Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: [NIP Wizard] NIP for a Vehicle Loaned to me, but driven by a friend from the USA
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Polyphasic
NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - May 2011
Date of the NIP: - 118 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 119 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A1033, Withernsea
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Second
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - It was a loan vehicle provided by Nationwide Crash Repair
How many current points do you have? - 0
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons -
I had to undergo emergancy dentisty work and due to distraction from the pain didn't consider myself fit to drive. A friend from the USA was visiting at the time and offered to drive. I provided his details on the initial NIP and have now recieved a form with some further questions.

Although I did question him at the time regarding insurance and he stated his own policy would cover him I didn't ask to see any proof. I have no reason to doubt that he wasnt covered Im just concerned as to why they are specifically asking me if I requested to see the policy and it's number. I wasn't aware of any requirement to see documentation before allowing him to drive.


NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - No
Is the NIP addressed to you personally? - Yes
Although you are not the Registered Keeper, were you the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - No
As you were not responsible for the vehicle, somebody else has named you as the driver. Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 18:04:50 +0000
jobo
some people have been know to'' invent friends from America, et al to try and get off speeding tickets

rather than bother trying ti find out if they are lying or a not, ( a lot of trouble) they ask for insurance details and if you cant provide stick you for 6 points for that instead,

it would be in your best intrests to get a copy of his insurance, though good luck in expecting a US policy to cover him in the UK
squaredeal
QUOTE (Polyphasic @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 19:04) *
As you were not responsible for the vehicle, somebody else has named you as the driver. Were you driving? - Yes


Freudian slip perhaps?
nemo
QUOTE (Polyphasic @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 19:04) *
I wasn't aware of any requirement to see documentation before allowing him to drive.

It is an offence to cause or permit a person to use a vehicle on a road or other public place without valid insurance. The penalties are on a par with the actual offence of uninsured vehicle use.

Whose insurance was covering use of the loan vehicle ? If it was Nationwide's, did the cover extend to any driver ? Were there any clauses or conditions regarding non-EU licence holders ?

Absent any Nationwide (or employer ?) cover being effective, you will need to contact your friend with some urgency and obtain written / printed confirmation that he was insured to use the loan vehicle.
Polyphasic
QUOTE (jobo @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 19:13) *
some people have been know to'' invent friends from America, et al to try and get off speeding tickets

rather than bother trying ti find out if they are lying or a not, ( a lot of trouble) they ask for insurance details and if you cant provide stick you for 6 points for that instead,

it would be in your best intrests to get a copy of his insurance, though good luck in expecting a US policy to cover him in the UK




I'm able to ask him for the details now and provide them on the form, but thats not what it actually asks, It does specifically ask if I saw them prior to letting him drive. I can see what your saying in that if I just select "No" then it could just look like im making it up.


Something which I didn't mention and am not sure if its relevent, but it was a front facing camera and you can actually see me in the passanger seat.


- Thanks for your prompt responce also.

Aretnap
It's extremely unlikley that an American policy would cover him to drive a random British vehicle. Even a British policy's driving other vehicles cover would only cover him if he had the permission of the owner (ie Nationwide), so unless you contacted the loan company beforehand he was almost certainly not insured. Did you contact them?

You can be prosecuted for causing or permitting driving without insurance, and the penalty is the same as that for driving without insurance yourself - 6-8 points and a fine of several hundred pounds. As with all insurance offences the onus will be on you to show that insurance was in place, and a mistaken belief that it was in place doesn't provide a defence as the offence is one of strict liability.

As Jobo implies the reason they're asking you this is because too many people invent foreign friends in an attempt to get off speeding tickets, and prosecuting them for perverting the course of justice is often difficult as it requires proof that they were lying. This makes life very difficult for anyone who genuinely did lend their car to a foreign friend, but they shouldn't really be lending their cars to uninsured people in the first place.
nemo
QUOTE (Polyphasic @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 19:27) *
It does specifically ask if I saw them prior to letting him drive. I can see what your saying in that if I just select "No" then it could just look like im making it up.

