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
    • katyjane80
    • By katyjane80 10th Jun 17, 12:07 PM
    • 15Posts
    • 6Thanks
    katyjane80
    Parkingeye cockhedge
    • #1
    • 10th Jun 17, 12:07 PM
    Parkingeye cockhedge 10th Jun 17 at 12:07 PM
    Hi all

    I received a parking notice charge for £100 (reduced to £60 if i make payment within 14 days) the carpark is free for 2 hours then paid, it is manned by registration plate cameras.

    I have no real grounds for appeal apart from the last time I visited this particular carpark it was pay and display (barrier and ticket issued upon driving in) but Sunday parking was always free, so with it being a Sunday there was no barrier in my way I just drove in and parked up without a care in the world

    I have used the template in the sticky to appeal and received a rejection letter back, they have very kindly extended the discounted rate for a further 14 days and sent a POPLA code.

    My question is, is it worth trying to appeal this? if I lose the appeal the fee will be £100.

    I'm just a bit annoyed because I know I should have paid more attention but come on, in reality it's £3 parking charge I owe them, plus the cost of a letter.

    I have looked at the advice on POPLA appeals but it's a bit overwhelming I don't really know what I'm looking at.

    Thanks in advance for any words of wisdom.
Page 1
    • Redx
    • By Redx 10th Jun 17, 12:19 PM
    • 16,483 Posts
    • 20,637 Thanks
    Redx
    • #2
    • 10th Jun 17, 12:19 PM
    • #2
    • 10th Jun 17, 12:19 PM
    its actually a trap and you fell into it by not reading the signs

    PE took BARRY BEAVIS to 3 courts and 11 judges for an overstay on a free car park, the last court being the SUPREME COURT in london

    he lost 3 times

    it is your choice if you appeal to popla or not

    you may win on poor or inadequate signage
    or on lack of a landowner contract
    or on NTK or BPA CoP failures

    post #3 of the NEWBIES sticky thread helps you set out the legal points of any appeal

    the choice is yours

    sometimes a complaint to the landholder helps , especially if money was paid out to retailers or whatever on the site in question (proof of patronage)

    but dont think the low costs you have quoted will have any bearing on any solution , they wont

    if BEAVIS lost on a free for 2 hours car park, then what you have said wont wash , sorry !

    good luck anyway
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 10th Jun 17, 12:46 PM
    • 3,830 Posts
    • 5,405 Thanks
    Half_way
    • #3
    • 10th Jun 17, 12:46 PM
    • #3
    • 10th Jun 17, 12:46 PM
    have you contacted the car park owner?
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 10th Jun 17, 3:31 PM
    • 51,440 Posts
    • 65,043 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 10th Jun 17, 3:31 PM
    • #4
    • 10th Jun 17, 3:31 PM
    I have no real grounds for appeal
    Yes you do. The usual grounds almost always win, and people here do not pay ParkingEye unless a Judge tells them to.

    If this was fairly recent change in enforcement just weeks or months before the parking event, then ParkingEye will need to prove to POPLA (if you clearly raise the point!) that they have complied with the BPA CoP and had added extra, prominent signs warning of the change to Sunday enforcement. Not just added wording to, or replaced, the usual signs. Otherwise how can a driver familiar with the car park possibly know the signs relate to Sundays suddenly?

    Plus the usual stuff in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread (the template POPLA appeal points already written for anyone to piece together).

    Was the PCN received within 15 days? Was it one that mentioned 'keeper liability' after 29 days under the POFA?
    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.

    • waamo
    • By waamo 10th Jun 17, 3:40 PM
    • 2,089 Posts
    • 2,495 Thanks
    waamo
    • #5
    • 10th Jun 17, 3:40 PM
    • #5
    • 10th Jun 17, 3:40 PM
    There is a thread that specifically tell Newbies to read it. It is at the top of this forum. In that thread you will find multiple grounds to appeal this ticket. Some of those grounds are a bit technical.

