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
    • ncobo1664
    • By ncobo1664 6th Feb 17, 5:09 PM
    • 20Posts
    • 7Thanks
    ncobo1664
    Forgot to display permit for my own space
    • #1
    • 6th Feb 17, 5:09 PM
    Forgot to display permit for my own space 6th Feb 17 at 5:09 PM
    A private company called "14 Services" introduced a permit policy at the complex I live in last year. Recently I failed to display my permit (it had fallen off my dashboard into the foot well) whilst parked in my allocated space. I rent the property within the complex off a private landlord.

    Should I attempt to appeal the parking charge or am I better off paying the £60 (rising to £100 in a couple of days)?

    My car is also not registered at the property I'm renting, not sure if that would make any difference.

    Thanks in advance!
Page 3
    • ncobo1664
    • By ncobo1664 1st Mar 17, 11:17 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    ncobo1664
    The appeal process has multiple stages whereby the parking operator submits a reply to my original appeal, then I can submit another response and so forth...

    Here's a transcript of the appeal so far:

    My Original Appeal:

    I challenge this parking charge as keeper of the car.

    I believe that your company does not have the right to add terms and conditions to an existing residential lease or assured shorthold tenancy agreement. In support of this belief I would like to make you aware of the case of Homeguard v Jopson [2016] B9GF0A9E which makes it clear that if a private company is engaged to manage the parking in a private residential zone, they cannot override a resident's lease.

    You have obtained my data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, since despite losing two appeal cases heard in Oxford, your firm (Homeguard, t/a 14 Services) continues to disregard the rights of tenants and leaseholders to use their own residential car park without threat of interruption or charge. I have primacy of contract and your blanket 'parking charge' regime, trespassing against vehicles on this land, is indicative of derogation from grant by your principle.

    Homeguard t/a 14 Services must take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to report your company to the Information Commissioner and to sue your company and the landowner/management agent for a sum not less than £250 for misuse of my data, should you continue to process it beyond this date except merely to confirm within 21 days that you have deleted my data from your records.

    Could you provide me with the following information:

    1. Who is the party that contracted with your company?
    2. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
    3. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.
    4. Please provide proof that the timing of any camera used was synchronised with all other cameras and/or systems & machines.

    Do not send debt collector letters and do not add any costs which would be a thinly veiled attempt at 'double recovery'. I will not respond to debt collectors and to use a third party would be a failure to mitigate your costs as well as deliberate and knowing misuse of my data.

    Operator Response:

    The appellant was the driver.
    The appellant was the keeper.
    The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
    ANPR/CCTV was used.
    The Notice to Keeper was sent on 27/01/2017.
    A response was recieved from the Notice to Keeper.
    The ticket was issued on 15/01/2017.
    The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
    The charge is based in Contract.

    Dear IAS,

    The arguments put forward by the appellant are standard and what are normally sent to us when appealling.

    The questions he has asked, he could have asked in the beginning but did not do so.

    He never mentioned being a resident, let alone provided any evidence of residency.

    The appellant states that we have no right to add terms and conditions etc. We have not sought to make any amendments as we are not party to tenancy agreements/leases etc. It is the managing agents, directors etc who bring us in and they are the ones who instigate the scheme.

    Notice was sent out to all residents as attached.

    In reference to the Jopson judgment that was mentioned, this judge (since retired) is not a senior judge, nor is it a landmark decision. The judgment was originally found in our favour and the judgment was overturned at appeal level.

    Since we had the right to request appeal on this decision, it is not landmark and the judge was not senior enough to set such precedent.

    In point 9 of the Jopson judgment, it refers to the lessor writing to the lessee. Our client did indeed write to everyone.

    The Judge also ignored a previous court directive that the appellant submit their case to court no less than 3 clear days prior to the hearing. The hearing was at 10.00 am on the Friday with the appellant submitting papers at 19.00 on the Wednesday evening. This was not time for us to have found any such letter of the client writing or to answer some of the points made as we were not privvy to them.

    While this may seem insignificant, this is just an example of the Judge's stance, who also believed that a sign should make mention of exceptions for milk floats.

    The above are just a few points of why we believe this judgement should be discarded as irrelevant and we have also attached the judgment for your viewing.

    As well as the judgement refers to a woman who was claiming to have been "unloading" and made a distinction in his view of what he thought parking meant and said she was "stopped" and not parked.