The police can lawfully request that you provide evidence that use of the vehicle was insured at the material time. Have they requested this ?
jobo
if the policy exists, then it doesnt matter if you saw it, just as if you did see a piece of paper which turn out to be fake it wouldnt give you a defence

have they ask for any more info about your friend
Polyphasic
QUOTE (Aretnap @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 19:30) *
It's extremely unlikley that an American policy would cover him to drive a random British vehicle. Even a British policy's driving other vehicles cover would only cover him if he had the permission of the owner (ie Nationwide), so unless you contacted the loan company beforehand he was almost certainly not insured. Did you contact them?

You can be prosecuted for causing or permitting driving without insurance, and the penalty is the same as that for driving without insurance yourself - 6-8 points and a fine of several hundred pounds. As with all insurance offences the onus will be on you to show that insurance was in place, and a mistaken belief that it was in place doesn't provide a defence as the offence is one of strict liability.

As Jobo implies the reason they're asking you this is because too many people invent foreign friends in an attempt to get off speeding tickets, and prosecuting them for perverting the course of justice is often difficult as it requires proof that they were lying. This makes life very difficult for anyone who genuinely did lend their car to a foreign friend, but they shouldn't really be lending their cars to uninsured people in the first place.



As I inititally stated I did question if he were insured and he said he was, and still says he was. I can provide them with the details, however I didnt ask to see them before letting him drive. Thats what im questioning, should I say I did and provide the details (assuming he is covered, if he isn't then it was genuinely his error - I did ask!) or no, that being the truth but looking more suspicious.

And again, with it being a front facing camera I can be clearly seen in the passanger seat. You can even make out the bloody tissue i'm holding to my mouth after having a tooth pulled.

jobo
are there more question than just insurance ?

it doent matter if you saw the policy, just that it exists, get the details, pref a fax and send them to them, stuff the form
Logician
Do not lie on the form by saying you saw his policy when you did not. Say what happened, he told you he was insured to drive the car, and you can now provide details of his policy. Very likely his policy would cover him drving his car in the UK, but the chances of it covering him driving a loan car registered in the UK without the permission of its owner and complying with the requirements needed by a UK insurer are between nil and zero, but possibly details of his insurance policy will satisfy the hounds, who will have been concerned to know whether he actually existed, and may not pursue the details of the policy.
Polyphasic


First of all thanks to everyone for the responces. My friend is still at work and is going to email over the documents once he gets home so until then I don't know the exact details of his policy.


Some futher info though on the insurance front, The car I had at the time was not actually provided by Nationwide, it was provided directly by Alfa Romeo as a demonstrator both I and Adrian filled in questionairs after returning the car to rate its ride\handling unsuch. I also did ask when picking up the car about the insurance, I was told that anyone covered on my golf (the car they had in for repair) would be covered on the loan car, it made no differance that it was provided by Alfa Romeo directly.

Anyhow, thanks again. Ill post again once I have the insurance documents.

CuriousOrange
It's been asked a couple of times now, but what are the exact questions they've asked you on the form?

QUOTE (Polyphasic @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 19:41) *
(assuming he is covered, if he isn't then it was genuinely his error - I did ask!)
Unfortunately his making a genuine error wouldn't be of much help to you if it gets messy.


BB Law
Polyphasic

Assuming you accept that you permitted your American friend to use this vehicle, it may be worth while enclosing the following with your response -

1. A good quality colour copy of your photocard licence and perhaps a passport photograph of you.

2. A letter confirming that the vehicle was a loan car from Alfa Romeo and that at the time of the alleged offence you were being taken to the dentist for emergency treatment. Point out that the photograph of the alleged offence clearly shows you in the passenger seat as can be evidenced by the photos that you have enclosed.

