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
    • delow
    • By delow 13th Jul 17, 7:07 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 1Thanks
    delow
    parking eye turned down my appeal what next?
    • #1
    • 13th Jul 17, 7:07 PM
    parking eye turned down my appeal what next? 13th Jul 17 at 7:07 PM
    Hi i sent the blue text with the clause #13 on and they sent this back
    Reference: Parking Charge Notice -
    POPLA Ref:
    Dear Sir / Madam,
    Thank you for your correspondence in relation to the Parking Charge incurred on
    , at Tower Road, Newquay car park.
    We are writing to advise you that your recent appeal has been unsuccessful and that you
    have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure. Our records show that
    insufficient time was paid for on the date of the parking event. Please be advised:
     There is an independent appeals service (POPLA) which is available to motorists
    who have had an appeal rejected by a British Parking Association Approved
    Operator. Contact information and further information can be found enclosed. See
    also
     As a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the discount period for a further 14
    days from the date of this correspondence. If you appeal to POPLA and your
    appeal is unsuccessful you will not be able to pay the discounted amount in
    settlement of the Parking Charge, you will be liable to pay the full amount. If you
    have already paid the reduced amount, the Parking Charge will be increased to
    the full amount and you will be liable to pay this increase.
     By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services
    provides an alternative dispute resolution
    service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not
    chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should
    you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.
    A payment can be made by telephoning our offices on 0330 555 4444 or by visiting
    or by posting a cheque or postal order to ParkingEye, PO Box
    565, Chorley, PR6 6HT.
    Yours faithfully,
    ParkingEye Team
    what do i do next thanks
    Last edited by delow; 17-07-2017 at 7:45 PM. Reason: remove popla ref
Page 1
    • waamo
    • By waamo 13th Jul 17, 7:15 PM
    • 1,957 Posts
    • 2,335 Thanks
    waamo
    • #2
    • 13th Jul 17, 7:15 PM
    • #2
    • 13th Jul 17, 7:15 PM
    Remove the POPLA reference number from your post. It can identify you.

    Appeal to POPLA using the information found in the Nebies thread.
    This space for hire.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 13th Jul 17, 7:45 PM
    • 32,403 Posts
    • 16,503 Thanks
    Quentin
    • #3
    • 13th Jul 17, 7:45 PM
    • #3
    • 13th Jul 17, 7:45 PM
    You ought to keep everything in the one thread - multiple threads about your single PCN just cause confusion


    You need to edit your OP here to remove the unique reference number and the specific details of the location time/date/place on show which will enable the ppc to identify you.


    The ppcs monitor this forum and can use your posts against you
    Last edited by Quentin; 13-07-2017 at 7:48 PM.
    • delow
    • By delow 17th Jul 17, 8:31 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    delow
    • #4
    • 17th Jul 17, 8:31 PM
    • #4
    • 17th Jul 17, 8:31 PM
    Hi Is this any good?

    I am writing to challenge a parking charge notice received for parking at the!Tower!Road, Newquay car park on ------/2017. This car park is run by!ParkingEye!Ltd.!

    To protect the driver, they have not been named.

    My appeal as the registered keeper is as follows:
    1. Insufficient grace period
    2. No evidence of Landowner Authority
    3. Inadequate signage


    1. No period of grace given for a driver to read the additional signs within the car park, or to exit the car park following the parking period.

    This matter appears to flow from an allegation of 'overstay' of a mere 17-18 minutes, despite the fact this is not an overstay at all and is unsupported by the BPA. The paid for parking session on the PCN is not established by the photographs provided. Photographs taken show merely the time of entry into and exit from the car park but do not establish the time at which the parking ticket was purchased or at which it expired.

    The BPA Code of Practice (13.2) states that parking operators "should allow the driver a reasonable ‘grace period’ in which to decide if they are going to stay or go. If the driver is on your land without permission, you should still allow them a grace period to read your signs and leave before you take enforcement action." As stated previously, the entrance signs to this car park are insufficient to allow the driver to decide whether parking in the car park would breach any contract. The additional sign is within the car park and past the point where the ANPR camera has captured an entry time and therefore a grace period should be given to read the additional sign and decide whether to adhere to the terms of the contract or leave the car park.

    Kevin Reynolds, Head of Public Affairs and Policy at BPA states that:

    ‘There is a difference between ‘grace’ periods and ‘observation’ periods in parking and that good practice allows for this.

    “An observation period is the time when an enforcement officer should be able to determine what the motorist intends to do once in the car park. The BPA’s guidance specifically says that there must be sufficient time for the motorist to park their car, observe the signs, decide whether they want to comply with the operator’s conditions and either drive away or pay for a ticket,” he explains.