    Amazingly when the tried and trusted methods in the Newbies thread are used they nearly always win. To say you have no grounds to appeal is utter madness.
    This space for hire.
    • katyjane80
    • By katyjane80 16th Jun 17, 5:50 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    katyjane80
    • #6
    • 16th Jun 17, 5:50 PM
    • #6
    • 16th Jun 17, 5:50 PM
    Im going to go for it, i've found a template which someone else wrote at the same carpark and won just a couple of questions please?

    When I open the POPLA website it asks me what grounds I'm appealing on am I right to select 'other grounds for appeal'

    Also it states this: I understand that POPLA can reject my appeal if it considers the reasons for appeal frivilous or vexatious
    What does this even mean??
    • Redx
    • By Redx 16th Jun 17, 5:55 PM
    • 16,483 Posts
    • 20,637 Thanks
    Redx
    • #7
    • 16th Jun 17, 5:55 PM
    • #7
    • 16th Jun 17, 5:55 PM
    yes select OTHER and upload your appeal as a pdf to the tiny bin icon

    ignore that frivolous / vexatious stuff

    that is for morons who say that they were visiting mars or were away with the fairies etc

    as long as the appeal is sensible it will be considered
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Jun 17, 6:16 PM
    • 51,440 Posts
    • 65,043 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 16th Jun 17, 6:16 PM
    • #8
    • 16th Jun 17, 6:16 PM
    i've found a template which someone else wrote at the same carpark and won
    How old is that version?
    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.

    • katyjane80
    • By katyjane80 16th Jun 17, 6:20 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    katyjane80
    • #9
    • 16th Jun 17, 6:20 PM
    • #9
    • 16th Jun 17, 6:20 PM
    It looks like its from October last year, you helped the poster to draft it, i'm just going to change my registration details etc and send it....in for a penny, in for a pound (or £100)
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Jun 17, 6:23 PM
    • 51,440 Posts
    • 65,043 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Show us first please, to check it!
    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.

    • katyjane80
    • By katyjane80 16th Jun 17, 6:26 PM
    • 15 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    katyjane80
    I should start this appeal by explaining the situation of how I was, as the registered keeper of the vehicle ****, issued with a £100 parking charge notice (PCN) from ParkingEye. I am the registered keeper and this appeal will prove that I am not liable for the parking charge.
    The driver entered and parked in the Cockhedge retail car park in Warrington on **** **** of **** **** at ****. The driver parking at that time was aware that it was a 2 hour free stay and any further parking after that would need to be paid for. After shopping in **** the driver arrived back at the carpark and attempted to pay for their parking at the pay station. After typing in the registration for the vehicle several times and trying to pay, the driver could clearly see that there was a fault with the machine so they tried the next pay station next to it. After typing in the registration of the vehicle again several times in the second machine and it not working , the driver returned to the vehicle and located next to where the vehicle was parked there was a third pay station which when approached to try again to pay, was out of order. The driver then drove back over to the original pay station where they tried to pay originally and waited while another 2 people were using the machines and were also unsuccessful in making a payment for their parking. After attempting to pay for their parking again several times on both of the pay stations, the driver had no choice but to drive away as the car park was un-manned to ask for any help.
    I require that the operator provides documented evidence of the number of times the driver inputted the registration into the machine, this will obviously be documented onParkingEye’s system if the machine was in proper operation on the day.

    Also I put the operator to strict proof that all payment machines were working at the point between 2 hour and 3 hours after the car entered this car park, showing the failure/error reports during that hour for all payment machines on site (VRNs can be partially redacted in this report but not any partial or complete attempt of this VRN). Failure to provide these records will support the driver's honest account.

    Two weeks later I the registered keeper received a PCN of £100.

    Since receiving the parking charge I have done a lot of research into the charges fromParkingEye and have found countless sites stating it is a very common, misleading trap being set by this specific private parking company. As research shows, ParkingEye is even having a negative impact on the popular tourist locations around the UK due to errors of their own and tourists are being stung with a charge for so called ‘breach of contract’. As widely and very consistently reported online by the victims of such a parking charge, I now feel strong enough to exercise my right to appeal this to POPLA.

    The grounds for this appeal are as follows:
    • Insufficient information provided by signage
    • The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.
    • No genuine pre-estimate of loss
    • no landowner authority
    • The notice to keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability

    A) Insufficient information provided by signage.

