POPLA Decisions

Coupon-mad · 11 September 2016 at 2:00PM

Template POPLA appeal point for all cases (except where the PPC owns the car park site which is rare and you should presume is not the case):

No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

Coupon-mad · 11 September 2016 at 2:01PM

Here is a 'Retail Park' POPLA appeal point (mainly for ParkingEye because they use 'User Manuals' and have exemption clauses). The 'genuine customer exemption' argument won at old POPLA once or twice so why not include it too, IF RELEVANT TO YOUR CASE OF COURSE.

The part in red is for ParkingEye cases ONLY, where the rejection letter has banged on about a secret 'criteria':

'Genuine customer' exemption criteria unevidenced and not explained to drivers.

This parking operator offered parking to shoppers of the retailers. It is not disputed that the occupants of the car were genuine shoppers. Notwithstanding that the driver has not been identified, we supplied receipts with the first appeal because I understand from my research of other cases, that this operator supplies a 'User Manual' or 'Site Manual' to all retailers which allows for 'genuine customers' to have their charges cancelled (regardless of whether a shopper overstayed) if the customer complains and show receipts.

It is noted that the contractual terms on the signage fail to advise customers of this secret clause or the ceiling of 'total spending' above which a parking charge will be cancelled, so visitors have no way of knowing these terms.

This evidence is vital because the operator rejected my appeal on the following basis, yet I have reason to believe the charge should have been cancelled:

'You have provided evidence of purchase. However, please be advised that this did not meet the discretionary criteria set by the landowner in this case. We are therefore writing to advise that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and you have now reached the end of the internal appeals procedure. This is because you have not provided sufficient evidence to show that you did not break the terms and conditions on the signage.'

So what is 'sufficient evidence'? A receipt for £10, or £50, or one from each store but with a higher spend than we showed them? ParkingEye are silent on the 'secret exemption clause' figure and have made my position impossible at appeal stage by not disclosing to customers what that 'discretionary criteria' is. Because of this, neither POPLA nor I can judge whether they have correctly applied it.

I contend that the occupants of the car did spend enough in the retailers for the PCN to be cancelled (copy receipts attached as proof of this submission) and if the operator disagrees I require sight of the full 'discretionary criteria' clause from the User Manual which forms a vital part of their contract with the landowner and agreement with the retailers. This will need to be a true copy and show the circumstances under which the operator will cancel a charge for a genuine customer, including any defined total spend limit where the clause applies.

POPLA please note: this is NOT a point of mitigation, this is a case of this operator failing to evidence that they have correctly applied the 'criteria' (whatever it might be) in the site/User Manual and if they cannot evidence that they did, then the parking charge cannot be considered 'properly given' at the point of refusing my appeal. A Site/User Manual sets out the criteria under which the parking enforcement operates from the retailers' informational point of view and it forms a vital part of the landowner contract which is relevant to this appeal.

If this operator remains silent on any appeal point then it is deemed accepted.

Coupon-mad · 11 September 2016 at 2:02PM

This is a 'no keeper liability' template example for cases where the PPC issued only a windscreen PCN but did not follow it with a NTK:

A compliant Notice to Keeper was never served - no Keeper Liability can apply.

This operator has not fulfilled the 'second condition' for keeper liability as defined in Schedule 4 and as a result, they have no lawful authority to pursue any parking charge from myself, as a registered keeper appellant. There is no discretion on this matter. If Schedule 4 mandatory documents are not served at all, or in time (or if the document omits any prescribed wording) then keeper liability simply does not apply.

The wording in the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 is as follows:

''Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:
4(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. (2) The right under this paragraph applies only if

(a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6*, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met;

*Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:
6(1) 'The second condition is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor) - (a)has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8. This is re-iterated further 'If a notice to driver has been given, any subsequent notice to keeper MUST be given in accordance with paragraph 8.'

The NTK must have been delivered to the registered keeper's address within the 'relevant period' which is highlighted as a total of 56 days beginning with the day after that on which any notice to driver was given. As this operator has evidently failed to serve a NTK, not only have they chosen to flout the strict requirements set out in PoFA 2012, but they have consequently failed to meet the second condition for keeper liability. Clearly I cannot be held liable to pay this charge as the mandatory series of parking charge documents were not properly given.

