiting to park, not entering and leaving the car park.

Many thanks!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 8 Jun 2021 - 09:21
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (flossykazzie @ Tue, 8 Jun 2021 - 09:52) *
it was an extremely busy and an very hot sunny day. .

a not an

QUOTE (flossykazzie @ Tue, 8 Jun 2021 - 09:52) *
Within the paid for time, the driver returned to the vehicle to leave the carpark, but it appeared that the vehicle had a flat tyre which needed attending to. As an emergency was taking place and the female driver was alone with three children, the last thing on their mind was getting another car parking ticket, as well as the £6.00 they had already purchased.

A flat tyre on a parked car isn't an emergency (Definition - a serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action), there is no time critical aspect to it, no-one is going to die/suffer serious harm, instead you refer to this as an inability to comply with the contract amounting to a frustration of it.

QUOTE (flossykazzie @ Tue, 8 Jun 2021 - 09:52) *
This is an abuse of process by increasing the charge and it is frustrating that for an emergency beyond the driver’s control has led to an excessive charge of £170!!!! the driver did purchase a 3 hour ticket for £6.00 and it is unjustified they have been issued with the same charge of £60 as someone who did not pay anything at all. Also, how can a £2.50 difference in charges of carparking ticket for 50 mins amount to £170???????

Again, it's clearly not an emergency, multiple ! and ? just look amateurish/childish, this is meant to be a letter showing them you are informed and tough defendant not a millennial throwing a strop on social media. The word frustrating is also superfluous, as for unjust, that's irrelevant, its about whether the money is owed under contract and 'commercially justifiable' or not. You should certainly be arguing against 'commercially justifiable' and referencing Parking Eye v Beavis.


QUOTE (flossykazzie @ Tue, 8 Jun 2021 - 09:52) *
1. Give proof as to how these spurious charges have been calculated.

2. Provide me with the proof of the alleged losses mentioned, including the extra £110 you have added already to the overinflated penalty of £60.

3. How do you intend to recover a sum larger than the amount in the signs.

4. How do you intend to hold the Keeper liable when you have not complied with the Protection of Freedom Act.

5. POFA disallows all costs in the excess of the value of the original notice to Keeper.

6. Attending to an emergency after leaving the parking bay free is not parking.

WRONG, you don't ask for anything at this stage, you are showing why nothing is owed, THAT's it. If PoFA hasn't been met don't ask them to prove that it has, tell them that it hasn't, if the person being sued wasn't the driver say so. It's an invoice/charge and not a penalty. Point 5 is only true if the defendant isn't the driver. Again 6 is a wrong and actually not something they can prove and is a statement out of context.

Overall a very poor effort if you want to actually try and avoid a court case, if you want one then it's a good way of doing it.

Have you read any examples of properly written LBC replies at all?

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Tue, 8 Jun 2021 - 09:25


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
flossykazzie
post Tue, 8 Jun 2021 - 09:26
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 122
Joined: 15 Jan 2014
Member No.: 67,982



Hi nosferatu1001

thank you for replying so quickly.

Shall it be kept to the point that I am not responsible for the debt and am seeking debt advice, and not go into the explanation, will the bullet points be ok though?? something like below:-

Dear Sirs



I am writing this letter with regards to the Letter Before Claim that I have received from you on the 18th May 2021 concerning unpaid Parking Charge Notice from Initial Parking Limited.

The reference no stated on the letter is ******

I am not responsible for the debt and am seeking debt advice.

I request answers to the questions set out below:-


1. Give proof as to how these spurious charges have been calculated.

2. Provide me with the proof of the alleged losses mentioned, including the extra £110 you have added already to the overinflated penalty of £60.

3. How do you intend to recover a sum larger than the amount in the signs.

4. How do you intend to hold the Keeper liable when you have not complied with the Protection of Freedom Act.

5. POFA disallows all costs in the excess of the value of the original notice to Keeper.

6. Attending to an emergency after leaving the parking bay free is not parking, it is Frustration of Contract.

Is this better to submit now???

Many thanks.










Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DWMB2
post Tue, 8 Jun 2021 - 09:29
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,363
Joined: 9 Apr 2021
Member No.: 112,205



Did you read The Rookie's post above? You don't seem to have incorporated his feedback at all.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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 - 00:21
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