3. A copy of your invoice for the dental treatment.

4. If you have not already done so, provide your American friend's full name, DoB, address, the date he entered and left the country and the airport he flew to/from.

Your aim here is to distinguish your genuine case from those that are suspected attempts to pervert the course of justice.

If you can persuade the police that you are not trying to avoid identifying the driver there is less chance they will chase the permit insurance offence.

The slight down side of the above is that if you do end up getting summoned for permit no insurance, then you have well and truly laid all your cards on the table.

Hope this helps

BB Law
Polyphasic
QUOTE (CuriousOrange @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 20:27) *
It's been asked a couple of times now, but what are the exact questions they've asked you on the form?

QUOTE (Polyphasic @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 19:41) *
(assuming he is covered, if he isn't then it was genuinely his error - I did ask!)
Unfortunately his making a genuine error wouldn't be of much help to you if it gets messy.



Sorry. Missed this request.

It asks exactly as follows;

In what capacity are you associated with the nominated driver?

What was the purpose of their journey on this occasion?

If they do not live in the UK and have returned to their country of residence, what was the date of thier departure from this country?............. And From which port did they depart?...................
(IGNORE this question if the driver is a UK resident)

Does your insurance policy cover this driver? Yes/No (delete as applicable)

If YES, please provide a copy of your policy and ignore the following questions.

If NO, please complete the following:-


Did you see a copy of the drivers insurance policy document prior to the loan? Yes/No (delete as applicable)

If YES, please provide full details below.

Country of Issue ................................ Insurer..........................................
Policy Document Number............................................
AFCNEAL
You say:

' I was told that anyone covered on my golf (the car they had in for repair)'

so was he insured on your Golf? It is immaterial what policy he had of his own as permisison from the OWNER (or keeper) was conditional upon the driver being isured on the car being repaired. So if he's on yours - problem solved, but if not he was driving without permission..........
The Rookie
So its not asking for their insurance details UNLESS you saw it, clealry a form written by a prat!

Simon
BB Law
Polyphasic

If you think in reality your American friend wasn't insured or that you won't be able to prove that he was then you could consider an alternative approach, which would be to try and encourage the police to summon you for failing to furnish on the basis that you may have a better chance of defending that allegation in due course.

However, I would need to know a lot more about what you have sent to them so far and other factors before going any further than saying this is a possible approach.

Please do not take the above as advice, it is simply a thought.

BB Law

Do the police currently have any evidence that you caused or permitted the driver to drive the vehicle in question?
andy_foster
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 21:03) *
So its not asking for their insurance details UNLESS you saw it, clealry a form written by a prat!


Agreed.

There does not seem to be any obligation to respond to this letter. However I do not think that a lawful requirement to provide evidence that your friend was insured needs to be made in order to summon you for permitting.
CuriousOrange
QUOTE (BB Law @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 21:10) *
...an alternative approach, which would be to try and encourage the police to summon you for failing to furnish...Do the police currently have any evidence that you caused or permitted the driver to drive the vehicle in question?


The OP said in their opener that they'd provided the friend's details in reply to the first S172, which is why they've got this shiny new questionnaire now.


Unless the friend actually is insured, I'd suggest the OP fills out the form literally (which would then explain why they didn't include any insurance details) and include the personal photos etc in the hope that the police are only interested in pursuing the non-insurance line when they think the driver's make believe.



QUOTE (AFCNEAL @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 21:02) *
It is immaterial what policy he had of his own as permisison from the OWNER (or keeper) was conditional upon the driver being isured on the car being repaired. So if he's on yours - problem solved, but if not he was driving without permission..........


The 'he only had my permission if he was insured' magic bullet gets put forward often here, but has it ever actually worked?


The Rookie
QUOTE (CuriousOrange @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 21:41) *
The 'he only had my permission if he was insured' magic bullet gets put forward often here, but has it ever actually worked?

