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
    • the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    • By the_wheels_have_fallen_of 23rd Jan 17, 9:58 PM
    • 185Posts
    • 159Thanks
    the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    ECP Appeal Rejected after following MSE Advice
    • #1
    • 23rd Jan 17, 9:58 PM
    ECP Appeal Rejected after following MSE Advice 23rd Jan 17 at 9:58 PM
    Hello Fellow PCN fighters !!

    I received a PCN from Euro Car Parks in December 2016. I appealed on their website as per advice in the newbie section and did not disclose the registered keeper.

    They have written back to me to say that my appeal has been rejected (hard copy letter) and that by law I have to disclose the registered keeper and am to pay their reduced £50 fine.

    I have looked through various threads here and is it correct that my next recourse is to go to POPLA ?

    Thanks !
Page 5
    • the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    • By the_wheels_have_fallen_of 10th Mar 17, 4:54 PM
    • 185 Posts
    • 159 Thanks
    the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    You should certainly complain, using the angle that a procedural error was made because the assessor made a fundamental error in their assessment, as evidenced by other successful appeals for the exact same location using the exact same appeal point (such as POPLA ref. XXXXXXX). Whether you'd get anywhere is another matter.

    A failed POPLA appeal isn't binding on the motorist - the PPC would still have to raise a court claim (and win) to make you pay.
    Originally posted by DoaM
    Great DoaM thanks for your advice. Rob84 and I had same appeals on same appeal pointers, for same site and submitted same day. You can see his thread about it
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Mar 17, 10:06 PM
    • 45,820 Posts
    • 58,806 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would complain and also to ISPA while they still exist for another 2 weeks, get a quick complaint in to add to their numbers!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    • By the_wheels_have_fallen_of 11th Mar 17, 11:42 PM
    • 185 Posts
    • 159 Thanks
    the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    I would complain and also to ISPA while they still exist for another 2 weeks, get a quick complaint in to add to their numbers!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    I've just done a google search, c-m. Does this ISPA have any authority to overturn Popla decisions or is it a quango waste of time ??
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Mar 17, 6:47 PM
    • 45,820 Posts
    • 58,806 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It can't overturn them but can report that they agree with the complainant and identify concerns re POPLA (only available for 2 more weeks!). ISPA were quite good while they lasted, to scrutinise POPLA, but are now (shortly) removed and no-one cares...
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    • By the_wheels_have_fallen_of 12th Mar 17, 7:33 PM
    • 185 Posts
    • 159 Thanks
    the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    It can't overturn them but can report that they agree with the complainant and identify concerns re POPLA (only available for 2 more weeks!). ISPA were quite good while they lasted, to scrutinise POPLA, but are now (shortly) removed and no-one cares...
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks C-M .... in my complaint to Popla tomorrow, shall I mention that I have also alerted the ISPA ?
    • the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    • By the_wheels_have_fallen_of 12th Mar 17, 7:42 PM
    • 185 Posts
    • 159 Thanks
    the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    Btw c-m.... I have now found four appeal upheld with Popla on landowner authority for church farm, Stockton Heath - all with Popla numbers so I'm rather looking forward now to complaining to Popla as well as ISPA... Seeing as planning permission wasn't for charging people or issuing pcns then they can have it too... this lot of sc@mmers can get it ... but they seem tame to some of the other cases I've been following here !!!
    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 12th Mar 17, 8:45 PM
    • 1,902 Posts
    • 2,643 Thanks
    nigelbb
    But one would think, surely Robert Plant is not so down on his luck that he is connected to a BPA member firm...but he is and has been for a good few years:

    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01270612/officers

    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    It's not THE Robert Plant.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Mar 17, 11:14 PM
    • 45,820 Posts
    • 58,806 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    It's not THE Robert Plant.
    Originally posted by nigelbb
    Aha, how can you be sure, Nigel?!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • nigelbb
    • By nigelbb 13th Mar 17, 8:41 AM
    • 1,902 Posts
    • 2,643 Thanks
    nigelbb
    Aha, how can you be sure, Nigel?!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    The Led Zeppelin vocalist is Robert Anthony Plant whereas this particular parking weasel is Robert John Plant.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Mar 17, 10:20 AM
    • 45,820 Posts
    • 58,806 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    And only one can sing...we assume!
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    • By the_wheels_have_fallen_of 13th Mar 17, 10:36 AM
    • 185 Posts
    • 159 Thanks
    the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    At least we are having a bit of fun at ECP's expense !!! @Coupon-Mad - shall I post my proposed complaint to POPLA and the correspondence to ISPA here ?
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 13th Mar 17, 11:40 AM
    • 38,904 Posts
    • 77,636 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    At least we are having a bit of fun at ECP's expense !!! @Coupon-Mad - shall I post my proposed complaint to POPLA and the correspondence to ISPA here ?
    Originally posted by the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    Yes please. Others may be able to add more nails for the budding coffin maker.
    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
    • the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    • By the_wheels_have_fallen_of 13th Mar 17, 11:56 AM
    • 185 Posts
    • 159 Thanks
    the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    Yes please. Others may be able to add more nails for the budding coffin maker.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    Oh bring on the nails, Fruitcake !! I am just re-reading the wall of words that was the POPLA assessor's "decision".... it doesnt even address or respond to the question of "landowner authority" !!!
    • pogofish
    • By pogofish 13th Mar 17, 12:30 PM
    • 7,005 Posts
    • 6,982 Thanks
    pogofish
    Firstly, I want to apologise if I am posting in the wrong section. I joined a couple days ago and have been desperately trying to find out how to post a new thread!
    Originally posted by Priya07
    You also clearly agreed to not hijack other peoples threads..!

    You need to go back and read the Forum Introduction Guide that you confirmed you had read and understood - it explains everything.

    Then carefully read the Newbies Sticky at the top of this forum and start your own thread!
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 13th Mar 17, 1:16 PM
    • 38,904 Posts
    • 77,636 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    You also clearly agreed to not hijack other peoples threads..!

    You need to go back and read the Forum Introduction Guide that you confirmed you had read and understood - it explains everything.

    Then carefully read the Newbies Sticky at the top of this forum and start your own thread!
    Originally posted by pogofish
    They have started their own thread now.
    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
    • the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    • By the_wheels_have_fallen_of 13th Mar 17, 9:46 PM
    • 185 Posts
    • 159 Thanks
    the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    Proposed POPLA Complaint post Appeal decision
    @Fruitcake, @Coupon-mad - here is my proposed complaint to POPLA regarding procedural errors - I will probably have to post it across 2 or 3 posts. Any feedback please or to quote @Fruitcake "any further nails for the budding coffin maker" welcome !!

    You have recently not upheld the above POPLA reference and I now wish to complain to the Lead Adjudicator. I believe that Matthew Yorke, the Assessor, has made a procedural error in not allowing my appeal as Registered Keeper and has made a fundamental error in his assessment. I can evidence POPLA have upheld at least three other cases at Church Farm, Stockton Heath due to the fact that Euro Car Parks have no standing authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, not to pursue charges. This can be referenced, as per my research of successful POPLA appeals in the public domain during the last year (POPLA references 2410986482, 2410337543 and 2413376910)
    In addition, POPLA reference 2410337543, rebuttal submitted on 6 March 2017, the same date as the Appellant’s Rebuttal was successful on this point.


    In addition, I do not believe that my Appeal or Rebuttal to evidence provided by ECP has been considered properly as follows:
    1. The Appellant stated: The Operator has NOT shown that the individual that they are pursuing is in fact liable for the charge

    Mr Yorke states in his decision and assessment dated 8 March 2016 that “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 and the operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in this instance”. He then goes on to state: “Having reviewed the evidence provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper is complaint with the requirements of PoFA 2012”. No complaint was made by the Appellant about the NTK compliance and clearly, POPLA cannot demonstrate that they have adequately trained their Adjudicators in basic law and I again state that In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but was exercising my right not to name that person.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge.



    2. The Appellant stated: Euro Car Parks have no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.
    As my research from successful POPLA appeals for the same car park, within the space of less than 12 months shows, at least three POPLA appeals on Landowner Authority have been upheld POPLA references 2410986482, 2410337543 and 2413376910


    I assert that the evidence provided by ECP does not show landowner authority. The evidence pack in Section 6 that was provided by ECP says that the Landowner Agreement dated 26 February 2013 clearly shows “landowner authority” from Burley Developments; yet what has been provided in Figure 3 is “Appendix A of the BPA Code of Practice” dated 29 October 2016.
    In addition, having researched information in the public domain regarding planning permission sought by Euro Car Parks in 2011 with Warrington Council, it is clear that Euro Car Parks do not have any landowner authority to form contracts with drivers at Church Farm, Stockton Heath nor to pursue charges. I quote from Euro Car Parks’ original planning application:


    The site is the car park for Church Farm Retail Park which has a number of retail shops and restaurants around the car park. The site is managed by Burley Development Group. The ANPR will be used to monitor any entry and exit to the site. This information will be used to see the flow of traffic within the car park and allow retailers to identify busy shopping periods. It will also be used as a security measure to monitor vehicle registrations.”


    In addition, I have complained to the DVLA as Euro Car Parks have no landowner or legal authority to pursue charges at this car park and a Breach of the Data Protection Act has occurred which I will complain to the DVLA for breach of Kadoe Contract.


    I have also complained to the Landowner, Burley Developments, that Euro Car Parks have no standing to issue or pursue charges at this car park and I have also reported Euro Car Parks to Warrington Borough Council as Euro Car Parks are in breach of planning permission.


    3. The Appellant stated: The charge is a penalty, breaches the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and is prohibited/unfair under the CPUTRs. It is not saved by ParkingEye v Beavis.


    I appealed that the charge was punitive and excessive and is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. ECP state that the charge is fair because it covers (as per their Section 6) – Explicitly:


    · Wages & Salaries (including Employees National Insurance Contributions;
    · IT Systems, Software and Peripherals; DVLA fees & processing costs;
    · Costs in preparing and sending PCN’s – Stationery, Postage and Printing;
    · Legal, Accounting and other professional costs;
    · Human Resources;
    · Premises Costs;
    · Vehicle & Telephone Costs;
    · Loss of Pay & Display revenue (where applicable);
    · Loss of Purchase Revenue from Retail Outlets within the car park.


    Mr Yorke has completely ignored my rebuttal about “business losses” (as above) which should not be included in any genuine pre-estimate of loss.


    4. The Appellant stated: Lack of signage - unclear signage – no contract with driver - no adequate notice of the charge, maximum stay nor grace period.

    Mr Yorke has completely ignored the details of my rebuttal. I reassert that the signs shown in the photographs provided in the evidence pack do not state any grace period and are therefore non compliant, especially the white sign shown in the first photograph.



    The photographs shown of the alleged signage at the site have clearly been blown up which makes the text illegible, especially the text at the bottom of the sign and are not shown from the drivers’ perspective whilst behind the wheel of the car. It is also worth noting that on a lot of the signs that have been shown in the evidence pack, the ‘Welcome to Church Farm’ is in larger lettering than the actual paragraph regarding the penalty, which seems to get lost in a wall of spurious text.


    In the evidence pack, two photographs are dated - one is more than 1 month after the alleged offence was committed. Other photographs provided have had their time and date partially cropped out and the remaining have either had it completely cropped out or had a date stamp added to them. No evidence has been provided by ECP to show that the signs shown in the photographs were in fact displayed on the date of the alleged offence.


    ECP have also claimed that there is a BPA sign showing the time length at the entrance to Church Farm. ECP claim in their pack that this is at the entrance of the car park. Where the photograph was taken is around 9 metres away. This is incorrect. The actual entrance is further back, some 32 metres between the road exit/car park entry and sign (over three times the distance !!). It can be seen in their overview of the car park that they have purposely missed out most of the entrance to make it appear that the sign is closer.



    In addition, my research for successful POPLA appeals at the same site has shown that POPLA reference 2410337543, rebuttal submitted on 6 March 2017, the same date as the Appellant’s Rebuttal was successful on this point

    5. The Appellant Stated: Other Inaccuracies in the Evidence Pack provided by ECP

    Mr Yorke makes no acknowledgment or reference to the points raised in my Rebuttal and has not answered them. Therefore, I reassert:
    Section 1 – Case Summary and Rule Conditions
    The appellant’s name is spelt incorrectly all the way through in a variety of ways – clearly shows the level of lack of attention to detail and lack of checking that ECP carry out whilst putting their evidence packs together and looks to me that this is a template that has been generically applied without due care and attention.
    There is an assertion that the PCN/NTK is compliant in the Evidence Pack; I have not challenged the compliance of the NTK in my original appeal. Yet another piece of evidence that shows that this document is a cut and paste generic template used by ECP.
    States that terms and conditions of parking are maximum 2 hours from 0600 – 2159, yet further on the document refers to the parking conditions are 1.5 hours. More inaccuracies that cannot be relied upon – which is correct ?!
    States that an official appeal representation was received by xxxx on 13 November 2016 – bizarrely, this is 10 days before the alleged parking offence was committed on 23 November 2016!


    Section 6 – ECP Response to POPLA Appeal
    This section states that xxxx says that she was not the driver. Yet again, I re-iterate that this is false. On a number of occasions, I have said that there will be no driver liability and this is laid out earlier in this rebuttal.


    Figure 3 is supposed to show Landowner Authority dated February 2013 from Burley Developments – yet the paperwork provided is from October 2016 !!



    In summary, It is clear that there has been serious procedural errors by Mr Yorke, POPLA Assessor in considering my original appeal an my rebuttal and I am able to prove that other POPLA appeals have been successful for the same reasons that I raised, on the same site.

    I have also complained to the ISPA about the poor performance and effectiveness of POPLA in considering my Appeal.


    I ask you to re-open and reconsider my appeal properly.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Mar 17, 9:56 PM
    • 45,820 Posts
    • 58,806 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Go with points #2 and #5 only, nothing else.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    • By the_wheels_have_fallen_of 13th Mar 17, 10:12 PM
    • 185 Posts
    • 159 Thanks
    the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    Go with points #2 and #5 only, nothing else.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Cheers Coupon-Mad - so it will look like this then ?

    You have recently not upheld the above POPLA reference and I now wish to complain to the Lead Adjudicator. I believe that Matthew Yorke, the Assessor, has made a procedural error in not allowing my appeal as Registered Keeper and has made a fundamental error in his assessment. I can evidence POPLA have upheld at least three other cases at Church Farm, Stockton Heath due to the fact that Euro Car Parks have no standing authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, not to pursue charges. This can be referenced, as per my research of successful POPLA appeals in the public domain during the last year (POPLA references 2410986482, 2410337543 and 2413376910)

    In addition, POPLA reference 2410337543, rebuttal submitted on 6 March 2017, the same date as the Appellant’s Rebuttal was successful on this point.


    In addition, I do not believe that my Appeal or Rebuttal to evidence provided by ECP has been considered properly as follows:


    1. The Appellant stated: Euro Car Parks have no standing or authority to form contracts with drivers in this particular car park, nor to pursue charges.

    As my research from successful POPLA appeals for the same car park, within the space of less than 12 months shows, at least three POPLA appeals on Landowner Authority have been upheld POPLA references 2410986482, 2410337543 and 2413376910

    I assert that the evidence provided by ECP does not show landowner authority. The evidence pack in Section 6 that was provided by ECP says that the Landowner Agreement dated 26 February 2013 clearly shows “landowner authority” from Burley Developments; yet what has been provided in Figure 3 is “Appendix A of the BPA Code of Practice” dated 29 October 2016.
    In addition, having researched information in the public domain regarding planning permission sought by Euro Car Parks in 2011 with Warrington Council, it is clear that Euro Car Parks do not have any landowner authority to form contracts with drivers at Church Farm, Stockton Heath nor to pursue charges. I quote from Euro Car Parks’ original planning application:

    The site is the car park for Church Farm Retail Park which has a number of retail shops and restaurants around the car park. The site is managed by Burley Development Group. The ANPR will be used to monitor any entry and exit to the site. This information will be used to see the flow of traffic within the car park and allow retailers to identify busy shopping periods. It will also be used as a security measure to monitor vehicle registrations.”

    In addition, I have complained to the DVLA as Euro Car Parks have no landowner or legal authority to pursue charges at this car park and a Breach of the Data Protection Act has occurred which I will complain to the DVLA for breach of Kadoe Contract.

    I have also complained to the Landowner, Burley Developments, that Euro Car Parks have no standing to issue or pursue charges at this car park and I have also reported Euro Car Parks to Warrington Borough Council as Euro Car Parks are in breach of planning permission.
    2. The Appellant Stated: Other Inaccuracies in the Evidence Pack provided by ECP

    Mr Yorke makes no acknowledgment or reference to the points raised in my Rebuttal and has not answered them. Therefore, I reassert: Section 1 – Case Summary and Rule Conditions
    The appellant’s name is spelt incorrectly all the way through in a variety of ways – clearly shows the level of lack of attention to detail and lack of checking that ECP carry out whilst putting their evidence packs together and looks to me that this is a template that has been generically applied without due care and attention.
    There is an assertion that the PCN/NTK is compliant in the Evidence Pack; I have not challenged the compliance of the NTK in my original appeal. Yet another piece of evidence that shows that this document is a cut and paste generic template used by ECP.
    States that terms and conditions of parking are maximum 2 hours from 0600 – 2159, yet further on the document refers to the parking conditions are 1.5 hours. More inaccuracies that cannot be relied upon – which is correct ?!

    States that an official appeal representation was received by xxxx on 13 November 2016 – bizarrely, this is 10 days before the alleged parking offence was committed on 23 November 2016!
    Section 6 – ECP Response to POPLA Appeal
    This section states that xxxx says that she was not the driver. Yet again, I re-iterate that this is false. On a number of occasions, I have said that there will be no driver liability and this is laid out earlier in this rebuttal.

    Figure 3 is supposed to show Landowner Authority dated February 2013 from Burley Developments – yet the paperwork provided is from October 2016 !!

    In summary, It is clear that there has been serious procedural errors by Mr Yorke, POPLA Assessor in considering my original appeal an my rebuttal and I am able to prove that other POPLA appeals have been successful for the same reasons that I raised, on the same site.

    I have also complained to the ISPA about the poor performance and effectiveness of POPLA in considering my Appeal.

    I ask you to re-open and reconsider my appeal properly.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Mar 17, 10:20 PM
    • 45,820 Posts
    • 58,806 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes, those are the only points worth raising IMHO. And change this:

    I ask you to re-open and reconsider my appeal properly.
    to

    I understand that POPLA will reconsider evidence where there has been a clear error of judgement and/or failure to consider evidence provided, which is clearly the case.

    Kindly do not send me a generic response from the POPLA Team telling me you understand my disappointment. Be advised that this is a formal complaint for Mr Gallagher to review.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    • By the_wheels_have_fallen_of 13th Mar 17, 10:26 PM
    • 185 Posts
    • 159 Thanks
    the_wheels_have_fallen_of
    Yes, those are the only points worth raising IMHO. And change this:



    to
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Brilliant Coupon-mad !! You have such a way with words !!!!!

    I will submit it to our friends a POPLA tomorrow morning .... tomorrow night's job is to draft up a complaint to ISPA - I suspect that will be a generic covering type letter with all the relevant artefacts eg original complaint to ECP, original complaint to POPLA, Rebuttal, POPLA response to rebuttal plus this latest complaint to Mr Gallagher...
Welcome to our new Forum!

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

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

302Posts Today

2,522Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • The strange thing with a 4yr old is having to play & smile while inside feeling sick for those in trauma in my birth town #Manchester

  • Just a quick ta-ta for now. I'm taking the week off for family time with mini and Mrs MSE. So I won't be here much. Back after the bank hol

  • Ugh another one trying it! Beware https://t.co/Ab9fCRA76F

  • Follow Martin