    The signage says for 1 additional hour its £3.00 which the driver understood when they attempted to pay. The sign also says, ‘‘motorists must enter their full, correct vehicle registration when using the payment machine’’ but when they did this the payment machine did not respond to the registration number resulting in them not being able to make the £3.00 payment and thus receiving the parking charge for this. There is no clear information on what to do in the event of failure of ParkingEye’s machines to take the VRN so when a problem arises, information regarding this doesn’t exist and therefore you receive a parking charge.

    I require that the operator provides documented evidence of the number of times the driver inputted the registration into the machine, this will obviously be documented onParkingEye’s system if the machine was in proper operation on the day.

    ParkingEye has stated in the letter declining the appeal, that a contract is formed with the driver via signage detailing the conditions under which a motorist is authorised to park. I find it hard to accept that a contract can be formed with lack of information on the signage around the carpark of how to pay for the parking. The Signage provided doesn’t provide enough information on the payment machines and this is clearly why so many people are failing to pay for the parking and being hit with such a charge. It also seems as this has been purposely done so that people will ‘fail to comply with the terms & conditions’ for this reason it is not believed that the driver could have been entered into a contract with ParkingEye for the property of where the driver parked because they didn’t fail to comply with any of the terms & conditions, they were simply mislead by the inadequate information supplied by the signage.

    POPLA is requested to check the Operator's evidence and signage map/photos on this point and compare the signs to the BPA Code of Practice requirements. It is contended that the signs on this land, in terms of wording, position and clarity, do not comply and fail to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach (which is denied here, due to a fault with the machinery being no fault of the drivers).

    The BPA's view is: 'As with all new technology, there are issues associated with its use'

    B) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate.

    ParkingEye's evidence shows no proof of department on the alleged exit time, merely photos of a car driving out. The image is poor, it is a picture of a registration plate and a set of lights, the rest is black and nothing else can be seen. With no photo evidence of the vehicle at the exit, how can ParkingEye justify this photo as proof of time of department when it could have been taken anywhere on the car park at any time. This is not proof of leaving the car park. The exit photo is not evidence of 'parking time' at all.

    There were no signs to inform a driver how the data captured by ANPR would be used which is a breach of the ICO registration and BPA CoP and fails to tell a driver that they are being timed from the entrance, rather than 15 minutes later when the contract SHOULD start, at the P&D machine (Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking is the authority on when the contract starts in a P&D car park).

    C) No genuine pre-estimate of loss. This disproportionate charge is a penalty, not saved by the non-comparable Beavis case


    The Beavis case was considered to be a 'complex' contractual arrangement with a specifically argued 'legitimate interest'. Here, ParkingEye has shown no comparable 'legitimate interest' in enforcing their charge and nor have they shown it is anything more than a standard monetary contract, where GPEOL is still a requirement (as was reiterated in the Supreme Court hearing).

    The purported contract with the motorist is undoubtedly a simple financial contract where the loss is easily calculable, unlike the complex arrangement - a valuable licence to park free of charge at first, offset with a 'quid pro quo' £85 charge -in Parking Eye v Beavis. Here there is a clear financial interaction between the operator and motorist. The £100 'charge' is clearly an attempt to impose payment of a large sum in consequence of the non-payment of a very small sum, contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and contrary to Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty.

    Parking Eye seem to be under the misapprehension - and desperately hoping - that POPLA Assessors will swallow the BPA line that the Supreme Court judgment was a green light legitimising all frivolous parking charges. They also seem to cling to the hope that POPLA will believe that the UTCCRS (now within the Consumer Rights Act 2015) do not apply somehow, to any parking charge case!

    With reference to The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Schedule 2 part 1 para 6) the charge is very clearly an unenforceable contract term because the operator is seeking to impose a charge in compensation that is vastly disproportionate to an (easily calculated) allegedly 'unpaid' parking tariff.

    As regards the Beavis case, it was made plain that in more complex contracts (in that case, a free car park with no monetary sum paid per hour) the trader must demonstrate a 'legitimate interest' in enforcing a disproportionately high charge, to avoid such a charge in each individual case from being an unenforceable penalty. But this case can easily be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis and this case is not a 'complex' contractual arrangement at all.

    The Beavis case is not relevant to any other car park except that precise situation and location in that unique case (as the SC Judges were at pains to Tweet as soon as the astonishing decision was made public). A thorough review of the findings from the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal hearings, shows that case has no application to a Pay and Display car park whatsoever.

    There is no 'legitimate interest' in enforcing a punitive charge against a motorist who had attempted to pay to park for the time actually parked. In this case the driver had no idea that they would later be unfairly charged when they actually tried to make the payment for parking but couldn’t could to faulty machinery. This is not the same as in the Beavis case where the driver was considered to have understood and accepted all terms which were 'clear and very prominent' and where there was no tariff in play to make it a standard contract. This charge is simply being enforced in an attempt to punish the motorist for no fault of their own.

    The appellant respectfully submits that the assessor carefully reads the Supreme Court judgment and the preceding Court of Appeal judgment, as regards any type of 'simple financial contract' such as this one where there is a quantified tariff. After all, bothParkingEye and the driver are citing the words from the earlier hearing as a support for the cases. This case is an unfair penalty and clearly differs from the 'Beavis v Parking Eye' judgment.

    D) No landowner authority

    The Operator has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with drivers in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, Parking Eye must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice. I therefore put Parking Eye to strict proof to provide POPLA and myself with an unredacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Parking Eye and the landowner, not just another agent or retailer or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to Parking Eye.

    Without a contract it would seem the most appropriate offence would be a civil trespass. If this were the case, the appropriate award Parking Eye Limited could seek would be damages. As there was no damage to the car park there was no loss to them or the landowner at all and therefore there should be no charge.

    E) The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 - no keeper liability.

    At this ANPR car park, the Notice to Keeper (NTK) has to set out the position clearly in terms of 'describing the parking charges due' which remained unpaid as at the day before the date of issue of the PCN. These 'parking charges due' can only be a tariff the driver should have paid, because no higher sum was 'due' before the PCN was even printed!

    In the NTK before me I can see that the driver either not purchased the appropriate parking time or remained at the car park for longer than permitted. This does not create any certainty of terms, it leaves a keeper to wonder how the charge of £100 can differ so much from the price of parking time equalling to the sum of £3 clearly showing this has NOT cost ParkingEye anywhere near the £100 charge or even the £60 for the 14 day reduced charge. This Operator has the technology to record car registrations, to collect/record payments and to take photos of cars arriving and leaving, so it would be reasonable to assume that they are able - and indeed are required under the POFA - to state on the NTK the basic requirements to show a keeper how the 'parking charges' arose and the amount of outstanding parking charges (tariff).

    These are the omission from POFA 2012 in the NTK issued:
    ''9(2)The notice must—
    (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
    (c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
    (d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—

    (i)specified in the notice; and

    (ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4))”

    The NTK specifically fails on all counts. It even fails to describe the specific circumstances for such a parking charge amount due.

    The validity of a NTK is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. As POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw stated: ''Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability...it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.'' This NTK was not compliant due to the omissions of statutory wording, so it was not properly given and there is no keeper liability.


    This concludes my POPLA appeal.
    Yours faithfully,
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Jun 17, 7:35 PM
    • 51,440 Posts
    • 65,043 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    C) No genuine pre-estimate of loss. This disproportionate charge is a penalty, not saved by the non-comparable Beavis case
    Remove the words about 'pre-estimate of loss' as POPLA will read only that far...

    Also, the 'no landowner authority' point is better using the longer version shown in post #3 of the NEWBIES thread. It's a more recent template.

    And don't suggest the PCN is a non-POFA one unless it is a non-POFA one! PE's version (when served by day 15) is considered compliant with the POFA. No point arguing it unless it's a non-POFA one with nothing about 29 days/keeper liability.
    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.

    • katyjane80
    • By katyjane80 17th Jun 17, 9:35 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    katyjane80
    Ok great, thanks for the help... I have removed the 'No genuine Pre-estimate of loss' as suggested and changed the No landowner authority paragraph to the longer one.

    Are you suggesting that I just remove (No keeper Liability) section E altogether??

    Thanks again
    Katy
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 17th Jun 17, 11:08 AM
    • 40,462 Posts
    • 80,845 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    Ok great, thanks for the help... I have removed the 'No genuine Pre-estimate of loss' as suggested and changed the No landowner authority paragraph to the longer one.

    Are you suggesting that I just remove (No keeper Liability) section E altogether??

    Thanks again
    Katy
    Originally posted by katyjane80
    No. You need to tell us/work out if it is or isn't POFA 2012 compliant. If it is, don't mention it. If isn't POFA 2012 complaint you leave it in as it will be a winning point.
    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
    • katyjane80
    • By katyjane80 17th Jun 17, 11:57 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    katyjane80
    I think it is POFA compliant, on the original PNC there is a section on it about POFA which states 'you are warned that if after 29 days from date given blah blah'
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Jun 17, 9:03 PM
    • 51,440 Posts
    • 65,043 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Remove that section then, it's not worth arguing at POPLA v a PE PCN that mentions POFA.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 17-06-2017 at 9:11 PM.
    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.

    • katyjane80
    • By katyjane80 18th Jun 17, 10:06 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    katyjane80
    Hi all, I think I'm almost there, just a couple of things:

    The text box i am to put the appeal into has a maximum limit which my appeal exceeds, should i upload it as PDF evidence and then just type in the box 'please see attached appeal' or something to that effect??

    Also, the 'grounds for appeal' which are bullet pointed, the third bullet point says 'No Genuine Pre-estimate of Loss' should i change this to read 'Disproportionate Charge' instead so it doesn't get rejected before it's even been read?

    Thanks
    Last edited by katyjane80; 18-06-2017 at 10:39 AM. Reason: amendment
    • Redx
    • By Redx 18th Jun 17, 10:44 AM
    • 16,483 Posts
    • 20,637 Thanks
    Redx
    choose OTHER and upload the pdf of the appeal by clicking the "bin" icon and using the box that opens to locate your finished pdf and select it

    if a text box opens , put what you said "see attached appeal" or similar
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
    • katyjane80
    • By katyjane80 18th Jun 17, 10:47 AM
    • 15 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    katyjane80
    Hi redx,

    when you submit your appeal there is a free type box which asks for details of appeal, and then underneath there's a 'upload evidence box' The bin icon only appears once I have uploaded the PDF as evidence. The question i am trying to ask is, will they look at the 'uploaded evidence' if the text box is empty or it just says please see attached appeal?
    • Redx
    • By Redx 18th Jun 17, 11:01 AM
    • 16,483 Posts
    • 20,637 Thanks
    Redx
    I would suggest that only POPLA could answer that particular question as we have no idea what their internal procedures are (so do it and ring them tomorrow if it concerns you so much - then come back and tell us , this is how we learn , from the experiences of others like yourself)

    although it is dangerous to assume , I would assume that you should put "see attached appeal" in the free text box , upload the evidence until it changes to a bin icon , then submit it

    I would assume that they would see this note in the free text box and look at the attachment in word or adobe reader or similar

    but what we "assume" isnt always what people do , we are not privy to the internal workings of the OMBUDSMAN SERVICE or for that matter the BPA or the DVLA or these PPC`s , although we do have some ideas what goes on from various information outlets or leaks
    Newbies !!
    Private Parking ticket? check the 2 sticky threads by coupon-mad and crabman in the Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking Board forum for the latest advice or maybe try pepipoo or C.A.G. or legal beagles forums if you need legal advice as well because this parking forum is not about debt collectors or legal matters per se
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

371Posts Today

4,787Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I believe I can boldly go where no twitter poll has gone before https://t.co/HA0jC92gAK

  • OK I'm wilting to public pressure and there will be a star trek captain's poll at some point next week

  • I can get that. My order is 1. Picard 2. Janeway 3. Kirk. Too early to say where Lorca will end up (or would you? https://t.co/kawtCOe9RA

  • Follow Martin