Yes it has, but in that case it was a long term loan (not a short drive) and the defendant had a witness to the conditional nature of the loan. It comes down to a matter of fact, do the mags accept that the loan was conditional or not an that they'll decide on a balance of probabilities.

Simon
BB Law
QUOTE (CuriousOrange @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 21:41) *
QUOTE (BB Law @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 21:10) *
...an alternative approach, which would be to try and encourage the police to summon you for failing to furnish...Do the police currently have any evidence that you caused or permitted the driver to drive the vehicle in question?


The OP said in their opener that they'd provided the friend's details in reply to the first S172, which is why they've got this shiny new questionnaire now.



Curious, I think you may have mis-interpreted my question - I appreciate the OP has given his American friend's details, what I am interested to know, is whether the OP has told the police that he PERMITTED the American friend to drive the vehicle or indeed anything else about the circumstances of the American friend coming to be behind the wheel of this vehicle.

BB Law
TheGeek
QUOTE (AFCNEAL @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 21:02) *
so was he insured on your Golf? It is immaterial what policy he had of his own as permisison from the OWNER (or keeper) was conditional upon the driver being isured on the car being repaired. So if he's on yours - problem solved, but if not he was driving without permission..........


If the OP was the keeper then he could give permission, so driving the car without permission is not an issue (though insurance might still be)

If the OP was not the keeper then he was in no position to give permission and therefore cannot be done for not doing so

Or am I missing something?

CuriousOrange
QUOTE (BB Law @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 21:10) *
...an alternative approach, which would be to try and encourage the police to summon you for failing to furnish...Do the police currently have any evidence that you caused or permitted the driver to drive the vehicle in question?
QUOTE (BB Law @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 21:53) *
Curious, I think you may have mis-interpreted my question - I appreciate the OP has given his American friend's details, what I am interested to know, is whether the OP has told the police that he PERMITTED the American friend to drive the vehicle or indeed anything else about the circumstances of the American friend coming to be behind the wheel of this vehicle.



I guess I have, since:

- I can't see how the OP can possibly get from having named the American friend to failing to furnish, and

- the OP's apparently clear as day sat next to the driver, from which most people would reasonably infer that the driver is driving with permission.

BB Law
Curious

At the moment the police seem to suspect the person named doesn't exist, hence the reason for the further correspondence, it is entirely possible that they will choose to pursue a FTF in such circumstances.

How do the police know it is the OP that is in the passenger seat? How do the police know the OP was in a position to grant permission to use the vehicle? How do the police know the OP granted permission?

The police will issue a summons for whichever offence they think will be easier to prove, the OP may wish to consider responding in a way that could encourage a summons for the FTF offence on the basis he may have better chance of defending that one!

You are assuming the police know what we know.

BB Law
CuriousOrange
The easier offence to prove will be the no-insurance one. Why would the police ever think that the FtF would have a chance without any evidence that the friend doesn't exist (not least because he does)?

The very fact that it's so difficult to prove that a named foreign driver doesn't exist is the reason they go down this insurance route in the first place, seeing any hole as a goal. When they think they can prove a named driver is non-existent they tend to go for PCoJ instead, I believe. The possibility of them going to FtF just because they're suspicious is somewhere close to zero.

As for the permission matter, it's got nothing to do with what the police currently know; in the absence of a reported TWOC they'll assume that permission was given unless told otherwise, ditto for the court (otherwise no permitting-offence of this type could be successfully prosecuted without an open admission that permission was given). The OP can't tell either otherwise without lying, and in court that would probably include denying it was him in the photo unless you think he can give evidence from behind a curtain, even metaphorically.

Your original advice made far more sense.

BB Law
Curious

My posts are not advice, I simply observed two potential alternative ways in which it would be possible to approach this situation. There is no right or wrong answer as to which (if any) of these routes should be taken. However, if this was me I would probably choose my second option, the Police/CPS don't like hard work and I think in these circumstances it would be more difficult than usual to prove that the OP caused or permitted the American friend to use this vehicle. The fact the OP has identified his American friend as the driver (in the absence of any other information) does not in my view go very far in terms of proving it was the OP who permitted him to drive that vehicle.