***********************************************************

Also adding here a ParkingEye POPLA appeal point to use as point #1 (followed by the one shown in post #2342 above, followed by unclear signs and no landowner authority).

Now, this is ONLY relevant where you have not implied who was driving and were lucky enough to get their version of PCN which has a blank space and nothing about the POFA 2012, EXACTLY like this example:

http://imgur.com/a/FOfr8

If yours is EXACTLY like that near the bottom with nothing about POFA, you have struck lucky. Here is your wording:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71507681#Comment_71507681

NB:
If yours has an extra paragraph in the middle of that blurb, about the POFA/keeper liability after 29 days then you CANNOT use that argument unless you can prove that the PCN was received after 14 days (POPLA will not listen to any argument of non-compliance of wording of PE's normal 'POFA version' PCNs, IMHO).

HTH

Coupon-mad · 11 September 2016 at 2:08PM

Here is a 'no Hirer liability' example to use as point #1 in a POPLA appeal re a company/lease or hire car, as per Edna Basher's post below.

The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA')

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle's hirer, an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA's strict requirements. In this instance, the Operator's Notice to Hirer did not comply.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.

Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper.

The Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents, (a), (b) or (c).

Then choose either of the two paragraphs in this quote, depending on your case:

[Include this additional paragraph if the Notice to Hirer only refers to the Notice to Keeper and not to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper].

Paragraph 14 (5) (b) specifies that the Notice to Hirer must refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. The Operator's Notice to Hirer refers only to the Notice to Keeper, not to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. This is a fundamental omission, especially given that the Operator did not provide me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper as required under Paragraph 14 (2) (a). Consequently, the Operator failed to provide me with much of the information required to be included in the Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 9 (2) of Schedule 4 of POFA.

[Alternatively, include this additional paragraph if the Notice to Hirer does not even refer to the Notice to Keeper].

Paragraph 14 (5) (b) specifies that the Notice to Hirer must refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. The Operator's Notice to Hirer does not even refer to the Notice to Keeper. This is a fundamental omission, especially given that the Operator did not provide me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper as required under Paragraph 14 (2) (a). Consequently, the Operator failed to provide me with much of the information required to be included in the Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 9 (2) of Schedule 4 of POFA.

Should the Operator try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle's keeper (or hirer) can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA's attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's (or hirer's) right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA's assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report, for ease of reference I set out a link as follows:

https://popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla_annualreport_2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

I draw POPLA's particular attention to the section entitled 'Keeper Liability' in which Mr. Greenslade explains that:

'There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.......
.......... However keeper information is obtained, there is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver'.

Through its failure to deliver a compliant Notice to Hirer, the Operator has forfeited its right to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle's hirer. For this reason alone, POPLA may determine that the Operator's claim against me is invalid.

Edna_Basher · 11 September 2016 at 6:10PM

The car park at Brockhill Country Park is owned and provided by Kent County Council (a “traffic authority” for the purposes of POFA) and so I was hoping that POPLA would rule on the “not relevant land” point. Unfortunately this was not the case and so we had to make do with the usual point of non-compliant Notice to Hirer.

POPLA assessment and decision: 01/09/2016

Verification Code: 2411936225

Decision: Successful

Assessor Name: Name removed by MSE Forum Team

Assessor summary of operator case

The appellant failed to display a valid pay and display ticket.

Assessor summary of your case

The site is not relevant land. The operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer (NTH) that was fully compliant with POFA. The operator has not provided any evidence that the alleged contravention took place. The operator does not have landowner authority to operate on the land. Signage at the site inadequate. Signage at the site did not warn drivers that the site, is being monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR). Signage at the site did not notify the driver that the operator intended to use POFA. ANPR at the site is unreliable.

Assessor supporting rational [sic] for decision

The terms and conditions of the site state “You must comply with the following to avoid the issue of a £70 Parking Charge Notice, display a valid ticket clearly inside your vehicle”. The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist because they failed to display a valid pay and display permit. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, [AA11ABC], at Brockhill Country Park, on 26 May 2016, entering at 11:38, and exiting at 13:26, for a total stay of 1 hour 48 minutes.

