Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • DJBenson
    • By DJBenson 24th Aug 16, 10:51 AM
    • 362Posts
    • 228Thanks
    DJBenson
    Hire company paid private PCN against their own terms and conditions (ARVAL again!)
    • #1
    • 24th Aug 16, 10:51 AM
    Hire company paid private PCN against their own terms and conditions (ARVAL again!) 24th Aug 16 at 10:51 AM
    Morning all

    I've just had an email from Arval stating that they have (under the terms of my agreement) paid a private parking company charge and will add the amount of the charge to my next rental invoice.

    Here's the slightly longer story:

    My wife borrowed my car in July to take my toddler to an event and parked on a private car park. She paid for a ticket but entered her own registration number rather than that of the vehicle she was driving. The parking enforcement company (Civil Enforcement of Liverpool) have obtained the details of the owner and sent the charge notice to the lease company. Arval have in turn paid the invoice on my behalf and written to me to tell me that they will add the charge to my next invoice. I think I might have the ticket issued on the day in question but as we're not talking about appealing the charge with the parking company but appealing against Arval's unfair treatment of the charge I don't think that adds any weight to the case.

    The infraction occurred on the 19/07/2016 and the PCN was issued on the 17/08/2016 and received by email this morning the 24/08/2016.

    I've read other threads about contesting the charge with Arval (as it's pointless going via the parking company now the fine is paid) but the thread stopped abrubptly with no outcome.

    Are there any timescales between alleged infraction and the date of issue of the PCN? It's almost a month between the two but I wondered if there was any timescales as there are for speeding fines etc?

    Arval in their email state that 'as per my agreement' they have paid the fine, however I've dug out a copy of my agreement and it says no such thing. It infact states the opposite that they have no responsibility for such fines so how can they claim to have made the payment as per my agreement yet the agreement I signed makes no such assertions?

    Is there any merit in going down the route of reclaiming the DD and paying only the agreed hire charges - either whilst I go through the process of contesting the charge or until they get bored of me doing it?

    Any other idea's?
    Last edited by DJBenson; 08-09-2016 at 1:35 AM. Reason: Naming and shaming hire company
Page 6
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 16, 3:01 PM
    • 38,399 Posts
    • 49,839 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would ask what leads them to conclude ''in the overwhelming majority of cases, drivers have no valid grounds to appeal the charge''?!

    That is completely false - almost any PCN, Council or private - can be appealed and won. Private ones are almost always unfair and the Government is looking to regulate the sector again, in view of the way they operate on the edge of the law and issue spurious charges.

    And why does he talk about 'passing on responsibility for fines and penalties'? This wasn't one and they had NO 'responsibility'. It was never theirs to pay or decide about at all.

    And on what basis does he have evidence to say the following because NO PCNs can be appealed once paid (whether they be Council penalties, or private fake ones):

    ''your assertion that Arval's action in settling the PCN automatically removed your right of appeal is not correct. Payment of a PCN does not preclude the recipient from challenging the charges through due process''.

    Oh yes it does.

    Make sure they know NEVER to pay a PCN 'on your behalf' again. You could even report them to the BVRLA for the misleading reply which is wrong on so many counts and made the assumption that the PCN was Arval's liability in the first place, which it was not due to it being a non-POFA (driver liability only) one.

    Have the BVRLA missed the fact that many private PCNs are not 'keeper liability' ones and ONLY the business of the driver, not the lease firm?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 16-09-2016 at 5:35 PM.
    PCN in a private car park in England/Wales? DON'T PAY IT BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    USE THE 'FORUM JUMP' ON RIGHT, GO TO THE PARKING TICKETS FORUM. READ THE 'NEWBIES' THREAD.
    Do NOT read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DJBenson
    • By DJBenson 16th Sep 16, 3:07 PM
    • 362 Posts
    • 228 Thanks
    DJBenson
    I'm absolutely gobsmacked that not only have they failed to acknowledge that they were "at fault" here, but that their response on the matter is full of the factual inaccuracies upon which my whole case was based! Just goes to show the rot runs right through the company.

