PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN: Failing to comply with a no entry restriction N22
max007
post Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 21:26
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 2 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,312



Received a PCN for the above in Stirling Road N22.

The no entry restriction doesn't seem to serve any purpose apart from earning Haringey Co a few extra pounds in the coffers - Stirling Road is a two way street, apart from this junction with Dunbar Road.

Once you travel down Dunbar Road, you are essentially trapped - there is a no entry restriction blocking access to Perth Road & no access via Stirling Road.

There are is no signage regarding the use of traffic enforcement cameras - does this make any difference?

In addition, there was a major fire in the locality at the time of the contravention which resulted in a number of major roads being blocked and the police redirecting traffic to this very road!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Mon, 2 Oct 2017 - 21:26
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:39
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,202
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (max007 @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:33) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 13:19) *
so lets make sure we understand fully.

You drove down wolves lane, intending a left onto white Hart lane. Stopped by police from doing so, you told them your intended destination and they told you turn right then left (Dunbar rd)
then left again (Stirling rd) and so on to bring you back to WHL beyond the closed section


Yes


Good i have enough to work with now
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
max007
post Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 17:36
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 2 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,312



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:39) *
QUOTE (max007 @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:33) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 13:19) *
so lets make sure we understand fully.

You drove down wolves lane, intending a left onto white Hart lane. Stopped by police from doing so, you told them your intended destination and they told you turn right then left (Dunbar rd)
then left again (Stirling rd) and so on to bring you back to WHL beyond the closed section


Yes


Good i have enough to work with now


What happens now? The appeals criteria is limited and does not seemingly take into account mitigating circumstances, so I'm unsure what grounds I have to challenge this
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 17:40
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,202
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (max007 @ Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 17:36) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:39) *
QUOTE (max007 @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 23:33) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 30 Nov 2017 - 13:19) *
so lets make sure we understand fully.

You drove down wolves lane, intending a left onto white Hart lane. Stopped by police from doing so, you told them your intended destination and they told you turn right then left (Dunbar rd)
then left again (Stirling rd) and so on to bring you back to WHL beyond the closed section


Yes


Good i have enough to work with now


What happens now? The appeals criteria is limited and does not seemingly take into account mitigating circumstances, so I'm unsure what grounds I have to challenge this


I will draft an appeal that you can use verbatim edit or throw away and start again. We are not claiming mitigation we are claiming the contravention did not occur and that the documentation is invalid
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 18:17
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,456
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



@PMB

If you are happy with "a policeman directed me" go for it.

You might want to hold the fact that a sign to Diagram 616 not a Sect 36 sign for any further appeal. This thread gives the background:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1309424

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 18:50
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,160
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



I'm sure that PBM is drafting to suit but for OP.
That the police told you to drive down Dunbar is one of the standard exemptions to most if not all Traffic Orders, following instructions from a uniformed copper.
If you had decided to drive down a one way street to avoid a blocked road, that would be claiming mitigation.
But a cop told you to is a cast iron exemption. As long as an adjudicator believes your account, you win.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 00:42
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,202
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 2 Dec 2017 - 18:17) *
@PMB

If you are happy with "a policeman directed me" go for it.

You might want to hold the fact that a sign to Diagram 616 not a Sect 36 sign for any further appeal. This thread gives the background:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1309424

Mick


Hi Mick i am going to draft a policeman told me as per the OP and going to put them to strict proof they have a traffic order they wont even understand the point but an adjudicator should.
As always i will post for review
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 10:28
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,160
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 00:42) *
......Hi Mick i am going to draft a policeman told me as per the OP and going to put them to strict proof they have a traffic order they wont even understand the point but an adjudicator should.
As always i will post for review


I would specifically point that that as the No Entry sign is no longer governed by S36, they must show the traffic order.
But would use the cops told me to go that way as primary point.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 10:34
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,202
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 10:28) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 00:42) *
......Hi Mick i am going to draft a policeman told me as per the OP and going to put them to strict proof they have a traffic order they wont even understand the point but an adjudicator should.
As always i will post for review


I would specifically point that that as the No Entry sign is no longer governed by S36, they must show the traffic order.
But would use the cops told me to go that way as primary point.


Yep and a big fail to consider reps. only needs tidying now should be done tonight when I've got an hour
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 14:04
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,202
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



here you go. add the bit you need to, check for accuracy then use as you wish, Verbatim, edited or throw away. Do not send links of the press cuttings or the map i am attaching( if this is not accurate scrap it )

Appeal against the Imposition of PCN number xxxxx Vehicle VRM

(your name & address)

I make these representations under the statutory grounds of

There was “no contravention of a prescribed order” and

Collateral challenges under the ground “The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case”

There was “no contravention of a prescribed order”

Although there is no dispute that I passed the No entry signs, this was due to the direction given by a police officer in uniform.

I am local to the area, on the night of the 19th of September I was making a journey that I do quite often. On this occasion upon reaching the junction of wolves road and White hart lane I found White Hart lane closed by the police, this was due to a major fire in the area (see appended press cuttings)

I explained my destination to a police officer manning the closure and ask as to a diversion. I was directed to turn right onto White hart lane, then left onto Dunbar road and left again onto Stirling road. Being familiar to the area I am aware that the entrance from Dunbar road onto Stirling road is a no entry. This is also the case at the far end of Dunbar road, at its junction with Perth road.

Knowing this, and also that the no entry restriction on Stirling road is effectively a gate, so that I would not be at risk of driving the wrong way against oncoming traffic, the officers direction seemed sensible, I had no hesitation in following those directions.

Please see the enclosed map showing usual route the route taken on direction of the police officer and the location of the closure .

Following the direction of a police officer in uniform is an exemption to this contravention and as such I request that this PCN be cancelled


The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case


The notice of rejection received from the council acknowledges my assertion that I was directed by a police officer, It does no more than that. It then goes on to explain that I passed a No entry sign and that this is not allowed. Showing no consideration to the direction by the police.

Being somewhat dismayed by the councils response, leaving me none the wiser as to their rejection of a valid exemption, I took advice and conducted some research. This lead me first to the Regulations, The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003

It is my contention that by not giving a proper consideration to my grounds the authority fail at Schedule 1(7)(a) of these regulations.

If the regulatory requirements are not met then no penalty can be demanded, the due amount is Nil, thus The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case and I ask that the PCN be cancelled


The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case

My research also lead me to the TSRGD both 2002 and 2016 and to the status of the no Entry sign I find listed as sign (616) in the sign tables.

Up until the implementation of the TSRGD 2016 in April of that year the sign (616) was designated a section 36 sign for the purposes of the RTA 1988. This being the case the contravention was failing to comply with a sign as per 4(5)(b) of the London regulations of 2003.

For whatever reason the TSRGD 2016 did not designate sign (616) a section 36 sign. As such the contravention as it was then cited “ failing to comply with a No entry sign” was no longer accurate.

This was communicated to the London authorities by London councils in June of 2016. It was instructed that the contravention description be changed to “failing to comply with a No entry restriction”

This would serve the purpose of describing a contravention of a prescribed order as per 4(5)(a) of the regulations But only if an order has been made that prohibits entry a section of road

I put the authority to strict proof that any order in place prohibits entry into Stirling road from Dunbar road, not merely that traffic must not proceed in one direction from Stirling road into Dunbar road,

Absent such proof I respectfully submit that the authority fail to prove the contravention of a prescribed order and the PCN should be cancelled



https://1drv.ms/i/s!AtBHPhdJdppViUD3v6zmZtxXbPbm

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 14:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
max007
post Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 21:53
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 2 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,312



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 14:04) *
here you go. add the bit you need to, check for accuracy then use as you wish, Verbatim, edited or throw away. Do not send links of the press cuttings or the map i am attaching( if this is not accurate scrap it )

Appeal against the Imposition of PCN number xxxxx Vehicle VRM

(your name & address)

I make these representations under the statutory grounds of

There was “no contravention of a prescribed order” and

Collateral challenges under the ground “The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case”

There was “no contravention of a prescribed order”

Although there is no dispute that I passed the No entry signs, this was due to the direction given by a police officer in uniform.

I am local to the area, on the night of the 19th of September I was making a journey that I do quite often. On this occasion upon reaching the junction of wolves road and White hart lane I found White Hart lane closed by the police, this was due to a major fire in the area (see appended press cuttings)

I explained my destination to a police officer manning the closure and ask as to a diversion. I was directed to turn right onto White hart lane, then left onto Dunbar road and left again onto Stirling road. Being familiar to the area I am aware that the entrance from Dunbar road onto Stirling road is a no entry. This is also the case at the far end of Dunbar road, at its junction with Perth road.

Knowing this, and also that the no entry restriction on Stirling road is effectively a gate, so that I would not be at risk of driving the wrong way against oncoming traffic, the officers direction seemed sensible, I had no hesitation in following those directions.

Please see the enclosed map showing usual route the route taken on direction of the police officer and the location of the closure .