    “No time limit is specified. This is because it might take one person five minutes, but another person 10-15 minutes depending on various factors, not limited to disability.”

    The BPA’s guidance defines the ‘grace period’ as the time allowed after permitted or paid-for parking has expired but before any kind of enforcement takes place.

    Kelvin continues: “In the instance of a PCN being issued while a ticket is being purchased, the operator has clearly not given the motorist sufficient time to read the signs and comply as per the operator’s own rules. If a motorist decides they do not want to comply and leaves the car park, then a reasonable period of time should be provided also.”’

    In addition, the BPA Code of Practice (13.4) states that the parking operators “should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.”

    During a BPA Professional Development and Standards Board meeting in July 2015 it was formally agreed that relevant changes to the Code of Practice would be made to ensure compliance with the DfT guidelines regarding grace periods.

    “Implications of the 10 minute grace period were discussed and the Board agreed with suggestion by AH that the clause should comply with DfT guidelines in the English book of by-laws to encourage a single standard. Board agreed that as the guidelines state that grace periods need to exceed 10 minutes clause 13.4 should be amended to reflect a mandatory 11 minute grace period.”

    The driver of the car at the time was captured by ANPR cameras driving in to the car park at ------- and driving out at ------- on the same date. Although no mention is made of any ticket purchase on the NTK,!ParkingEye!have since acknowledged that a ticket was purchased at ----- for 2 hours of parking, which expired at -----. In their appeal rejection letter,!ParkingEye!state that “insufficient time was paid for on the date of the parking event.”

    It is very clear from the evidence that!ParkingEye!have failed to uphold the minimum grace periods set out in the BPA Code of Practice, as the total time in the carpark exceeded the paid period by only 18 minutes, a sum of 5 minutes prior to purchasing a ticket, and 14 minutes after the parking period had ended.

    By any stretch of the imagination, these few minutes are well within what an ordinary independent person assessing the facts would consider reasonable. In fact this case demonstrates significant unreasonableness on the part of this notorious parking operator who appear to be attempting to get more and more 10-15 minute false 'overstay' allegations past!POPLA!this year, ignoring their Trade Body rules from the BPA.!

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

    As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

    Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by!POPLAbut in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.!
    Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

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

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

    7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

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

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

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

    d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

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


    3. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

    There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye!Ltd v Beavis' case.

    In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only.

    In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.

    This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.

    Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.

    It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.

    This case is more similar to the signage in!POPLA!decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:

    ''The signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''

    From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

    ''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

    ''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.

    ''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''

    So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.

    Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':

    (1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
    (2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.

    The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.

    This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case.

    This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.

    So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.

    The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact!
    liable for the charge.

    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 I am exercising my right not to name that person.!

    Where a charge is aimed only at a driver then, of course, no other party can be told to!
    pay, not by!POPLA, nor the operator, nor even in court. I am the appellant throughout!
    (as I am entitled to be), and as there has been no admission regarding who was driving,!
    and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by!POPLA!on numerous occasions,!
    that a charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a POFA-compliant NTK.

    The burden of proof rests with the Operator, because they cannot use the POFA in this!
    case, 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. They cannot – they!
    will fail to show I can be liable because the driver was not me.!

    The vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert!
    barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous!POPLA!Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:-!

    Understanding keeper liability!

    “There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain!
    conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges!
    from the keeper of the vehicle.!

    There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a!
    vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort.!
    Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4!
    to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they!
    were the driver at the material time.

    Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of!
    a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the!
    Road!Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name!
    the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not!
    generally pass."

    No lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges f
    rom a keeper, where an operator is NOT attempting to transfer the liability for the
    charge using the POFA. This exact finding was made in a very similar case with the same style NTK!
    in 6061796103 v!ParkingEye!in September 2016, where!POPLA!Assessor Carly Law found:!

    "I note the operator advises that it is not attempting to transfer the liability for!
    the charge using the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and so in mind, the!
    operator continues to hold the driver responsible. As such, I must first consider!
    whether I am confident that I know who the driver is, based on the evidence!
    received. After considering the evidence, I am unable to confirm that the
    appellant is in fact the driver. As such, I must allow the appeal on the basis that the operator!
    has failed to demonstrate that the appellant is the driver and therefore liable!
    for the charge. As I am allowing the appeal on this basis, I do not n
    eed to consider the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. Accordingly, I
    must allow this appeal."


