We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
VCS CC claim- Defence by 09/06/19
Mrs.Anon
Posts: 14 Forumite
[FONT="]Hi all,[/FONT]
[FONT="]This has been a great resource of information - thank you in advance for any support.[/FONT]
[FONT="]I have not made time to post this thread until now so appreciate it is last minute.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The keeper of a vehicle has received a County Court Claim from VCS with the following details;[/FONT]
[FONT="]-Issue date: 07/05/19[/FONT]
[FONT="]-AoS submitted through online portal 10/05/19.[/FONT]
[FONT="]-Defence to be submitted by: (Issue date+ 5 +28) = 09/06/19 - have I understood this correctly?[/FONT]
[FONT="]Scenario[/FONT]
[FONT="]The defendant is the registered keeper of a car which was parked in a customer parking bay of a company out of hours on a winter evening (after sunset). Other cars were parked in the vicinity (with no permits or tickets showing). The premises had an entry and exit with access clear at the time the vehicle was parked on the site. No barrier was present at the entrance or exit and VCS signage at the property was not lit at the time- relying on insufficient ambient light to be read.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Summary of events[/FONT]
[FONT="]SAR info[/FONT]
[FONT="]Defence[/FONT]
[FONT="]I have copy, pasted and amended other defences on the forum, please find my initial draft below;[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]1. [/FONT][FONT="]The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.[/FONT]
[FONT="]2. [/FONT][FONT="]The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be parked on the material date in a customer parking bay outside of business hours and not causing an obstruction to either the entrance, exit, or to the business premises.[/FONT]
[FONT="]2.1. [/FONT][FONT="]It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof. [/FONT]
[FONT="]2.2. [/FONT][FONT="]Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.[/FONT]
[FONT="]3. [/FONT][FONT="]The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. This indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify the driver and thus a Cause of Action; and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. [/FONT]
[FONT="]4. [/FONT][FONT="]Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.[/FONT]
[FONT="]5. [/FONT][FONT="]Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. [/FONT]
[FONT="]5.1. [/FONT][FONT="]The signage implies authority since a symbol is present with the letters ‘PCN’ and bordered by similar design to a Penalty Charge Notice and without previous definition of ‘Parking Charge Notice’. To imply authority is illegal and is contravention to IPC regulation (to which the Claimant is a registered member) Part B section 11.2. *photo evidence of signage available*[/FONT]
[FONT="]5.2. [/FONT][FONT="]The time of the perpetrated contravention was after sunset on a winter evening and the signs were not lit and relied upon dim ambient street light to be read which did not adequately illuminate the signage. By failing to provide sufficient lighting, The Claimant is in contravention to IPC regulation (whom they are affiliated to) Part E schedule 1. *photo evidence of insufficient lighting available*[/FONT]
[FONT="]5.3. [/FONT][FONT="]The majority of the signage is small white text on a red background. With aforementioned insufficient ambient lighting providing an orange hue, the signage is not clear to read. The signage contravenes IPC regulations Part E schedule 1 for this reason also.[/FONT]
[FONT="]5.4. [/FONT][FONT="]Signage is present at the entrance of the property however due to the design, could not be read by a passing driver of a vehicle. Even if the Court is minded to consider that the car did pass any sign, the terms of the poorly lit signage make no offer available; there is no licence to park.[/FONT]
[FONT="]5.5. [/FONT][FONT="]At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass. [/FONT]
[FONT="]5.6. [/FONT][FONT="]County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.[/FONT]
[FONT="]6. [/FONT][FONT="]Furthermore, ringing the telephone number listed on the signs at a similar time to the supposed contravention (a XXX evening at XX:XX) provided no information as to any terms or conditions of the area, and representative of the company could not be contacted due to the ‘office being closed’. Therefore any terms not present on the signage could not be obtained and therefore no contract could be confirmed or clarified.[/FONT]
[FONT="]7. [/FONT][FONT="]The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.[/FONT]
[FONT="]8. [/FONT][FONT="]6.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.[/FONT]
[FONT="]9. [/FONT][FONT="]It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.[/FONT]
[FONT="]10. [/FONT][FONT="]The Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) (2012), at Section [/FONT][FONT="]4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.[/FONT]