    I'll take time to reflect on the response and come up with my counter response because as you kind of mention above, this isn't just about not paying THIS PCN, it's about not paying ANY PCN's.

    I'm not sure about their admin fee, whether they can charge that for passing on my details and then perhaps refund it on successful appeal - they make no mention of winning an appeal (indeed they seem to be of the opinion that if you get issued a PCN then you must have been in the wrong).
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 16th Sep 16, 3:08 PM
    • 1,585 Posts
    • 2,144 Thanks
    fisherjim
    Well ARVAL have backed down in so much as they've agreed to settle their invoice 'as a gesture of good will' but they have failed to acknowledge any of the points I put to them and the letter still seems to imply that their terms and conditions overrule legislation.



    Originally posted by DJBenson
    They actually still don't get any of it do they?
    Why on earth would they need to pass on your contract details to a third party?
    To quote the words of the great Count Arthur Strong "You Couldn't make it up"
    • pappa golf
    • By pappa golf 16th Sep 16, 3:15 PM
    • 4,366 Posts
    • 3,749 Thanks
    pappa golf
    the guy keeps going on about "issuing AUTHORITY"


    def , don,t get if does he
    Have YOU had to walk 500 miles?
    Were you advised to walk 500 more?
    You could be entitled to compensation.
    Call the Pro Claimers NOW.
    • DJBenson
    • By DJBenson 16th Sep 16, 3:24 PM
    • 362 Posts
    • 228 Thanks
    DJBenson
    Anyone got a feel for a percentage of disputed invoices to successful outcome? A finger-in-the-air from your experience on the forum is good enough seeing as ARVAL have made a sweeping generalisation by saying 'in the overwhelming majority of cases, drivers have no valid grounds to appeal the charge' - I put this down to either lack of awareness or apathy.
    • Herzlos
    • By Herzlos 16th Sep 16, 3:27 PM
    • 3,625 Posts
    • 3,133 Thanks
    Herzlos
    I think it's more from the naive POV where people try to use mitigating circumstances & have no leg to stand on. Reasons like "There were no other spaces" or "I was only 10 minutes late" aren't valid reasons. Most people don't know to appeal on the legal aspects re contracts, signage and POFA compliance.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 16th Sep 16, 3:30 PM
    • 954 Posts
    • 1,131 Thanks
    Castle
    Anyone got a feel for a percentage of disputed invoices to successful outcome?.
    Originally posted by DJBenson
    Based on the 2014/15 Annual report for POPLA, 44.32% of appeals against CEL are won by the motorist, (see page 38):-
    https://popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla_annualreport_2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2
    • DJBenson
    • By DJBenson 16th Sep 16, 3:32 PM
    • 362 Posts
    • 228 Thanks
    DJBenson
    Based on the 2014/15 Annual report for POPLA, 44.32% of appeals against CEL are won by the motorist, (see page 38):-
    https://popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla_annualreport_2015.pdf?sfvrsn=2
    Originally posted by Castle
    You legend
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 16th Sep 16, 3:40 PM
    • 2,821 Posts
    • 3,691 Thanks
    Half_way
    RE complaint in relation to parking charge notice.
    I note the details in your letter, however you have either been seriously mislead, or the letter in itself is misleading.
    You stated that
    A:" in the overwhelming majority of cases, Drivers have no valid grounds to appeal the charge and Arvals actions bring welcome closure"

    and B: In order for Arval to pass on the responsibility of fines and penalties in incurred to the driver ( where allowed by the issuing authority"


    First of All, As you should be aware the private parking industry is completely Un-regulated Parking companies can request data from the DVLA on the condition that they belong to a recognised Accredited Trade Association, these trade Associations being the British Parking Association limited who run/control the POPLA appeals service, which in itself is far from indepentdant, and the International Parking Community (IPC) who run, and control the so called Independent appeals service, which shares directors with the IPC,and the Solicitors company Gladstones, namely a Mr Will Hurley and Mike Davies ( i suggest you google their names for more information )

    As the Private parking industry is un regulated, news of bad practice is extremely common, including but not limited to adjusting photographs in order to falsely create a parking charge notice where nothing happened, un ambiguous and questionable sign age, badly laid out car parks, in accurate and fault ridden ANPR systems that are biased against the motorist ( google Double dip parking charge) and so on ( the list is potentially endless)

    And in the case of B, private parking companies can no issue fines or penalties

    For your information this case is being discussed on the money saving expert site at http://!!!!!!!.com/hhrkd3a from which it appears that your own Managing Director Benoit Dilly, is also a member of the Committee of the management of the BVLRA who's own advice and guidelines you appear to be disregarding.


    As a result of your incompetence in dealing with this you have caused me a great deal of stress, as well as a large amount of time lost as a result, however as a gesture of goodwill i will be prepared to let this matter come to a close on the condition that you will be putting measures in place to rectify your shortcomings, and to fully re-fund all your other customers to who you have wrongfully charged for a private parking charge notice or similar.
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • Castle
    • By Castle 16th Sep 16, 3:41 PM
    • 954 Posts
    • 1,131 Thanks
    Castle
    You legend
    Originally posted by DJBenson
    Thanks, the strange thing is back in the 2013/14 year the motorist won 70.75% against CEL.
    https://popla.co.uk/docs/default-source/default-document-library/popla_annualreport_2014.pdf?sfvrsn=2
    • Edna Basher
    • By Edna Basher 16th Sep 16, 3:46 PM
    • 424 Posts
    • 1,076 Thanks
    Edna Basher
    Anyone got a feel for a percentage of disputed invoices to successful outcome? A finger-in-the-air from your experience on the forum is good enough seeing as ARVAL have made a sweeping generalisation by saying 'in the overwhelming majority of cases, drivers have no valid grounds to appeal the charge' - I put this down to either lack of awareness or apathy.
    Originally posted by DJBenson
    I put this down to total ignorance.

    In the case of hire vehicles, ARVAL should appreciate that it should be the hirer (not the driver) appealing the charge. The hirer nearly always* has a cast-iron valid ground to appeal i.e. the PPC failing to deliver a non-compliant Notice to Hirer.

    In our experience, 100% of properly-formulated disputes against a Notice to Hirer have a successful outcome.

    * Other than Athena ANPR Ltd, no other PPC bothers to send copies of hire documents with their Notices to Hirer. No documents = POFA fail.
    Last edited by Edna Basher; 16-09-2016 at 3:55 PM.
    • DJBenson
    • By DJBenson 16th Sep 16, 4:03 PM
    • 362 Posts
    • 228 Thanks
    DJBenson
    At the risk of ranting, how's this for a response;

    Dear Mr Plunkett

    I thank you for your response dated the 16th of September 2016 and acknowledge the outcome of your investigation, I do however have a number of points to raise with you regarding your responses which clearly show that the issue of paying private parking charges on behalf of customers is deemed to be an acceptable part of normal business for ARVAL UK and show a distinct lack of understanding (or disregard) for the correct procedures which should be followed in such circumstances.

    Firstly, your statement that 'in the overwhelming majority of cases, drivers have no valid grounds to appeal the charge' - this is a massive sweeping generalisation which I presume is based on your own findings of customers of ARVAL UK not challenging ARVAL in their process of paying such these private parking invoices in the same way I have.

    I expect the vast majority of your customers are fleet customers to whom paying the charge is deemed an acceptable trade-off to going through the hassle of proving that the ticket may well have been issued incorrectly. Do not take customer apathy as a basis to make such statements. According to POPLA (the Parking on Private Land Appeals service) 44% of appeals made to Civil Enforcement LTD in 2014/15 resulted in the invoice being overturned - that completely dispels the myth you are purporting with your 'overwhelming majority' statement.

    Secondly, I take great exception to the use of the words 'fines and penalties' as the invoice issued by Civil Enforcement LTD was neither; it was a speculative invoice raised by a private company and cannot under any circumstances be referred to as a 'fine' or a 'penalty' - the law is very clear on that point. Only councils and law enforcement agents (i.e. the police or other agencies working on behalf of the police) can lawfully issue 'fines' or 'penalties'.

    Thirdly, where the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA2012') is relied upon, there is so-called 'keeper liability' whereby ARVAL UK would have been liable but could/should have discharged liability by naming me as the lessee. However, where no keeper liability exists (i.e. where POFA2012 is not relied upon, as is the case with the invoice from Civil Enforcement LTD in this matter) there is only 'driver liability' and as such there was never any liability (legal or otherwise) towards ARVAL UK in this matter and you had no need to settle the invoice 'on my behalf'.

    I am not in a position to comment on whether or not it is lawfully (or morally) right to charge an administration fee for doing what the law requires you to do but I am seeking clarification on this point.

    Fourthly, I would like to reiterate (as I have done many times through the course of this process) that the invoice from Civil Enforcement LTD was a private parking invoice and not a fine or penalty and was issued under no authority at all - so when you mention 'issuing authority' your point is null and void as Civil Enforcement LTD are not an 'issuing authority' they are an unregulated private parking company. Only councils and the police (or their agents) can be classed as issuing authorities (as discussed above in my second point).

    Lastly, your final paragraph on the matter is incorrect. When an invoice with a private parking company is settled, the company has no requirement to follow the appeals process (and again you use 'issuing authority' incorrectly). Very few private parking companies will entertain an appeal post-payment. Quite simply, once they have their money, they consider the matter closed, so I stand by my assertion that by interfering in this private matter you ensured that no right to appeal would be granted. This is confirmed by receipt of the letter from Civil Enforcement LTD whereby they state, and I quote “As payment has been received, liability for the Parking Enforcement Notice has been accepted therefore we are unable to provide a POPLA code”. A copy of the letter is attached to this email for your reference.

    In my closing statement I would like to make it absolutely clear that ARVAL UK are, under no circumstances, to settle invoices with private parking companies 'on my behalf'. I have pointed out several times that my terms and conditions ('the agreement') signed at the point of contracting do not allow you to do this, and reliance on implied contract law would see any challenge to your terms come down on the side of the consumer, so I would not rely on implied contract terms to win this particular argument.

    From the responses I have seen from ARVAL UK, it is clear that ARVAL as a company are not aware that a significant number of private parking invoices are not written with any attempt to hold the keeper liable at all. You appear to have assumed that the POFA2012 placed liability upon you as a lease company for the invoices issued by a private parking company such as Civil Enforcement LTD, which is simply not the case. Take for example the following private parking companies;

    APCOA, Civil Enforcement, CP Plus, Excel Parking Services, Highview, MET, Premier Park, Smart Parking, Spring Parking, TPS, VCS, Wing Parking and so on.

    None of these private parking companies rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and as such none of them could have held ARVAL UK liable for the charges they levied. I would like to ask therefor on what basis does ARVAL UK deem themselves to have acted appropriately in interfering, transferring and worse still, paying an invoice from such a company and thus denying my rights as the lessee at the time to any right to appeal with the company? It was quite simply none of your business and of no liability to ARVAL UK whatsoever.

    I would suggest that ARVAL UK urgently seek advice from your trade body the BVRLA and/or your own legal department (although what little information has been passed to me from your legal department suggests they are not equipped to deal with these cases at the moment) as I feel your understanding of the applicable laws and your belief that as a consumer I still had the right to appeal after ARVAL UK arbitrarily paid the private parking company's charge is incorrect and will lead to damage to the ARVAL brand reputation and ultimately loss of customers.

    Once I again I thank you for your response and I look forward to the BVRLA's outcome - I will however be picking up the points I have raised above in relation to your response directly with the BVRLA as I believe some of your responses may be a cause for concern to your trade body and I will be asking them to review the response and their stance on the situation as a whole once they reach their own outcome.

    Yours sincerely,

    <REMOVED>

    Encl. Response from Civil Enforcement LTD re: declination of appeal.
    Last edited by DJBenson; 22-09-2016 at 2:24 PM. Reason: Updated with final draft of response sent to ARVAL
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 16th Sep 16, 4:50 PM
    • 35,484 Posts
    • 71,548 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    This is civil not criminal law, so lawful/unlawful should be used instead of legal/illegal.

    There are a number of grammatical and typographical errors that need sorting out as well.

    I also suggest you let the experts here comment on it before you send it.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • DJBenson
    • By DJBenson 16th Sep 16, 4:56 PM
    • 362 Posts
    • 228 Thanks
    DJBenson
    Typed in haste (and in Notepad). Removed typos where I spotted them and replaced legal for lawful where I thought it appropriate.

    Post above is updated to reflect the amendments.

    The response finished abruptly as I wasn't clear what angle I could take them to task so far as the BVRLA were concerned so pointers on that welcome.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Sep 16, 5:53 PM
    • 38,399 Posts
    • 49,839 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It is 'Civil Enforcement' not 'Civil Enforcements' so change it throughout if you haven't already.

    There is a 'not' in there that needs removing near the end.

    I would also remove this:

    Furthermore, the legislation on private parking is very clear, that the registered keeper (i.e. ARVAL UK) are responsible for paying the charges unless you discharge liability to the lessee.
    ...because that is NOT the case with a Civil Enforcement charge and you kind of unpick your own argument earlier on, by saying on the one hand Arval were never liable for it (true) but on the other, they are responsible (they were not). I would avoid saying what they are 'required' to do under legislation which never applied here.

    I think I would ask the question (something like this):


    Are Arval and the BVRLA unaware that a significant number of private parking charges are issued with no attempt at all at compliance with the POFA 2012 Schedule 4? You seem to have wrongly assumed that the POFA 2012 created an onerous liability for lease firms receiving any private parking charge and seem unaware that many operators do not comply with that Act, deliberately choosing not to use the applicable wording to hold a keeper liable.

    Arval are making an untrue and dangerous assumption by believing these charges are your liability to transfer in the first place. For example, where the Notice comes from the likes of:

    APCOA
    Civil Enforcement
    CP Plus
    Excel Parking Services
    Highview
    NCP
    Premier Park,
    Smart Parking,
    Spring Parking
    TPS
    VCS
    Wing Parking

    ...to name just a dozen of those who do NOT use the POFA 2012 and cannot hold you liable (and their Notices do not attempt to) on what basis does Arval consider that you have any business interfering and (worse) actually paying and denying the driver their appeal over a charge that was never your business or liability at all?

    I suggest that Arval need to seek urgent advice from the BVRLA and/or your own Legal Department because your understanding of the applicable law/facts regarding 'keeper liability' and about a consumer 'still being able to appeal' after you have arbitrarily paid their charge is incorrect and will cause consumers loss. Since the vast majority of private parking charges issued by this 'industry' (which has been said by the AA, the RAC and the Consumers Association to operate at the very edge of the law) are deemed so unfair that the Government is looking to regulate the sector again - a fact regarding which the BVRLA will be aware - your wrong assumption that in most cases 'there is no valid appeal' is shameful misinformation.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 16-09-2016 at 6:03 PM.
    PCN in a private car park in England/Wales? DON'T PAY IT BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    USE THE 'FORUM JUMP' ON RIGHT, GO TO THE PARKING TICKETS FORUM. READ THE 'NEWBIES' THREAD.
    Do NOT read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • DJBenson
    • By DJBenson 16th Sep 16, 6:13 PM
    • 362 Posts
    • 228 Thanks
    DJBenson
    Thanks CM. I've taken your advice and added some additional content as suggested above. The post above now reflects the current version.

    I'll leave the response in situ and send in a couple of days if there's no further advice.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 16th Sep 16, 7:46 PM
    • 10,272 Posts
    • 15,149 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    CAVEAT I typed this a couple of hours ago, but omitted to post it when visitors arrived. I've not checked in detail what others have said subsequently, but for what it's worth, take from it what you want.

    HTH

    Where the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA2012') is relied upon, there is so-called 'keeper liability' whereby ARVAL UK would have been liable but should have discharged liability by naming me as the lessee. However, where no keeper liability exists (i.e. where POFA2012 is not relied upon, as is the case with the invoice from Civil Enforcements LTD in this matter) there is only 'driver liability' and as such there was never any liability (legal or otherwise) towards ARVAL UK in this matter and you had no need to settle the invoice 'on my behalf'. Further more, there is absolutely no need to release ANY contractual information other than a name and address of the lessee for the private parking company to redirect their invoice to. In the case of no lease company involvement, the private parking company (being members of an accredited trade body) could request the name and address of the registered keeper from the DVLA and the DVLA would release that information to the private parking company - there is absolutely no difference in this scenario to the one where you should have released my name and address to the private parking company (and for which you are happy to do for a charge - are you saying the data protection act only applies when I refuse to pay for your optional service?)
    I don't think you're quite correct. Please have a read of PoFA Schedule 4, paras 13 and 14 about the documents a hire company must pass to the PPC to remove them from potential liability.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted

    Lastly, your final paragraph on the matter is incorrect. When an invoice with a private parking company is settled, the company has no requirement to follow the appeals process (and again you use 'issuing authority' incorrectly). Very few private parking companies will entertain an appeal post-payment, only ParkingEye is known to allow such appeals but they are under no obligation to do so. Quite simply, once they have their money, they consider the matter closed, so I stand by my assertion that by interfering in this private matter you ensured that no right to appeal would be granted.
    I'd leave out the reference to PE considering post-payment appeals as that's not a standard position of theirs, rather the converse in most cases. You making that statement may suggest to Arval that they pay PE invoices, which does no favours to other hirers - and I would guess that the majority of PPC PCNs to Arval come from PE.

    Otherwise a good letter. Others may want to input, so give it a couple of days to reflect and allow other contributions.

    Glad it's all over for you (other than continuing to pull Arval's tail!).
    Last edited by Umkomaas; 16-09-2016 at 7:48 PM.
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 16th Sep 16, 11:18 PM
    • 1,832 Posts
    • 2,502 Thanks
    nigelbb
    They actually still don't get any of it do they?
    Why on earth would they need to pass on your contract details to a third party?
    Originally posted by fisherjim
    Because if they don't pass on details then as the registered keeper they may be liable for unpaid parking charges incurred by the driver if POFA is complied with. It's therefore in their interests to pass on details so that they are not liable which makes charging an admin fee particularly cheeky.
    • DJBenson
    • By DJBenson 22nd Sep 16, 2:12 PM
    • 362 Posts
    • 228 Thanks
    DJBenson
    Received a letter this morning from ARVAL containing a copy of a response from Civil Enforcement LTD responding to my request for a POPLA code. The letter states;

    We refer to your recent correspondence.

    As payment has been received, liability for the Parking Enforcement Notice has been accepted therefore we are unable to provide a POPLA Code.

    Yours faithfully,

    Civil Enforcement LTD
    Ties in nicely with my response back to them - contained in the post above.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Sep 16, 2:16 PM
    • 38,399 Posts
    • 49,839 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Arval seem clueless, proving their own misunderstanding about appeals and they've paid a PCN they were never liable for - doh!
    PCN in a private car park in England/Wales? DON'T PAY IT BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    USE THE 'FORUM JUMP' ON RIGHT, GO TO THE PARKING TICKETS FORUM. READ THE 'NEWBIES' THREAD.
    Do NOT read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim's to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,067Posts Today

6,050Users online

Martin's Twitter