    Therefore it is respectfully requested that this parking charge request appeal be upheld on every point.

    Yours faithfully
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Jul 17, 9:31 PM
    • 49,054 Posts
    • 62,517 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #5
    • 17th Jul 17, 9:31 PM
    • #5
    • 17th Jul 17, 9:31 PM
    14 minutes after the parking period had ended.
    I think you need to add some reasoning as to why 14 minutes in Summer in a busy beach car park, is not unreasonable at this site. Like this section of wording I wrote last year, about not ploughing into pedestrians and surf boards:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=71652758#post71652758

    Adapt it to suit and lay it on thick about the time of year, pedestrians, surf boards, children walking and cars turning, and then the main road to queue to join before a car can leave the site.

    If it isn't 14 minutes after paid for time, call it 13 minutes of course, no rounding up.
    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.

    • Redx
    • By Redx 17th Jul 17, 10:43 PM
    • 15,219 Posts
    • 19,182 Thanks
    Redx
    • #6
    • 17th Jul 17, 10:43 PM
    • #6
    • 17th Jul 17, 10:43 PM
    frankly , its maybe better to argue 7 minutes to park up and get a ticket , plus 11 minutes to leave (because over 10 minutes is 11 minutes)

    my rule of thumb is this

    up to 10 minutes to park up and get a ticket , same as the council , and over 10 minutes to leave , making a total of 21 minutes

    but as mentioned above , adapt the wording CM gave somebody else
    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
    • delow
    • By delow 18th Jul 17, 9:03 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    delow
    • #7
    • 18th Jul 17, 9:03 PM
    • #7
    • 18th Jul 17, 9:03 PM
    what about this ? should i put anything about the inside of the van being incredibly hot so having to open the doors and windows for a couple if mins before entering ? thanks
    It was a really sunny week end so the car park was bustling with holiday makers and there were also delays caused by pedestrians with surf boards and turning/parking cars. Once in the car we had to rehydrate due to the hot weather conditions and programme the SatNav for the next destination. Whilst in the carpark we had to give way to those cars newly arriving as the car park route narrows as you pass parked cars on both sides, then we had to queue for a couple of minutes at the exit until we could rejoin the main road (which is extremely busy, being the route to Fistral Beach).!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Jul 17, 9:07 PM
    • 49,054 Posts
    • 62,517 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 18th Jul 17, 9:07 PM
    • #8
    • 18th Jul 17, 9:07 PM
    should i put anything about the inside of the van being incredibly hot so having to open the doors and windows for a couple if mins before entering ?
    Yes, but get rid of 'taking time to programme the Sat Nav and drink water'.

    And make this stronger than ' couple':

    then we had to queue for several minutes at the exit
    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.

    • delow
    • By delow 18th Jul 17, 9:53 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    delow
    • #9
    • 18th Jul 17, 9:53 PM
    • #9
    • 18th Jul 17, 9:53 PM
    i changed the couple to several and added this

    When returning to the van the inside especially the steering was so hot that it had to aired for a few minutes before entering?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Jul 17, 10:01 PM
    • 49,054 Posts
    • 62,517 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes.

    You could also add:


    In the heat of summer at a beach site, it is impossible to leave quite as quickly as a driver could in Winter, or for example from a covered car park where there is no direct sun exposure to cars. This is a classic example as to why the Grace period defined by Kelvin Reynolds in his BPA article is not set in stone, and depends upon prevailing conditions and facts about the site, the car, the weather/visibility/traffic, the driver's situation and how busy the location is (with tourists as well as cars). This is not a small car park but the entrance/exit narrows to one lane and always has a queue, which POPLA will know is a fact, from countless other cases where appeals have been upheld due to the Grace period being unreasonably and rigidly applied, disregarding the rights of a consumer and failing to properly and fairly apply the BPA's policy. Fairness must always be considered in any consumer dispute and if it is impossible to leave quicker, and since the car did not in fact park for more than the time paid for, then the PCN was not properly given.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 18-07-2017 at 10:05 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.

    • delow
    • By delow 25th Jul 17, 10:24 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    delow
    hi there just started filling out popla appeal on there website and it only has space for 2000 letters in a short summary of what happened, there ins't anywhere to attach the long appeal that i have written . Am i being a spanner or is this write ?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 25th Jul 17, 10:27 PM
    • 49,054 Posts
    • 62,517 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Search the forum for 2000 - it's like Groundhog day on this board.

    Everything has been said already on a hundred threads! We do these every day, of course we don't worry about the silly word count.
    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.

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

92Posts Today

2,862Users online

Martin's Twitter