    The appellant is not a leaseholder as he has a landlord.

    The appellant, has by using the parking permit, taken part in the scheme. This is an essential part of contract law that should in our view be given consideration.

    The permit belongs to 14 Services and the service is run by ourselves and we have a signed contract.

    If a resident/landlord does not wish to take part in the scheme. then the resident could have contacted his landlord or indeed ourselves to say that he does not wish to be included as he does not agree with having to display a parking permit.

    He did not notify us and has used the parking permit. As the scheme was set up to assist residents to enable them to have better access to their allocated space, rather than others parking in them then it is fair that residents simply display a parking permit.

    The households were issued with 4 parking permits. one of them being a cling parking permit, so if he found difficulties in displaying a card permit, then he could have chosen to display the other.

    Having had no communication from the resident that he rejected the scheme, then the bay continued to be included and we still have not had any notification that he does not wish to be included in the future.

    In accordance with the signage, DVLA data was applied for. If the appellant did not want us to apply for and use the data, then he should have displayed the permit or contacted us/landlord/managing agent etc, to look into excluding himself. This then would have been discussed as we do have provision for this as we operate in areas where there are freehold bays.

    We are accused by the appellant of "continuing to disregard the rights of residents..." If we disregarded the rights of residents we would not be issuing them with free parking permits and a free service. It is not too much of a burden for them to simply display a permit.

    Moreover, the appellant has not only not shown any evidence of being a tenant, he has also appealled still using the address which matches the DVLA data. The address is not an address on the development.

    We cannot be trespassing when we have not only permission to be there, but also instruction to be there. As well as the appellant knew we would be there as he used the parking permit, albeit incorrectly so we could not see it.

    If the appellant did display the parking permit clearly on the dashboard, then there would have been no need to issue any charge.

    The only way we know that a vehicle is authorised to be where it is, is with the clear display of a parking permit.

    We therefore maintain that we believe the charge to have been issued correctly.

    Please note that the wording on the signage attached, is the same, however the actual signage at blank is green and cream in colour to match the aesthetics of the building.

    My Response:

    I must, again, state that I have primacy of contract. Any agreement you have in place with management agents will not override the landlords lease. I have confirmed with the landlord that the lease has not been varied to include any parking regulations. As a tenant I am entitled to the same rights as described in said lease.

    I have a tenancy agreement which entitles me to park on the estate in the space allocated to blank and it does not say "on condition that you display a permit". If it does not say that, then I have the right. What 14 Services are seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to be only valid when a permit is displayed. 14 Services cannot do that. It must be the other contracting party, the landlord, who amends the tenancy agreement to restrict the right to park in the space allocated to blank in circumstances in which a permit is displayed. That is not in my tenancy agreement and you as a third party cannot unilaterally alter the terms of a tenancy agreement.

    I will not be providing my tenancy agreement as evidence for this process. I will however attach a letter sent to me by the landlord blank stating my legal entitlement to park in the space.

    Operator Response:

    The tenancy agreement/lease etc is irrelevant to us. If the tenant did not wish to display a parking permit, (the terms and conditions of which were clear), then the appellant should have contacted us or the landlord/managing agent etc to object.

    By using the permit, not objecting to the scheme which he was informed of, and parking where there was signage then he has agreed to the parking scheme.

    The parking permits x 4 were all hand delivered to the property with photographic evidence taken of delivery. At no point did the resident contact us to tell us he was unhappy about the permits or any of its content.

    The landlord we believe had also been written to and we have received no communication from him to say he was unhappy with the scheme.

    For future parking he should perhaps consider contacting his landlords, managing agents etc and asking for ways for his bay to be excluded. If his bay then is excluded then he will need to return all 4 parking permits which remain the property of 14 Services.

    The tenancy agreement/lease (none of which has been shown) has no relevance to us because we are not accusing him of breaching his tenancy agreement. That is always a matter between he and his landlord.

    Whichever permit the resident was using there is clear information that the permit must be on display as this is the only way we know a vehicle is authorised to be where it is.

    On the rear of the flexible card permit it states -

    "Parking otherwise than in accordance with the signage in situ will result in the issuing of a parking charge notice".

    "Your managing agent/landlord has no authority to appeal the issue of a parking charge notice on your behalf nor are they able to instruct cancellation of charges".

    On the front of the permit it says

    "This permit must be clearly displayed this side up on the dashboard of the vehicle at all times when it is parked. Retrospective evidence will not be accepted"

    "This permit remains the property of 14 Services".

    If using the cling style permit

    The letter section states

    "2. This permit is only valid whilst clearly and fully displayed in the FRONT windscreen, bottom left hand corner (UK Standard passenger side not a side or rear window) and with all credentials available (unobscured) from the outside to be inspected. We will not "search" footwells, seats, dashboards, under sunvisors, other windows etc."

    "4. We do not accept notes of any kind in windows or retrospective evidence of right to park".

    "8. It is the responsibility of the permit user to have read this letter and by using this permit it is deemed that the conditions in this letter have been accepted." If you need a further copy of this letter (for your landlord or future reference) please contact us.

    "10. Parking otherwise than in accordance with the signage on site will result in a parking charge being issued".

    While the appellant argues "primacy" of contract, a contract is a meeting of two minds. The scheme was not imposed on the appellant but is a scheme brought in to assist genuine users of the estate.

    It is our scheme that increases the peaceful enjoyment of residents by helping ensure they can park in their allocated bay and also that they can contact us should they have any problems.

    A contract that is brought in afterwards is still valid if the user of a service takes part in that service. The resident has took part in the service by accepting the permit, and not rejecting it. He has also handled the permit and according to himself.

    If he saw the scheme as an imposition then it is for himself to say he didn't want the scheme to enable us to try to arrange his exclusion by discussion with our client. We do accommodate such exclusions.

    However , this appellant has engaged with the contract on one level but then when he wishes to evade a charge, he then seeks to use primacy of contract, although he has used the parking permits.

    Without someone contacting us to inform us that they are unhappy with the terms and conditions of the scheme, then we cannot know they are not happy.

    We are also unable to offer an "opt out" as it is not for us to undermine our client after we have been contracted.

    The appellant to our knowledge has still made no contact with us as to express going forwards that he wants us not to operate in his allocated bay.

    14 Services have never denied the appellant the right to park. On the contrary, it is in acknowledgment of a right to park that authorised users (at our expense) is issued with a permit for such drivers with a right to park to display.

    The charge was issued for not displaying a parking permit and not for parking where he had no right to park.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 1st Mar 17, 1:54 PM
    • 14,573 Posts
    • 22,931 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    This could be fun to see what the IAS make of it!
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 1st Mar 17, 2:15 PM
    • 473 Posts
    • 877 Thanks
    safarmuk
    So the above is the to and fro between you and the PPC?

    I particularly like the tongue tying "you have a right to park there ... but if you don't have your permit on display - when you exercise your right to park there which we fully acknowledge - essentially this other contract we have kicks in that says you owe us £60 for parking where we once again acknowledge you have a right to park because you did so without showing your permit ... even though we fully acknowledge your right to park"

    One day it would be nice to see common sense prevail.

    Have you heard back from the IAS yet? As Umkomaas says that will be interesting.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 1st Mar 17, 2:19 PM
    • 50,098 Posts
    • 63,477 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    In reference to the Jopson judgment that was mentioned, this judge (since retired) is not a senior judge,
    He certainly was a Senior Circuit Judge and the fact he has just retired is irrelevant:

    https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/announcements/senior-circuit-judge-retirement-harris-qc/

    At IAS you must upload all evidence including tenancy/lease, the transcript from Jopson, photos, etc. Have you done that? IAS will ignore anything a person says if not 'evidenced'.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • ncobo1664
    • By ncobo1664 2nd Mar 17, 7:59 AM
    • 20 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    ncobo1664
    I have another opportunity to submit a response, any advice welcome!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Mar 17, 8:45 AM
    • 50,098 Posts
    • 63,477 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Read every line of what you said, and check you evidence it with attachments. Work on the assumption the IAS is looking to kick your appeal into touch on any old excuse.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 2nd Mar 17, 9:29 AM
    • 7,005 Posts
    • 6,077 Thanks
    The Deep
    I looks to me as though the PPC are dealing with this without the benefit of legal advice.


    Imo they are unlikely to take this to court, so it is imperative that you do so independently, either for interference with your right to "quiet enjoyment", privacy, trespass, or wasting your time, (or all four)..

    Two judges have found their behaviour unreasonable, so you should not have to try too hard.

    Get your landlord to apply very heavy pressure, complaining robustly to the MA, their Trade Association, and the Council Housing Officer.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • ncobo1664
    • By ncobo1664 15th Mar 17, 1:12 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    ncobo1664
    My IAS appeal has been rejected. Here is their reasoning:

    It is important that the Appellant understands that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to look at whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. The Adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and an Appellant is free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish.
    The guidance to this Appeal makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating circumstances. The terms of this Appeal also state that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events
    In this case the parking charge notice was issued because the Appellant parked the vehicle in question on private land and is alleged to have been in breach of the terms and conditions set out in the signage on site which regulate such matters. The relevant term states that parking is allowed for vehicles fully displaying a valid parking permit within the front windscreen.
    The Parking Operator entered in to a contract with blank in August last year to provide a parking system for the benefit of the various owners and tenants of properties on this site so that only those who were entitled to could park there. The documentation provided to me that letters and permits were delivered by hand to all premises setting out in detail the nature of the system and how it would work and the consequences of any breaches. That was further confirmed by the blank News issue for October and the signage on site. I am satisfied that the Appellant was fully aware of the system and he clearly participated in it by displaying a permit in his car. The letter from the Appellant's landlord does not deal with this breach but the entitlement of the Appellant to park in the bay in question which is not in issue.
    The responsibility for ensuring that a permit is securely in place in the windscreen so it's contents can be read by an attendant is the motorists and on this occasion the Appellant failed to discharge that responsibility because the permit fell on to the front seat out of view of the attendant according to the landlord's letter. The remit of an Adjudicator does not allow him/her to take mistakes or mitigation in to consideration when dealing with Appeals. In those circumstances I am satisfied that this parking charge notice was issued lawfully and as a result this Appeal must be dismissed.
    The Appellant seems to place great reliance on the case of Laura Jopson heard by His Honour Judge Harris Q.C in the Oxford County Court last June. I have read that judgement with interest but know nothing more about it than the Judgement and the competing submissions of the parties. That case was clearly decided on it's own facts which were very different from the facts in this case and that decision is not binding on any decision made by another Judge in relation to this Appeal.

    All pretty ridiculous! They claim "The relevant term states that parking is allowed for vehicles fully displaying a valid parking permit within the front windscreen" but then say "The letter from the Appellant's landlord does not deal with this breach but the entitlement of the Appellant to park in the bay in question which is not in issue". They've just completely contradicted themselves.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 15th Mar 17, 1:14 PM
    • 3,198 Posts
    • 3,241 Thanks
    DoaM
    What else did you expect to get from the Kangaroo Court?
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • NRH12
    • By NRH12 15th Mar 17, 1:39 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    NRH12
    Yes, but...
    The adjudicator's decision seems to be based on the fact that you knew of the terms, and that this was sufficient to make the charge enforceable. There's no consideration of whether or not the "contract" is permissible under the terms of the lease and/or that the parking company has genuine authorisation to operate the scheme.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 15th Mar 17, 1:45 PM
    • 7,005 Posts
    • 6,077 Thanks
    The Deep
    They've just completely contradicted themselves.


    Which of course which would go against the PPC lf this went to court.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • r0wly86
    • By r0wly86 15th Mar 17, 2:01 PM
    • 16 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    r0wly86
    I have a very similar case to yours, but was driving a loan car after mine was unexpectedly off the road in the garage.


    I was thinking of appealing to the IAS but just won't bother now what a complete joke
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 15th Mar 17, 3:00 PM
    • 14,573 Posts
    • 22,931 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    My IAS appeal has been rejected. Here is their reasoning:

    It is important that the Appellant understands that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to look at whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. The Adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and an Appellant is free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish.
    The guidance to this Appeal makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating circumstances. The terms of this Appeal also state that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events
    In this case the parking charge notice was issued because the Appellant parked the vehicle in question on private land and is alleged to have been in breach of the terms and conditions set out in the signage on site which regulate such matters. The relevant term states that parking is allowed for vehicles fully displaying a valid parking permit within the front windscreen.
    The Parking Operator entered in to a contract with blank in August last year to provide a parking system for the benefit of the various owners and tenants of properties on this site so that only those who were entitled to could park there. The documentation provided to me that letters and permits were delivered by hand to all premises setting out in detail the nature of the system and how it would work and the consequences of any breaches. That was further confirmed by the blank News issue for October and the signage on site. I am satisfied that the Appellant was fully aware of the system and he clearly participated in it by displaying a permit in his car. The letter from the Appellant's landlord does not deal with this breach but the entitlement of the Appellant to park in the bay in question which is not in issue.
    The responsibility for ensuring that a permit is securely in place in the windscreen so it's contents can be read by an attendant is the motorists and on this occasion the Appellant failed to discharge that responsibility because the permit fell on to the front seat out of view of the attendant according to the landlord's letter. The remit of an Adjudicator does not allow him/her to take mistakes or mitigation in to consideration when dealing with Appeals. In those circumstances I am satisfied that this parking charge notice was issued lawfully and as a result this Appeal must be dismissed.
    The Appellant seems to place great reliance on the case of Laura Jopson heard by His Honour Judge Harris Q.C in the Oxford County Court last June. I have read that judgement with interest but know nothing more about it than the Judgement and the competing submissions of the parties. That case was clearly decided on it's own facts which were very different from the facts in this case and that decision is not binding on any decision made by another Judge in relation to this Appeal.

    All pretty ridiculous! They claim "The relevant term states that parking is allowed for vehicles fully displaying a valid parking permit within the front windscreen" but then say "The letter from the Appellant's landlord does not deal with this breach but the entitlement of the Appellant to park in the bay in question which is not in issue". They've just completely contradicted themselves.
    Originally posted by ncobo1664
    @OP - did you copy and paste this from the IAS appeal decision, or did you re-type it?
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 15th Mar 17, 3:39 PM
    • 40,304 Posts
    • 80,504 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Just revisiting a couple of points.

    Date of alleged event, 15/01, date NTK received, 03/02 so fails POFA 2012 and therefore no keeper liability. Date NTK sent (note the use of the word sent, not posted) was 27/01. No mention of when it was posted so if it ever got to court they would have to prove it was posted in time to have arrived by day 14.

    Comment from IAS that, "He never mentioned being a resident, let alone provided any evidence of residency."
    However they say the PPC sent a letter to all residents about the permit scheme and the defendant must have received it.
    So, they knew the defendant was a resident because they sent him a letter about the permit scheme. Therefore there was no need to tell the PPC he was a resident because they already knew.
    Alternatively they didn't know he was a resident because he never received the letter. They can't have it both ways.

    The obvious bit where they fall down of course and you have already highlighted is where they keep banging on about, "The relevant term states that parking is allowed for vehicles fully displaying a valid parking permit within the front windscreen."
    This term is of course not relevant because it is superceded by primacy of contract that allows the dependent to park there without displaying a permit.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 15-03-2017 at 3:48 PM.
    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
    • ncobo1664
    • By ncobo1664 11th Sep 17, 12:40 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    ncobo1664
    6 month's down the line and I think 14 Services have decided to give up. They passed my details onto another company who sent me some more threatening letters (and text messages, not sure where they got my phone number from) which I ignored. Guessing that after reviewing my responses they decided it wouldn't be worth taking it to court.

    Cheers for all the help!
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 11th Sep 17, 12:59 PM
    • 5,962 Posts
    • 7,684 Thanks
    beamerguy
    6 month's down the line and I think 14 Services have decided to give up. They passed my details onto another company who sent me some more threatening letters (and text messages, not sure where they got my phone number from) which I ignored. Guessing that after reviewing my responses they decided it wouldn't be worth taking it to court.

    Cheers for all the help!
    Originally posted by ncobo1664
    Keep all the paperwork and your evidence because these
    scammers can pop up again anything up to 6 years
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 11th Sep 17, 2:22 PM
    • 473 Posts
    • 877 Thanks
    safarmuk
    Keep all the paperwork and your evidence because these
    scammers can pop up again anything up to 6 years
    Yep, unless you have a letter or email from them saying "this has been cancelled" it's still very much alive. All that has happened is that it is simply mothballed until it pops up in the system churn and the letters start coming again. At some point if you are really unlucky in the next 6 years you will trigger into the the "try a Small Claims" channel and an LBC arrives.
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

157Posts Today

1,176Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @thismorning: 'Sometimes the best gift is releasing somebody else from the obligation of having to give to you' says @MartinSLewis. Do y?

  • Shana tova umetuka - a sweet Jewish New Year to all celebrating. I won't be online the rest of t'week, as I take the time to be with family

  • Dear Steve. Please note doing a poll to ask people's opinion does not in itself imply an opinion! https://t.co/UGvWlMURxy

  • Follow Martin