While the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus solely that the operator have failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer (NTH) that was fully compliant with PoFA , as this supersedes the other aspects of the appeal. As the driver has not been identified in this instance I must ensure that the operator has complied with the requirements of PoFA. The operator has provided evidence of sending a Notice to Keeper and subsequently sending a Notice to Hirer as they have been informed by the keeper that the vehicle had been hired and as such they should not be held liable. Section 14 (1) of PoFA states “If – (a) The creditor is by virtue of paragraph 13(2) unable to exercise the right to recover from the keeper any unpaid charges mentioned in the notice to keeper, and (b) The conditions mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below are met, The creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2) The conditions are that – (a) the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper;” Section 13 (2) defines the relevant documents as: “ (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; and (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of the statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.”

Although the operator may have issued the notice to the hirer along with the above documents, they have not provided these within their evidence to myself. As such I am unable to conclude that the operator has issued this PCN in accordance with the requirements of PoFA. Therefore, I can confirm that the parking charge has been issued incorrectly. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.

I note the appellant had raised additional grounds of appeal, as I have allowed this appeal, I have not taken them into consideration.

I’m a bit peeved with how the assessor, by stating that “although the operator may have issued the notice to the hirer along with the above documents, they have not provided these within their evidence to myself” has cast doubt over our declaration that these documents had not been provided.

For C-M to pick up and paste into Post #2346, here’s a suggested POPLA submission concerning a non-compliant Notice to Hirer.

C-M - feel free to add your words about how there can be no assumption that the appellant was the driver.

The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer, an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA’s strict requirements. In this instance, the Operator’s Notice to Hirer did not comply.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.

Paragraph 14 (2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and (c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper (i.e. the notice that had originally been sent to the lease company (as Registered Keeper)). The Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents.

[Include this additional paragraph if the Notice to Hirer only refers to the Notice to Keeper and not to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper].

Paragraph 14 (5) (b) specifies that the Notice to Hirer must refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. The Operator’s Notice to Hirer refers only to the Notice to Keeper, not to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. This is a fundamental omission, especially given that the Operator did not provide me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper as required under Paragraph 14 (2) (a). Consequently, the Operator failed to provide me with much of the information required to be included in the Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 9 (2) of Schedule 4 of POFA.

[Alternatively, include this additional paragraph if the Notice to Hirer does not even refer to the Notice to Keeper].

Paragraph 14 (5) (b) specifies that the Notice to Hirer must refer the hirer to the information contained in the Notice to Keeper. The Operator’s Notice to Hirer does not even refer to the Notice to Keeper. This is a fundamental omission, especially given that the Operator did not provide me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper as required under Paragraph 14 (2) (a). Consequently, the Operator failed to provide me with much of the information required to be included in the Notice to Keeper under Paragraph 9 (2) of Schedule 4 of POFA.

Should the Operator try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle’s keeper (or hirer) can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA’s attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's (or hirer's) right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA. Although I trust that POPLA's assessors are already very familiar with the contents of this report, for ease of reference I set out a link as follows:

https://popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla_annualreport_2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2

I draw POPLA’s particular attention to the section entitled “Keeper Liability” in which Mr. Greenslade explains that:

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.......
.......... However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver”.

Through its failure to deliver a compliant Notice to Hirer, the Operator has forfeited its right to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s hirer. For this reason alone, POPLA may determine that the Operator’s claim against me is invalid.

mike433 · 15 September 2016 at 12:36AM

Successful appeal against TPS for failure of NTK to comply with PoFA :

original thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5473841

Decision Successful
Assessor Name Name removed by MSE Forum Team
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that driver had parked on site without purchasing a valid ticket or the ticket had expired.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that they are appealing as the registered keeper and not the driver. The appellant claims that the operator has failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
As no driver has been identified, I must firstly address the PoFA 2012. My report will focus solely on the Notice to Keeper, specifically in relation to the PoFA 2012, as this supersedes the other aspects of the appeal. After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle in this instance. The Operator has provided me with a copy of the Notice to Keeper sent to the appellant. As the driver of the vehicle has not been identified, the Notice to Keeper will need to comply with section 9 of PoFA 2012. In PoFA 2012 it states under section 9 that “(2) The notice must - … (f) Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given – (i) The amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) The creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, The creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid.” Having reviewed the Notice to Keeper, I am not satisfied that it contains the wording specified under section 9, (2) (f). As a result, the Notice to keeper does not comply with the regulations set out in PoFA 2012.