I don't think the fact the OP hasn't reported the vehicle as TWOC, necessarily proves he permitted the American friend to use it.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree!

BB Law
jobo
QUOTE (CuriousOrange @ Thu, 15 Sep 2011 - 09:01) *
The easier offence to prove will be the no-insurance one. Why would the police ever think that the FtF would have a chance without any evidence that the friend doesn't exist (not least because he does)?

The very fact that it's so difficult to prove that a named foreign driver doesn't exist is the reason they go down this insurance route in the first place, seeing any hole as a goal. When they think they can prove a named driver is non-existent they tend to go for PCoJ instead, I believe. The possibility of them going to FtF just because they're suspicious is somewhere close to zero.

As for the permission matter, it's got nothing to do with what the police currently know; in the absence of a reported TWOC they'll assume that permission was given unless told otherwise, ditto for the court (otherwise no permitting-offence of this type could be successfully prosecuted without an open admission that permission was given). The OP can't tell either otherwise without lying, and in court that would probably include denying it was him in the photo unless you think he can give evidence from behind a curtain, even metaphorically.

Your original advice made far more sense.


cc i think intrinsically honest, literal people like your good self sometimes miss the option of ''unintentionally'' misleading others or allowing them to miss lead themselves, there is an option for any reply sent by the op to appear to qualify or with draw the nomination, with out actually doing so, or altering the fact that a legal nomination has already taken place. this MAY provoke the not very bright recipient of the letter to charge for FtF, for which the op would have a bolt on defence, if they went for permitting, its far from clear if the op did permit if he was empowered to permit the driving of the car by the yank

we dont know who insurance he was driving the car on, his own or the loan companies insurance, it may be that if its the companies insurance, his friend was covered any way

but we are getting ahead of ourselves, we need to f9ind is the friend was insured in his own right before we ger a lot deeper into this

in retrospect, i dont trhink the scammers letter is badly written, more an attempt to get him to incriminate himself re permitting and should therefore be answered with extreme caution if at all
sgtdixie
Just to clarify what the Police do in these circumstances. The OP nominates a foreign national. Provided there is sufficient detail for the Police to fully identify the nominated person then basic checks are done. That is UKBA will be asked to provide information confirming that person was in the country and the vehicle insurance checked to see if the nominated person is covered.

If the person nominated is contactable they will be written to and a s172 served on them if possible. If they deny being the driver or refuse to reply the Police can go down various routes from FTF to PCOJ. If the nominated person exists and is traced and admits driving then the issue of insurance arises.

If the OP is sat in the passenger seat it would be unlikley that they could deny giving permission for the driver to drive given the OP is clear that they needed someone else to drive. This raises the issue of TWOC.

If the OP states they didn't permit the driver to drive and the lease company agreement is restrictive as to who can drive TWOC can be considered.

As for the thought that the Police/CPS don't like hard work; curious as this is exactly the sort of enquiry that we used to love especially as some people end up with PCOJ charges. You should also be aware that what you have done is done numerous times and the Police are quite used to investigating it.

You may also find that if the Police believe you they may well ask for a statement in order to prosecute your friend. You cannot be compelled to give one, (but even if you don't you can be compelled to give evidence at court) but if you decline it will almost certainly give rise to the belief (whether right or wrong) you have lied.

You have done the honest thing in naming the real driver, i suggest if he is really a friend he would not want to put you at risk of prosecution for a relatively minor matter.