Following the direction of a police officer in uniform is an exemption to this contravention and as such I request that this PCN be cancelled


The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case


The notice of rejection received from the council acknowledges my assertion that I was directed by a police officer, It does no more than that. It then goes on to explain that I passed a No entry sign and that this is not allowed. Showing no consideration to the direction by the police.

Being somewhat dismayed by the councils response, leaving me none the wiser as to their rejection of a valid exemption, I took advice and conducted some research. This lead me first to the Regulations, The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003

It is my contention that by not giving a proper consideration to my grounds the authority fail at Schedule 1(7)(a) of these regulations.

If the regulatory requirements are not met then no penalty can be demanded, the due amount is Nil, thus The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case and I ask that the PCN be cancelled


The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case

My research also lead me to the TSRGD both 2002 and 2016 and to the status of the no Entry sign I find listed as sign (616) in the sign tables.

Up until the implementation of the TSRGD 2016 in April of that year the sign (616) was designated a section 36 sign for the purposes of the RTA 1988. This being the case the contravention was failing to comply with a sign as per 4(5)(b) of the London regulations of 2003.

For whatever reason the TSRGD 2016 did not designate sign (616) a section 36 sign. As such the contravention as it was then cited “ failing to comply with a No entry sign” was no longer accurate.

This was communicated to the London authorities by London councils in June of 2016. It was instructed that the contravention description be changed to “failing to comply with a No entry restriction”

This would serve the purpose of describing a contravention of a prescribed order as per 4(5)(a) of the regulations But only if an order has been made that prohibits entry a section of road

I put the authority to strict proof that any order in place prohibits entry into Stirling road from Dunbar road, not merely that traffic must not proceed in one direction from Stirling road into Dunbar road,

Absent such proof I respectfully submit that the authority fail to prove the contravention of a prescribed order and the PCN should be cancelled



https://1drv.ms/i/s!AtBHPhdJdppViUD3v6zmZtxXbPbm


Thanks! Could you expand on the last point: no contravention of a prescribed order? I've seen other references to this issue - is there a layman's guide that I can consult rolleyes.gif ?
Also, there is the option to choose a verbal or postal appeal? Any advice about this - which is the best?
And can you explain why it would not be a good idea to send links to the press cuttings and map?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 22:15
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,202
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



No contravention of a prescribed order. The council or highway authority must make an order under the road traffic regulation act of 1984. Without it the only contravention can be failing to comply with a section 36 sign.
The No entry is not a section 36 sign so you cannot contravene against that. It must be against an order.

The thing with this is that until April of 2016 when the new traffic sign regs were enacted it was a section 36 sign, so there is a good chance that there is no order. you are asking the council to prove there is if they are to enforce.

A personal appearance is always best, it gives the adjudicator a chance to assess you as a witness and for you to answer any questions (so keep asking here until you are happy you understand the points

I say do not send links. print off and send copies. That way you know they have been seen
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 22:31
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,160
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Section 36 refers to Signs that are designated under that section of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as signs that act as their own restriction and the sign alone is enough to convict. No traffic order is required.
This is contrary to most signs that only show the effect of an order.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/36
2(b) refers to the signs in question.

As PBM said, seems in error but the No Entry sign was dropped from the list in 2016, it is scheduled to be reinstated but until then, there is a major loophole.
We may as well take advantage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
max007
post Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 23:08
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 2 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,312



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 22:15) *
No contravention of a prescribed order. The council or highway authority must make an order under the road traffic regulation act of 1984. Without it the only contravention can be failing to comply with a section 36 sign.
The No entry is not a section 36 sign so you cannot contravene against that. It must be against an order.

The thing with this is that until April of 2016 when the new traffic sign regs were enacted it was a section 36 sign, so there is a good chance that there is no order. you are asking the council to prove there is if they are to enforce.

A personal appearance is always best, it gives the adjudicator a chance to assess you as a witness and for you to answer any questions (so keep asking here until you are happy you understand the points

I say do not send links. print off and send copies. That way you know they have been seen


QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 22:31) *
Section 36 refers to Signs that are designated under that section of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as signs that act as their own restriction and the sign alone is enough to convict. No traffic order is required.
This is contrary to most signs that only show the effect of an order.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/36
2(b) refers to the signs in question.

As PBM said, seems in error but the No Entry sign was dropped from the list in 2016, it is scheduled to be reinstated but until then, there is a major loophole.
We may as well take advantage.


Appreciated. How can you find out independently if there is an order?
Also, should there be signs to tell drivers that cameras are being used to detect contraventions?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 23:24
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,202
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (max007 @ Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 23:08) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 22:15) *
No contravention of a prescribed order. The council or highway authority must make an order under the road traffic regulation act of 1984. Without it the only contravention can be failing to comply with a section 36 sign.
The No entry is not a section 36 sign so you cannot contravene against that. It must be against an order.

The thing with this is that until April of 2016 when the new traffic sign regs were enacted it was a section 36 sign, so there is a good chance that there is no order. you are asking the council to prove there is if they are to enforce.

A personal appearance is always best, it gives the adjudicator a chance to assess you as a witness and for you to answer any questions (so keep asking here until you are happy you understand the points

I say do not send links. print off and send copies. That way you know they have been seen


QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 22:31) *
Section 36 refers to Signs that are designated under that section of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as signs that act as their own restriction and the sign alone is enough to convict. No traffic order is required.
This is contrary to most signs that only show the effect of an order.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/36
2(b) refers to the signs in question.

As PBM said, seems in error but the No Entry sign was dropped from the list in 2016, it is scheduled to be reinstated but until then, there is a major loophole.
We may as well take advantage.


Appreciated. How can you find out independently if there is an order?
Also, should there be signs to tell drivers that cameras are being used to detect contraventions?


Forget about signs about camera enforcement they are not needed AFAIK there is no repository for traffic orders in London. Member madMickV is the man for digging them out.
i don't know how he does it perhaps send him a PM. But i wouldn't worry about it If there is one the council will have to produce it in their evidence pack before any hearing you can then drop that point.
The first point is strong on its own
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
max007
post Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 23:35
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 2 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,312



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 23:24) *
QUOTE (max007 @ Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 23:08) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 22:15) *
No contravention of a prescribed order. The council or highway authority must make an order under the road traffic regulation act of 1984. Without it the only contravention can be failing to comply with a section 36 sign.
The No entry is not a section 36 sign so you cannot contravene against that. It must be against an order.

The thing with this is that until April of 2016 when the new traffic sign regs were enacted it was a section 36 sign, so there is a good chance that there is no order. you are asking the council to prove there is if they are to enforce.

A personal appearance is always best, it gives the adjudicator a chance to assess you as a witness and for you to answer any questions (so keep asking here until you are happy you understand the points

I say do not send links. print off and send copies. That way you know they have been seen


QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 22:31) *
Section 36 refers to Signs that are designated under that section of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as signs that act as their own restriction and the sign alone is enough to convict. No traffic order is required.
This is contrary to most signs that only show the effect of an order.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/36
2(b) refers to the signs in question.

As PBM said, seems in error but the No Entry sign was dropped from the list in 2016, it is scheduled to be reinstated but until then, there is a major loophole.
We may as well take advantage.


Appreciated. How can you find out independently if there is an order?
Also, should there be signs to tell drivers that cameras are being used to detect contraventions?


Forget about signs about camera enforcement they are not needed AFAIK there is no repository for traffic orders in London. Member madMickV is the man for digging them out.
i don't know how he does it perhaps send him a PM. But i wouldn't worry about it If there is one the council will have to produce it in their evidence pack before any hearing you can then drop that point.
The first point is strong on its own


Once again, many thanks.
Any idea why the wording on the PCN says: failing to comply with a no entry restriction and the NOR states: failing to comply with a no entry sign Is there any significance to this?
When you request a personal hearing for the appeal, does a council representative have to attend as well?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 00:10
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,456
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



TMO here:-

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-56623-819

Prescribed route no entry into Stirling Road from Dunbar Road.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 14:58
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,202
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Tue, 5 Dec 2017 - 00:10) *
TMO here:-

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-56623-819

Prescribed route no entry into Stirling Road from Dunbar Road.

Mick


Thanks Mick

So that part of the argument is lost Easy enough to edit out

Max lets have a think about strengthening point 2 re fail to consider will come back to you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
max007
post Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 22:09
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 2 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,312



Thanks for all your assistance so far smile.gif

I intend to start drafting my appeal this weekend - if there are any further points I can make, please let me know especially as I gather that I can no longer cite The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 22:33
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,202
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (max007 @ Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 22:09) *
Thanks for all your assistance so far smile.gif

I intend to start drafting my appeal this weekend - if there are any further points I can make, please let me know especially as I gather that I can no longer cite The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case



Only point 3 re the TMO the fail to consider is still valid. I want to strengthen that with a couple of references, will dig them out tomorrow
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 7 Dec 2017 - 22:39
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,114
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



This was a massive fire. I would feel fairly confident about telling an adjudicator you were directed down that road and there was no other exit other than through one of two no entry signs. The last thing the police want is a load of drivers turning around and heading back.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
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, 17th August 2018 - 07:44
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.