Boggy0220 · 15 September 2016 at 11:41PM

Edna,
An interesting point you raise about not being relevant land. I have spoken to KCC and they have confirmed that they own the land but sub-contract the management of the car park to ECP. I have one running from that location regarding an alleged non-payment. A ticket was purchased and displayed and so a suitable appeal with evidence was submitted. To this date there has been no reply from ECP, only an automated email response to say that they had received the appeal and that was nigh on two months ago.

As an aside, the sign located on the right hand side as you enter the driveway does say "camera controlled" but the only place that that ANPR is mentioned is on the ticket machines (This car park is ANPR controlled ) and then in the microdot print of the main signs it goes on to talk about getting details fron DVLA "IF" ANPR is being used.

Edna_Basher · 16 September 2016 at 2:12PM

Hi Boggy

Interesting indeed.

Regardless of who manages it, there's no doubt that the car park is owned and provided by Kent County Council.

Also, ECP's evidence packs indicate that in mid-2015 the contract between KCC and ECP was changed such that random on-site foot patrols were replaced by 24-hour ANPR monitoring. It looks like ECP haven't bothered to update their signs to reflect this change.

I can find no evidence of planning consent being granted for the new ANPR equipment. More importantly, the Government does not allow ANPR to be used in local authority car parks and so ANPR should never have been introduced in the first place.

With regard to your own case, ECP have form for sending letters which mysteriously never arrive.

According to the BPA Code of Practice they should have written to you within 35 days to confirm either that a) they had accepted your challenge and cancelled the PCN or b) they had rejected your challenge and at the same time, providing you with a POPLA Code.

If you create a new thread, we can help you get this one sorted.

ami66 · 16 September 2016 at 7:57PM

Successful appeal V Smart Parking at ASDA Newquay via WHOPLA

We have been appointed by the British Parking Association (“BPA”) to act as an independent appeals body, under the brand of Parking on Private Land Appeals (“POPLA”), in respect of the Appeal and to consider both the Appellants and the Car Park Operator’s positions before providing a decision to the parties. We are not instructed to act on behalf of either party.

We confirm that we have considered the appeal, taking into ccount all of the evidence at hand and applying the prevailing legislation and with reference to the BPA Code of Practice, and have decided to allow the appeal on this occasion. This means that the Appellant does not need to make payment to the Car Park Operator and the Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) must be cancelled.

Reasons for allowing the Appeal

Evidence regarding this POPLA Appeal has been requested from the Car Park Operator and no response has been received. As such, this decision is based on the evidence currently available. The Car Park
Operator has failed to provide sufficient evidence regarding the signage at the site for this POPLA Appeal and therefore the Appeal must be allowed.

To the Appellant

As the Appeal has been allowed, you do not need to make payment of the PCN. The Car Park Operator must cancel the charge and cease all collection activity in relation to this PCN.

To the Car Park Operator

As the Appeal has been allowed, you must now cancel the PCN and cease all collection activity in relation to this PCN.

This is the final decision in this Appeal. We are not able to respond to any future correspondence from either party, nor are we able to provide any information to either party over the telephone.

Yours faithfully
WRIGHT HASSALL LLP
On behalf of Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA)

Coupon-mad · 16 September 2016 at 8:26PM

Evidence regarding this POPLA Appeal has been requested from the Car Park Operator and no response has been received. As such, this decision is based on the evidence currently available.

That needs to be part of a complaint to ISPA, again. They can't impose sanctions on WHOPLA but they have stated that they will be reporting about this in their Annual Report, so they need to see evidence from consumers (even those who won) that WHOPLA were not acting as they should and have been allowing PPCs a second crack at evidence.

The decision should always have been made based on the evidence already available!

Well done though!!

POPLA Decisions

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free