If you are mistaken in who you named I suggest trying to salvage the situation by contacting the Police before it spirals out of hand.
AFCNEAL
QUOTE (TheGeek @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 22:50) *
QUOTE (AFCNEAL @ Wed, 14 Sep 2011 - 21:02) *
so was he insured on your Golf? It is immaterial what policy he had of his own as permisison from the OWNER (or keeper) was conditional upon the driver being isured on the car being repaired. So if he's on yours - problem solved, but if not he was driving without permission..........


If the OP was the keeper then he could give permission, so driving the car without permission is not an issue (though insurance might still be)

If the OP was not the keeper then he was in no position to give permission and therefore cannot be done for not doing so

Or am I missing something?




It may be in fact that's missing something. If I lend you my car, I do not, expressly or by implication, give you the option to lend it on to someone else. It seems the garage loaned a car to the OP on the basis that s/he plus any driver at the time insured on the OP's own car was permitted and insured. If the U.S, friend wa sone of those people - the Plod don't have a leg to stand on. If not, the American friend is gulity of TWOC and uninsured, the OP of permitting?
jobo
I( see SD has played the ''old'' false dicotamy, you were either permitting or it was TWOCed card, much beloved by the police, ignoring as ussual the stat defence to a TWOC charge that you BELIEVED you had or would be given permision
Greek God
Not wishing to hijack anything but what is the law with regard to letting your vehicle be driven by someone else? Where does it say one has to physically see a friends policy, surely if the question "do you have insurance?"has been asked and answered in the affirmative then the onus is on the friend to provide proof? IE at what lengths must you go to be deemed to have fulfilled your obligation not to allow your car to driven without insurance?
jobo
the law doesn't say you have to see the policy,, which is unfortunate, as even if you did see the policy you could still find your self in bother if the cert wasn't valid

its a strict liability offence, it happens and your guilty, unless you have a duress of circumstances case to present,it may be that you would get an AD, or special reason not to endorse or even not in the public interest if you were deliberately mislead with a fake policy, but thats in the lap of the gods

the only way to protect yourself is to make the existence of insurance an explicit condition of the loan, pref in writing, meaning that it is now being driven with out your permission, and at least theoretically the car is TWOCed

in my time here no one has ever come on and said, ''''I lent my car on the express condition that valid insurance is in place, its always seeking an assurance with;; ''you are insured, arnt you ?'' which would seem not to be sufficient
jimster
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Thu, 15 Sep 2011 - 18:27) *
If the OP states they didn't permit the driver to drive and the lease company agreement is restrictive as to who can drive TWOC can be considered.


Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 178


QUOTE
Unless a court is satisfied that the accused acted in the reasonable belief that he had lawful authority, or in the reasonable belief that the owner would, in the circumstances of the case, have given consent if he had been asked for it, the accused shall not be liable to be convicted of the offence.


I think that there would be a strong defence to any charge of driving without consent in this case. The OP did not or could not give authority, and the friend had reasonable belief that under the circumstances, consent would have been given.



southpaw82
QUOTE (jimster @ Thu, 22 Sep 2011 - 08:18) *
Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 178


QUOTE
Unless a court is satisfied that the accused acted in the reasonable belief that he had lawful authority, or in the reasonable belief that the owner would, in the circumstances of the case, have given consent if he had been asked for it, the accused shall not be liable to be convicted of the offence.


I think that there would be a strong defence to any charge of driving without consent in this case. The OP did not or could not give authority, and the friend had reasonable belief that under the circumstances, consent would have been given.


Except the offence wasn't in Scotland. You want s. 12(6) of the Theft Act 1968

QUOTE
A person does not commit an offence under this section by anything done in the belief that he has lawful authority to do it or that he would have the owner’s consent if the owner knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it.

jimster
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 22 Sep 2011 - 19:07) *
Except the offence wasn't in Scotland. You want s. 12(6) of the Theft Act 1968

QUOTE
A person does not commit an offence under this section by anything done in the belief that he has lawful authority to do it or that he would have the owner’s consent if the owner knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it.





Ooops blush.gif

Thanks Southpaw
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.