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
    • MikeHammer
    • By MikeHammer 1st Dec 17, 2:48 PM
    • 49Posts
    • 39Thanks
    MikeHammer
    POPLA Appeal (ECP) - Successful - not contested
    • #1
    • 1st Dec 17, 2:48 PM
    POPLA Appeal (ECP) - Successful - not contested 1st Dec 17 at 2:48 PM
    First time posting and in need of some brief advice before proceeding with an appeal.

    I have read the stickies, I've read the FAQ's, I've read the BPA Code of Practice and I've reviewed paragraph 9 of POFA 2012 that relates to postal NTK's. I've also searched various things on this forum in order to better equip myself with the knowledge I may need, should I proceed with an appeal. Apologies in advance for not being able to link the images due to being a new member.

    Put simply, the driver entered a ECP car park from a 30mph road at around 7.50pm on a dark night. On the occasion for which the PCN has been issued, the driver did not see signs upon entering the car park, nor did they see any larger signs adjacent to ticket machines. No signage was visible from where the driver parked the car, nor on the exit route used from the car park (a genuine, gravel path exit - not jumping a fence or anything!).

    The times indicated on the PCN say the vehicle was in the car park for 10 minutes and 48 seconds. The PCN shows ANPR images of a numberplate (the car itself is not visible in the image, nor is anything identifiable as the car park itself).

    The reason I'm asking for advice is because the driver did not purchase a ticket for the duration of the stay as they did not see the signage (the majority of what I've read when searching this forum are from people who have tickets but who've exceeded the time permitted).

    Upon returning to the car park (without a camera so unable to post actual pics), there are small signs at the entrance that have a white "P" in a blue square and some other small text (apologies for not being able to share an image link to an example). This sign is at a height not convenient for a driver to see/read when turning into the car park from a 30mph road (where Government guidelines say the sign must be legible at a speed of 15mph). It is not illuminated, either by direct or indirect light. It appears to be reflective but is at a height far above that which would be lit by car headlights (also the angle of approach to the car park mean your headlights would not light up that sign even if it were at a lower level).

    The main sign in the car park located next to a ticket machine (that is illuminated) is a big yellow/blue ECP standard looking sign (again, apologies for not being able to share an image link to an example), however the driver did not see it when parking on the occasion for which the PCN was issued. Having gone back to the car park and specifically looked, it *is* illuminated and it is directly opposite the vehicle entrance to the car park (probably 100 yards or so directly in front of the entrance), however the driver drove immediately right upon entering the car park so would not have been facing it at any point.

    I have attempted to search for any related advice. I have found some very useful information (so thank you to everyone who commits time to helping others on here) but nothing that fits the combination of circumstances (not purchasing a ticket) *and* potential reason for appeal (signage).

    I wanted to seek your views on whether it's worth me appealing, given the driver did not buy any ticket at all and given it probably looks like all the relevant info that needs to be on the signs is on the signs (they're just not prominent at all).

    Thank you in advance.
    Last edited by MikeHammer; 13-02-2018 at 8:14 AM.
Page 3
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Jan 18, 12:59 PM
    • 18,035 Posts
    • 28,566 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    This comment relates to section 5 of my appeal document. The reason I mention "period of parking" is because the NtK does not explicitly relate the ANPR times to a "Period of Parking". It states that the vehicle "entered" at a given time and "departed" at a given time and later on claims that "the vehicle was parked at...." the NtK also states that the ANPR cameras are used to "calculate duration of stay" ("stay" - not "parking").

    Question: Worth leaving in?
    Definitely. It makes ECP provide their side of this element. In the absence of any other NtK deficiency, you might want to bolster this paragraph by going to town on the requirement of the law in PoFA (PoFA requirements are not merely guidelines, they are the law), and there is nothing in that law that allows for the PPC, nor POPLA, to interpret period on site (or entry/exit times) as being the equivalent of the unequivocal term ‘parking’.

    The above point was in relation to including a photograph of the lack of signage visible from where the vehicle was parked. I have added an image (Fig 7) into Section 2 and accompanying text.

    Question: Do you think this addition is ok?
    I don’t think it is disadvantageous to your case.

    The above point was in response to my question of if sections 1 (grace period) and 2 (inadequate signage) contradict themselves. Where I was going with this was section 1 suggests that the time quoted on the NtK (10mins 48secs) is a reasonable period to find signage, read it, reject T&C's and leave. Section 2 then claims inadequate/invisible/illegible signage.
    You should describe the amount of time taken for the driver to enter the car park, circle around to find a suitable parking space, park, walk around the car park to find the signs, then the driver noticed there were various signs, so you needed to check out what each one said. Then having read it was not a free car park - left. +48 seconds is de minimis and there’s no guaranteed accuracy of the PPCs equipment.

    HTH
    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.
    • MikeHammer
    • By MikeHammer 11th Jan 18, 2:44 PM
    • 49 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    MikeHammer
    In the absence of any other NtK deficiency, you might want to bolster this paragraph by going to town on the requirement of the law in PoFA (PoFA requirements are not merely guidelines, they are the law), and there is nothing in that law that allows for the PPC, nor POPLA, to interpret period on site (or entry/exit times) as being the equivalent of the unequivocal term ‘parking’.
    Thank you - I'll go read back up on PoFA (this all started pre-xmas and my brain's been reformatted since then!) and go to town a bit more about this. Are you perhaps referring to PoFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

    “Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

    ??

    You should describe the amount of time taken for the driver to enter the car park, circle around to find a suitable parking space, park, walk around the car park to find the signs, then the driver noticed there were various signs, so you needed to check out what each one said. Then having read it was not a free car park - left. +48 seconds is de minimis and there’s no guaranteed accuracy of the PPCs equipment.
    I have the following at the end of Section 1 (Grace Period). Do you think this is sufficient?
    It is therefore argued that the duration of visit in question (which Euro Car Parks claim was 10 minutes 48 seconds) is not an unreasonable grace period, given:
    1. The site is not well lit and relies on nearby street lighting as its primary source of lighting.
    2. Visibility was hindered further as the site was in darkness at time of the visit – [ENTRY TIME] to [EXIT TIME] (hh:mm;ss).
    3. The lack of sufficient signage throughout the car park in question (non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice 18.3) and the impact of that upon time taken to locate signage prior to entering into a contract.
    4. The failure to light signage adequately so as to make signs visible from all parking spaces (which they are not, especially at night time) and legible once located.
    5. The lengthiness of Euro Car Parks’ signage (in terms of word count) with a significant amount of text included in an “Important Notice” section (the title “Important Notice” clearly implying it is essential this must be carefully read and understood) in tiny red text at the bottom of the sign (see Figure 2).

    All factors discussed above serve merely to increase the time taken to:
    • Locate a sign containing the terms and conditions.
    • Read the full terms and conditions in the darkness.
    • Decipher the confusing information being presented (one example being identifying which fees apply, as discussed further in section 2, page?? of this document).
    • Decide not to park and therefore enter into a contract.
    • Return to car and safely leave the car park.
    Also, Section 7 (ANPR Accuracy/Reliability) discusses the accuracy of the ANPR equipment -
    and refers to the entry and exit times and the fact there's no evidence of parking, just entry/exit.

    Do you think I should expand on this (or repeat it in another section)?

    Do you suggest adding in the bit about +48 seconds somewhere?
    HTH
    Yes it does - hugely - thank you once again
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 11th Jan 18, 3:02 PM
    • 18,035 Posts
    • 28,566 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Thank you - I'll go read back up on PoFA (this all started pre-xmas and my brain's been reformatted since then!) and go to town a bit more about this. Are you perhaps referring to PoFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states;

    !!!8220;Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.!!!8221;
    I!!!8217;m suggesting you emphasise that entry/exit times are not the !!!8216;period of parking!!!8217;. The law requires the !!!8216;period of parking!!!8217;. It is not in the gift of either the PPC or POPLA to substitute !!!8216;entry/exit!!!8217; in its place and hold the keeper liable.

    I have the following at the end of Section 1 (Grace Period). Do you think this is sufficient?
    Seems ok.

    Do you suggest adding in the bit about +48 seconds somewhere?
    Yes, get that in somewhere as it is a minor time difference.

    As an aside on this theme, when POPLA use their template response commenting on the level (£100) of a PPC!!!8217;s claim, they pray in aid the Supreme Court Beavis judgment and say that as £100 is !!!8216;in the region of £85!!!8217; it (POPLA determines) is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. They can!!!8217;t have their cake and eat it on !!!8216;in the region of!!!8217;, because 10m 48secs very definitely meets that POPLA criterion.
    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.
    • MikeHammer
    • By MikeHammer 12th Jan 18, 12:49 PM
    • 49 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    MikeHammer
    Almost there I think...
    Latest draft here.

    I’m suggesting you emphasise that entry/exit times are not the ‘period of parking’. The law requires the ‘period of parking’. It is not in the gift of either the PPC or POPLA to substitute ‘entry/exit’ in its place and hold the keeper liable.
    Thank you - section 5 now amended to strengthen this point.

    Yes, get that in somewhere as it is a minor time difference.

    As an aside on this theme, when POPLA use their template response commenting on the level (£100) of a PPC’s claim, they pray in aid the Supreme Court Beavis judgment and say that as £100 is ‘in the region of £85’ it (POPLA determines) is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. They can’t have their cake and eat it on ‘in the region of’, because 10m 48secs very definitely meets that POPLA criterion.
    The above was in relation to mentioning the length of stay being +48 seconds (10mins 48secs). I'm not sure on this as in section 1 (grace period) I've argued that 10mins 48 seconds is not an unreasonable grace period. If I go on to say the vehicle was only 48 seconds over I'm concerned it almost contradicts that argument and suggests I'm now claiming admits the driver knew they were there longer than the generally accepted grace period.. maybe I'm overthinking it again..

    I could emphasise it in the section (8) where I talk about reliability of ANPR and state something like "any calibration issues with the ANPR timestamp could be key in this case given the length of time between entry and exit is claimed to be 10mins 48secs".. I don't really want to say "the driver was only 48 seconds over" if you see where I'm coming from as this gives the assessor grounds to dismiss my whole grace period argument in section 1 (which I feel, along with signage, is my strongest point).
    • MikeHammer
    • By MikeHammer 15th Jan 18, 8:37 AM
    • 49 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    MikeHammer
    Morning everyone, just giving this a quick 'bump' to see if anyone other than Umkomaas (who has been incredibly helpful - thank you once more) has any feedback on the document.

    Thanks
    • MikeHammer
    • By MikeHammer 16th Jan 18, 9:21 AM
    • 49 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    MikeHammer
    Ok one last question before I put the final draft together and submit the appeal to POPLA:

    Having read on this forum Parking Company responses to some POPLA appeals, I've seen their evidence pack dispute the signage points (where the appellant has claimed signs are not visible in the dark) by claiming the photographs provided in the appellants original evidence were taken on foot, not in a vehicle and if they were taken in a vehicle the headlights would've illuminated the entrance signage.

    I am tempted to go and measure the height of the entrance signs in my case as the headlights absolutely did not illuminate them - they're probably 8-10ft at least from the ground - way too high for the headlights to shine on them. Also, there are two signs at the entrance (one either side of the road, both with differing info). The car park entrance is on a one-way street and the angle at which you enter the car park means your headlights are never ever going to point at the entrance sign on the left, regardless of how high it is positioned.

    As I say, I'm tempted to include this, together with accurate measurements and a diagram indicating positioning/height of signs in relation to the direction a car would take upon entry in my appeal. The thing that's stopping me is am I giving the Parking Company something to pick up on that they otherwise probably wouldn't have mentioned?

    Any thoughts?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Jan 18, 6:52 PM
    • 58,554 Posts
    • 72,072 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes throw the entire kitchen sink, and all appliances, at a POPLA appeal!

    Do you suggest adding in the bit about +48 seconds somewhere?
    Yes, state that it was the intention of the BPA as far back as 2015, to change the BPA CoP to clarify that anything under 11 minutes is acceptable, to fall in line with the wording used elsewhere in parking bylaws.

    This is proved here, where some 3 years ago years ago, on 30th July 2015, the minutes of the Professional Development & Standards Board meeting show that it was formally agreed by the Board (of BPA members and stakeholders) that the minimum grace period would be changed in 13.4 of the BPA Code of Practice to read 'a minimum of eleven minutes':

    http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Meeting%20Notes/Governance/20150730_PDandS_Board_Action_Notes.pdf

    This shows that the intention of stating vaguely: 'a minimum of ten minutes' in the current BPA CoP (not a maximum, a minimum requirement) certainly means to any reasonable interpretation that seconds are not taken into account and certainly an allegation of under eleven minutes is perfectly reasonable, especially given the fact that terms take longer to read in the dark than they would in broad daylight.

    Mere seconds are not mentioned in the BPA CoP, for the blindingly obvious reasons that:

    (i) firstly, it would be wholly unreasonable to hold a human being to a matter of a few seconds and also expect their own watch to be spot-on to the second, and/or to exactly match the unknown time behind the camera, and

    (ii) in addition, even an ANPR system used by the Police or other agencies never claim to be exact to the second, in terms of the actual timers running at the 'in' and 'out' cameras, which are not 'new technology' at all and run using digital clocks like any other, subject to server buffering and human error when they are adjusted twice a year when the clocks go back/forward.

    (iii) The positioning of the 'out' camera invariably means that in fact most cars (in most locations seen in the public domain in such cases) are photographed several seconds/a minute after they actually crossed back over the entrance threshold. ANPR operators often produce misleading 'out' images taken at the end of the not insignificant time spent waiting on the pavement/entrance roadway, until it is safe to rejoin the main road, having actually left the car park boundary already.

    (iv) Given that the images show the number-plates in the dark and that the operator has enhanced the images, there is no evidence that the exit camera photo actually shows the car still within the confines of the car park (where is the site boundary? no evidence of it - just darkness and road markings).

    (v) It is argued that the operator has selected the 'OUT' image showing the very last second before the vehicle disappeared as it joined the public highway, in a desperate an unfair attempt to paint a false picture time spent within the actual car park boundary as if it was in excess in ten minutes, when that was never the case.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 17-01-2018 at 11:07 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.

    • MikeHammer
    • By MikeHammer 17th Jan 18, 9:11 AM
    • 49 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    MikeHammer
    Thank you Coupon-mad - you've certainly given me lots more food for thought. I may well reword some of your numbered points at the end of your post and use them appropriately within my appeal.

    Through reading lots of threads on this forum I was aware of the BPA minutes to which you refer. The reason I've not included reference to them is because they're speaking specifically about 13.4 which is the time permitted to leave the site at the end of the parking period. My appeal is based on there being no contract ever established, therefore no period of parking existed.

    Were you highlighting this particular point and suggesting I could still use this as a cross reference for my appeal? For example, say it is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the period that should be allowed for someone to enter a car park, locate terms and conditions, decide not to enter into a contract and then leave again?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Jan 18, 11:08 PM
    • 58,554 Posts
    • 72,072 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Through reading lots of threads on this forum I was aware of the BPA minutes to which you refer. The reason I've not included reference to them is because they're speaking specifically about 13.4 which is the time permitted to leave the site at the end of the parking period. My appeal is based on there being no contract ever established, therefore no period of parking existed.

    Were you highlighting this particular point and suggesting I could still use this as a cross reference for my appeal?


    For example, say it is not unreasonable to suggest that clarification of this time period in relation to 13.4 also goes some way to clarifying the period that should be allowed for someone to enter a car park, locate terms and conditions, decide not to enter into a contract and then leave again?
    Originally posted by MikeHammer
    Yes, and this has been used in cases that were won in 2017. Search for 'Aire Street' to find one.
    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.

    • MikeHammer
    • By MikeHammer 18th Jan 18, 9:02 AM
    • 49 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    MikeHammer
    Brilliant - thank you. I will search as you suggest and amend the appeal document accordingly.
    • MikeHammer
    • By MikeHammer 26th Jan 18, 11:25 AM
    • 49 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    MikeHammer
    Yes, and this has been used in cases that were won in 2017. Search for 'Aire Street' to find one.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Hi Coupon-mad. I'm just finalising my latest draft. Upon searching for "Aire Street" (as you suggest), the only successful cases I can find that relate to mine (grace periods) seem to relate to how faded the T&C's were on the machines (not applicable in my case) and also overstays where people had paid for a period of parking but been ,say, 14 mins over. The latter case(s) were won on the grounds that 6 minutes to enter and pay took the person below the stated 10mins grace period (BPA 13.4).

    Did you have a particular case in mind that you thought could apply to my appeal? If so, I'd be grateful for the details of the case and how you think I could apply it.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 26th Jan 18, 11:29 PM
    • 58,554 Posts
    • 72,072 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I was thinking of one where it was dark and the signs couldn't be seen, but maybe it wasn't as relevant as I thought.

    You said this:

    The times indicated on the PCN say the vehicle was in the car park for 10 minutes and 48 seconds. The PCN shows ANPR images of a numberplate (the car itself is not visible in the image, nor is anything identifiable as the car park itself).
    So can you work in an extra point, like the one in post #8 here?

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5774840
    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.

    • MikeHammer
    • By MikeHammer 27th Jan 18, 6:14 AM
    • 49 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    MikeHammer
    I didn’t come across an Aire Street post where one of the points was not seeing signage due to the dark - I will search again in my lunch hour on Monday when I’m back on a PC (find it difficult on mobile!). Thank you for the pointer.

    Thank you also for the link to the post you suggest - I have a part of my appeal that talks about the photographs not being identifiable as the actual car and *I think* I also mention the location but will double check and include any missing detail in line with your suggestion.

    Thank you once again - almost there.

    My job this weekend is to get some very strange looks whilst taking a stepladder and tape measure to measure the height of the entrance signs!

    My next draft will have two additional diagrams (and accompanying text) showing entrance sign height and the fact your headlights will never illuminate the entrance sign on the left of the entrance, regardless of its height, due to the angle of entry from the one way street on which the car park is located.
    • MikeHammer
    • By MikeHammer 29th Jan 18, 4:02 PM
    • 49 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    MikeHammer
    Final draft
    Updated final draft here. Hoping this is the final version.

    Main changes are in line with Coupon-Mad's suggestions above, plus the addition of a chunk about entrance signs in section 2.

    Please ignore the formatting and page numbers as I'll tidy them before submitting.

    I'd very much appreciate a final read through and any last comments as I hope to submit this tomorrow (which I think I do by attaching as a PDF and, at some point, selecting "other"??).

    Thank you
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 29th Jan 18, 11:53 PM
    • 58,554 Posts
    • 72,072 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Wow, what a thing of beauty, a classic 'throw the kitchen sink at them' POPLA appeal that might well see ECP enter a 'no contest/we give up' answer. Hope so! Nice work!

    I really like point #1, you've argued so well about grace periods.

    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.

    • MikeHammer
    • By MikeHammer 30th Jan 18, 8:51 AM
    • 49 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    MikeHammer
    Wow, what a thing of beauty, a classic 'throw the kitchen sink at them' POPLA appeal that might well see ECP enter a 'no contest/we give up' answer. Hope so! Nice work!

    I really like point #1, you've argued so well about grace periods.

    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thank you and thank you so much for all your help and guidance throughout - it's been invaluable. Fingers crossed.

    Do you know if there's a few sentences in a sticky somewhere that explains the right way to submit your POPLA appeal? Have heard mention of selecting "other" at some point which then allows you to attach a file. It's probably straight forward once I look at it.
    • cgh01
    • By cgh01 30th Jan 18, 9:02 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    cgh01
    ""These then get saved as PDFs and uploaded to POPLA under OTHER (ONLY) - do not think you only have 2000 characters in some box on the POPLA wepage!

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/new-popla-process.html ""

    follow the pictorial thread from the above link to parking pranksters blog, found in the NEWBIES thread for POPLA appeals
    • MikeHammer
    • By MikeHammer 30th Jan 18, 10:01 AM
    • 49 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    MikeHammer
    ""These then get saved as PDFs and uploaded to POPLA under OTHER (ONLY) - do not think you only have 2000 characters in some box on the POPLA wepage!

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/new-popla-process.html ""

    follow the pictorial thread from the above link to parking pranksters blog, found in the NEWBIES thread for POPLA appeals
    Originally posted by cgh01
    Thank you - so I go with:

    I was not improperly parked > Other
    The amount requested on the PCN is not correct > Other

    ?
    • cgh01
    • By cgh01 30th Jan 18, 10:07 AM
    • 16 Posts
    • 23 Thanks
    cgh01
    yes that`s the correct path for appeal

    good luck
    cgh01
    • MikeHammer
    • By MikeHammer 30th Jan 18, 10:17 AM
    • 49 Posts
    • 39 Thanks
    MikeHammer
    Perfect - thank you (and thank you for the good luck)
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

3,051Posts Today

5,660Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ah these care free days of watching #ENG score 5 goals in the first half of a World Cup match. It reminds me of... Never.

  • Then it should be. It's not some accident. It's deliberate grappling https://t.co/UxVTuUSNio

  • Penalty yes but time someone was sent off for these wrestling moves #WorldCup

  • Follow Martin