[FONT="]11. [/FONT][FONT="]In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]This has been a great resource of information - thank you in advance for any support.[/FONT]
[FONT="]I have not made time to post this thread until now so appreciate it is last minute.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The keeper of a vehicle has received a County Court Claim from VCS with the following details;[/FONT]
[FONT="]-Issue date: 07/05/19[/FONT]
[FONT="]-AoS submitted through online portal 10/05/19.[/FONT]
[FONT="]-Defence to be submitted by: (Issue date+ 5 +28) = 09/06/19 - have I understood this correctly?[/FONT]
[FONT="]Scenario[/FONT]
[FONT="]The defendant is the registered keeper of a car which was parked in a customer parking bay of a company out of hours on a winter evening (after sunset). Other cars were parked in the vicinity (with no permits or tickets showing). The premises had an entry and exit with access clear at the time the vehicle was parked on the site. No barrier was present at the entrance or exit and VCS signage at the property was not lit at the time- relying on insufficient ambient light to be read.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Summary of events[/FONT]
- [FONT="]Hybrid “not a charge notice” affixed to windscreen at time driver returned to vehicle.[/FONT]
- [FONT="]PCN/NTK letter issued 6 days after hybrid “not a charge notice”. Deadline to pay £60 within 20 days of perpetrated “contravention” increasing to £100 thereafter.[/FONT]
- [FONT="]Keeper sent a letter refusing to pay and requesting numerous information which was replied to by VCS but without any requested information and a dismissal of the keeper's “appeal”. This letter was ignored and further demands for payment were received including increased 'debt' of £160 to include 'debt collection costs'.[/FONT]
- [FONT="]LBC received and replied by the keeper with request to provide information.[/FONT]
- [FONT="]SAR sent to VCS which has been provided.[/FONT]
[FONT="]SAR info[/FONT]
- [FONT="]Notes about registered keeper on VCS system acknowledge points raised & requests made in letters but did record what they were going to do about the requests.[/FONT]
- [FONT="]They have noted the driver has not been identified and after an ambiguous letter is sent, an RoR may be applicable – does anyone know what this means?[/FONT]
[FONT="]Defence[/FONT]
[FONT="]I have copy, pasted and amended other defences on the forum, please find my initial draft below;[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]In The County Court[/FONT]
[FONT="]Case number: XXXXXXXX[/FONT]
[FONT="]Claimant: Vehicle Control Services Limited[/FONT]
[FONT="]Defendant: XXXXXXX[/FONT]
[FONT="]DEFENCE[/FONT]
[FONT="]2. [/FONT][FONT="]The facts are that the vehicle, registration XXXX, of which the Defendant is the registered keeper, appears from the sparse evidence supplied by this Claimant, to be parked on the material date in a customer parking bay outside of business hours and not causing an obstruction to either the entrance, exit, or to the business premises.[/FONT]
[FONT="]2.1. [/FONT][FONT="]It is denied that a 'charge notice' ('CN') was affixed to the car on the material date given in the Particulars. This Claimant is known to routinely affix misleading pieces of paper impersonating authority, bearing the legend 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice'. It is reasonable to conclude, from the date of the premature Notice to Keeper ('NTK') that was posted, that the hybrid note that the Claimant asserts was a 'CN' was no such thing, and therefore the driver was not served with a document that created any liability for any charge whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof. [/FONT]
[FONT="]2.2. [/FONT][FONT="]Accordingly, it is denied that any contravention or breach of clearly signed/lined terms occurred, and it is denied that the driver was properly informed about any parking charge, either by signage or by a CN.[/FONT]
[FONT="]3. [/FONT][FONT="]The Particulars of Claim does not state whether they believe the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or the driver of the vehicle. This indicates that the Claimant has failed to identify the driver and thus a Cause of Action; and is simply offering a menu of choices. As such, the Claim fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4, or with Civil Practice Direction 16, paras. 7.3 to 7.5. Further, the particulars of the claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. [/FONT]
[FONT="]4. [/FONT][FONT="]Due to the sparseness of the particulars, it is unclear as to what legal basis the claim is brought, whether for breach of contract, contractual liability, or trespass. However, it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle, entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.[/FONT]
[FONT="]5. [/FONT][FONT="]Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. [/FONT]
[FONT="]5.1. [/FONT][FONT="]The signage implies authority since a symbol is present with the letters ‘PCN’ and bordered by similar design to a Penalty Charge Notice and without previous definition of ‘Parking Charge Notice’. To imply authority is illegal and is contravention to IPC regulation (to which the Claimant is a registered member) Part B section 11.2. *photo evidence of signage available*[/FONT]
[FONT="]5.2. [/FONT][FONT="]The time of the perpetrated contravention was after sunset on a winter evening and the signs were not lit and relied upon dim ambient street light to be read which did not adequately illuminate the signage. By failing to provide sufficient lighting, The Claimant is in contravention to IPC regulation (whom they are affiliated to) Part E schedule 1. *photo evidence of insufficient lighting available*[/FONT]
[FONT="]5.3. [/FONT][FONT="]The majority of the signage is small white text on a red background. With aforementioned insufficient ambient lighting providing an orange hue, the signage is not clear to read. The signage contravenes IPC regulations Part E schedule 1 for this reason also.[/FONT]
[FONT="]5.4. [/FONT][FONT="]Signage is present at the entrance of the property however due to the design, could not be read by a passing driver of a vehicle. Even if the Court is minded to consider that the car did pass any sign, the terms of the poorly lit signage make no offer available; there is no licence to park.[/FONT]
[FONT="]5.5. [/FONT][FONT="]At best, parking without authorisation could be a matter for the landowner to pursue, in the event that damages were caused by a trespass. A parking charge cannot be dressed up by a non-landowner parking firm, as a fee, or a sum in damages owed to that firm for positively inviting and allowing a car to trespass. Not only is this a nonsense, but the Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, confirmed that ParkingEye could not have pursued a sum in damages or for trespass. [/FONT]
[FONT="]5.6. [/FONT][FONT="]County Court transcripts supporting the Defendant's position will be adduced, and in all respects, the Beavis case is distinguished.[/FONT]
[FONT="]6. [/FONT][FONT="]Furthermore, ringing the telephone number listed on the signs at a similar time to the supposed contravention (a XXX evening at XX:XX) provided no information as to any terms or conditions of the area, and representative of the company could not be contacted due to the ‘office being closed’. Therefore any terms not present on the signage could not be obtained and therefore no contract could be confirmed or clarified.[/FONT]
[FONT="]7. [/FONT][FONT="]The Claimant is put to strict proof that it has sufficient proprietary interest in the land, or that it has the necessary authorisation from the landowner to issue pieces of paper that are not 'charge notices', and to pursue payment by means of litigation.[/FONT]
[FONT="]8. [/FONT][FONT="]6.1. It is suggested that this novel twist (unsupported by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 - the 'POFA') of placing hybrid notes stating 'this is NOT a Parking Charge Notice' on cars, then ambushing the registered keeper with a premature postal NTK, well before the timeline set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA, is unlikely to have been in the contemplation of the Claimant's principal.[/FONT]
[FONT="]9. [/FONT][FONT="]It is averred that the landowner contract, if there is one that was in existence at the material time, is likely to define and provide that the Claimant can issue 'parking charge notices' (or CNs) to cars - following the procedure set out in paragraph 8 of the POFA - or alternatively, postal PCNs where there was no opportunity to serve a CN (e.g. in non-manned ANPR camera car parks, and as set out in paragraph 9 of the POFA). The Claimant is put to strict proof of its authority to issue hybrid non-CNs, which are neither one thing nor the other, and create no certainty of contract or charge whatsoever.[/FONT]
[FONT="]10. [/FONT][FONT="]The Protection of Freedom Act (POFA) (2012), at Section [/FONT][FONT="]4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case £100. The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery.[/FONT]
[FONT="]11. [/FONT][FONT="]In summary, it is the Defendant's position that the claim discloses no cause of action, is without merit, and has no real prospect of success. Accordingly, the Court is invited to strike out the claim of its own initiative, using its case management powers pursuant to CPR 3.4.[/FONT]
[FONT="]I believe the facts stated in the defence are true,[/FONT]
[FONT="]Name[/FONT]
[FONT="]Signature[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
0
Comments
-
Almost right. As 9th June is a Sunday you have until 4pm on the next working day to file your Defence.[FONT="]The keeper of a vehicle has received a County Court Claim from VCS with the following details;[/FONT]
[FONT="]-Issue date: 07/05/19[/FONT]
[FONT="]-AoS submitted through online portal 10/05/19.[/FONT]
[FONT="]-Defence to be submitted by: (Issue date+ 5 +28) = 09/06/19 - have I understood this correctly?[/FONT]
With a Claim Issue Date of 7th May, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th June 2019 to file your Defence.
Loads of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.
When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:-
Print your Defence.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
- Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
- Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or download one from the internet, and then re-read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread to find out exactly what to do with it.
0 - Sign it and date it.
-
That defence looks good to go - nice research using the forum.
No idea, scammers' shorthand for some sort of reminder demand I expect.They have noted the driver has not been identified and after an ambiguous letter is sent, an RoR may be applicable – does anyone know what this means?PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Almost right. As 9th June is a Sunday you have until 4pm on the next working day to file your Defence.
With a Claim Issue Date of 7th May, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th June 2019 to file your Defence.
Loads of time to produce a Defence and it is good to see that you are not leaving it to the last minute.
When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:- Print your Defence.
- Sign it and date it.
- Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
- Send that pdf as an email attachment to
- Just put the claim number and the word Defence in the email title, and in the body of the email something like 'Please find my Defence attached'.
- Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defence received". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
- Do not be surprised to receive an early copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to keep you under pressure.
- Wait for your DQ from the CCBC, or and then re-read post #2 of to find out exactly what to do with it.
Thank you very much for clarifying KeithP and for your concise points on the next steps!! I think I will aim to submit my defence online on Friday as I am away this weekend. :beer:0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »That defence looks good to go - nice research using the forum.
No idea, scammers' shorthand for some sort of reminder demand I expect.
Thank you for your continued guidance on the site! I expected it was either legal spiel or like you say 'corporate jargon'.
In addition to the keeper's defence, I was thinking of adding the following points;
- The signage is contradictory;- First stating the car park is for customers only (yet no time period specified).
- Secondly a vague statement of 'If a valid permit/ticket is required...' without specifying if either is applicable to this area.
- Thirdlystating that T's & C's and Charges apply 24 hours a daywithout listing any T's & C's or what actions warrant the charges.
- Finally if T's & C's are not present on the sign then they should be present on their telephone hotline at all time that a supposed charge is applicable....and allow for reciprocation from any driver to accept or reject the 'offer'.
- If a driver wants to make a counter offer to the 'offer' on the signage, but is unable to do so because the offeror is unavailable, then can it be upheld that a valid contract was in place?
Should I put VCS to strict proof to identify where the T's & C's were clearly listed either on signage or on telephone hotline and how a driver could make a counter offer any time within the applicable 24/7 timeframe?
Thanks again! as I am away this weekend I think I will submit my defence Friday A.M0 -
I don't under stand the idea of a driver having the right to make a counter offer? Parking contracts are 'take it or leave it' offers.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »I don't under stand the idea of a driver having the right to make a counter offer? Parking contracts are 'take it or leave it' offers.
Please ignore my comments regarding counter offer- I was being ignorant by trying to apply what I thought to be generic contract law :doh: Thank you for clearing this up for me.
What would be your view on the other points (no T's & C's available etc. )?0 -
Well under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 consumer contract terms must be fair and transparent:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/notes/division/3/2?view=plain
And the ParkingEye v Beavis case is the authority to read.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »Well under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 consumer contract terms must be fair and transparent:
And the ParkingEye v Beavis case is the authority to read.
Thank you Coupon-Mad!
I have skimmed through the ParkingEye v Beavis case on the supremecourt website and couldn't find any statements about the telephone line so I think I might leave this out.
As for transparent terms under the consumer rights act I will add the following between 5 and 5.1;
5.1. The sparse information on the signage does not make clear the requirements of the land for which the signage supposedly covers. A statement on the signage “if a valid permit/ticket is required” is ambiguous since nowhere else on the sign is it clarified whether a permit or ticket is required. If the claimant proposes that the sign contains the full terms and conditions, then the ambiguity of this term is not transparent as required under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
I will look to submit the defence within the next 2 hours so appreciate if you do get chance to review. If not then thank you very much for your time and support.0 -
Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.
Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.
Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.
Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.
Thank you The Deep, I will certainly add that to my list of things to do.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards