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
    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Jan 18, 1:10 AM
    • 29Posts
    • 10Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    CP Plus PCN appeal rejected. Is it worth appealing to PAOLA and how?
    • #1
    • 5th Jan 18, 1:10 AM
    CP Plus PCN appeal rejected. Is it worth appealing to PAOLA and how? 5th Jan 18 at 1:10 AM
    CP Plus PCN appeal rejected. Is it worth appealing to POPLA and how if yes? Can anyone help PLEASE?

    The driver parked at Giltbrook retail centre at Nottingham. Shopped at Ikea. Car park is free. The car park was full, there is a shed situated across 4 parking bays, parked just behind it. It didn't cause any obstruction to anyone at all. There was no signage nowhere on the site or entrance. The driver took lots of pictures as a prove and attached it to the email when the keeper appealed to cp plus but they seem to ignore the fact that there is no signage.

    This is my appeal:
    Re: PCN No. CPxxxxx
    I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car.
    I believe that the car park in question has no signage to explain what the relevant parking terms and restrictions are as established in Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis.

    This means no contract can be formed with the landowner. Please see attached evidence, I have gathered as a proof. The pictures clearly shows there is no signage on the entrance or anywhere at all to be seen on the side of the car park that the car was parked.

    As there are no signs on the car park in question, the test of 'large lettering' and prominence, as established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, is failed.

    There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

    Should you obtain the registered keeper's data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, please take this as formal notice that I reserve the right to sue your company and the landowner/principal, for a sum not less than £250 for any Data Protection Act breach. Your aggressive business practice and unwarranted threat of court for the ordinary matter of a driver using my car without causing any obstruction nor offence, has caused significant distress to me.

    I do not give you consent to process data relating to me or this vehicle. I deny liability for any sum at all and you must consider this letter a Section 10 Notice under the DPA. You are required to respond within 21 days. I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

    Their answer:

    Thank you for your email regarding the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
    I have carefully reviewed the case and have considered the points that you raised. Unfortunately, I cannot cancel the PCN and it is still payable. I have explained my findings in more detail below.
    My findings
    The site in question is subject to terms and conditions, which are stated on signs throughout the area. As these terms were breached on the date in question, a PCN was correctly and legitimately issued.

    I attach photographic evidence taken at the time of the parking contravention.

    The signage on site is sufficient and is in line with the guidelines laid down by the British Parking Association (BPA).

    The majority of motorists who park at the site do so without receiving a PCN. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that they are aware of the terms and conditions of the site. If, as you claim, the signage was inadequate, the terms and conditions of the site would be unknown to the majority of drivers and many more PCNs would be issued here.
    You have objected to our processing of your data under Section 10 of the Data Protection Act 1998. However, you have no right to object to our doing so if:
    you have consented to the processing;
    the processing is necessary:
    in relation to a contract that the individual has entered into; or
    because the individual has asked for something to be done so they can enter into a contract;
    the processing is necessary because of a legal obligation that applies to you (other than a contractual obligation); or
    the processing is necessary to protect the individual!!!8217;s !!!8220;vital interests!!!8221;.
    the processing does not cause unwarranted and substantial damage or distress.
    Your details were obtained from our client as the liable party in this case.
    We believe that our holding of your details on the file is correct due to the validity of the parking charge and we do not believe that our processing of your data will cause you unwarranted and substantial damage or distress. Therefore, we will not remove your details from our system.
    What you need to do now
    You now have three options to choose from:
    1) Pay the PCN at the prevailing sum of £120.00 by 24/01/2018. Payment can be made online or by phone. Go to xxx or phone xxx. You can find full details of how to pay on the PCN issued to the vehicle and/or on the letter(s) sent if applicable.
    2) Make an appeal to POPLA (Independent Appeals Service) by appealing online at xxx (verification code: xxxxxxxxxx). The only grounds for making an appeal are stated on the website and to be considered the appeal must be received by POPLA within 28 days of the date of this correspondence.
    3) If you choose to not make payment or appeal, the amount outstanding may be sought via a debt recovery company and/or court action where further costs may be incurred as a result.
    More Information
    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.
    Last edited by Madzamdzasz; 05-01-2018 at 10:58 PM.
Page 1
    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Jan 18, 1:14 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    • #2
    • 5th Jan 18, 1:14 AM
    *should be POPLA not PAOLA sorry
    • #2
    • 5th Jan 18, 1:14 AM
    *should be POPLA not PAOLA sorry
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 5th Jan 18, 1:29 AM
    • 36,801 Posts
    • 83,276 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #3
    • 5th Jan 18, 1:29 AM
    • #3
    • 5th Jan 18, 1:29 AM
    You should edit your first post immediately to remove information about who did what, assuming you didn't reveal the driver's identity in your first appeal.

    Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper, who are two different people.

    If you have a PoPLA code, then use it.

    Use all the template appeal points available to you from post 3 of the NEWBIES thread.

    These should include, not the landowner, no standing to issue charges in their own name, non POFA compliant NTK (you will have to show where it fails to comply with the POFA 2012), inadequate signage, £120 exceeds the maximum amount allowed by the BPA CoP, and anything else you can find.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 05-01-2018 at 1:36 AM.
    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
    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Jan 18, 5:25 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    • #4
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:25 PM
    • #4
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:25 PM
    Hi, many thanks for your reply, I really appropriate it. I don't quite get what should I edit on the first post? I have already sent it to them and they replied with the answer above. Did I say anything wrong? This was the template I found on this forum Newbies post.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 5th Jan 18, 5:40 PM
    • 2,748 Posts
    • 3,411 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    • #5
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:40 PM
    • #5
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:40 PM
    Well, you didn!!!8217;t send the second sentence of your post to them, where you identify the driver. So maybe start there?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 5th Jan 18, 5:45 PM
    • 7,667 Posts
    • 7,374 Thanks
    KeithP
    • #6
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:45 PM
    • #6
    • 5th Jan 18, 5:45 PM
    ...I really appropriate it.
    Originally posted by Madzamdzasz
    That's good to hear.
    .
    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Jan 18, 11:01 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    • #7
    • 5th Jan 18, 11:01 PM
    • #7
    • 5th Jan 18, 11:01 PM
    Ok. Done. Many thanks for explaining !!!128522;
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 5th Jan 18, 11:24 PM
    • 58,374 Posts
    • 71,906 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 5th Jan 18, 11:24 PM
    • #8
    • 5th Jan 18, 11:24 PM
    The driver parked at Giltbrook retail centre at Nottingham. Shopped at Ikea. Car park is free. The car park was full, there is a shed situated across 4 parking bays, parked just behind it.
    As this must have been a windscreen PCN, we hope that you followed the NEWBIES advice to wait till day 26, so by now, having finally got this rejection letter, you are now almost certainly already well over halfway to day 56, with no NTK.

    You WILL win at POPLA on that basis, of course, but include the extra words:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=73663884#post73663884

    ...just to make sure.

    And don't do the POPLA appeal until day 55/56 (from the parking event) as long as the POPLA code doesn't expire sooner!
    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.

    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 19th Jan 18, 9:41 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    • #9
    • 19th Jan 18, 9:41 AM
    • #9
    • 19th Jan 18, 9:41 AM
    Hi, thank you. I actually got the windscreen as well as the letter and then letter of rejection. I am going to appeal even though I don't believe this will change anything. I have sent cp plus a lot of pictures showing the carpark where there is no single signage to say about the rules. Car park is big and I don't think anyone is running through it to fine the terms and conditions. They were not displayed anywhere close to where the car was parked so it should be cancelled but they didn't. I don't believe POPLA is there to help.
    Thank you for all your help on my case. I will apply using the temple. If anyone have any other idea on how to fight them I really appreciate your comments.

    Thanks a lot.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 19th Jan 18, 9:53 AM
    • 9,485 Posts
    • 9,233 Thanks
    The Deep
    I am going to appeal even though I don't believe this will change anything

    It could change everything, it depends on how robust, how accurate and how detailed your appeal is,

    From what I have seen, you have lots more reaing to do, winning a PoPLA is not painting by numbers.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 19th Jan 18, 9:56 AM
    • 35,856 Posts
    • 20,092 Thanks
    Quentin
    ......I will apply using the temple. If anyone have any other idea on how to fight them I really appreciate your comments.
    .
    Originally posted by Madzamdzasz
    Don't send it until you have put it up here for comments
    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 21st Jan 18, 1:59 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    POPLA appeal
    Hello everyone who kindly help me in my case. I do appologise for not getting back so quick, but I am mother of 3 year old who been off sick for the last few weeks (nightmare).
    You are right The Deep a lot of reading and no time for it.
    Thank you Quentin, I really appriciate every comment. Witout that forum I would just have to pay with the money that I don't have.
    The below is what I am planning to send to POPLA. I was wandering if to make the point about the no signage on the entrance to site, as well as non on the car park the car was parked as I main and first point as this was really the issue or leave it as it is? The sign with terms and conditions was a long distance from where the car was parked and it wasn't seen by the driver at all.
    Ps. can I add some pictures to show you the pictures?

    POPLA Ref ...................
    CP Plus Parking PCN no .......................

    A notice to keeper was issued on 8th October 2017 and received by me, the registered keeper of ........ on 18th November 2017 for an alleged contravention of ‘NOT PARKED IN DESIGNED PARKING SPACE’’ at Giltbrook Shopping Park, Nottingham. I am writing to you as the registered keeper and would be grateful if you would please consider my appeal for the following reasons.

    The signs in this car park are not prominent (not placed at the entrance to the site, and there are not
    enough signs placed in other locations throughout the site), 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:

    link1

    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.

    Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:

    link2

    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.

    The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:

    link3

    As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:

    link4

    ''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.''

    ...and the same chart is reproduced here:

    link5

    ''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:

    link6

    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 alleged contravention, according to CP Plus, is in 'The signage on site is sufficient and is in line with the guidelines laid down by the British Parking Association (BPA).The majority of motorists who park at the site do so without receiving a PCN. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that they are aware of the terms and conditions of the site. If, as you claim, the signage was inadequate, the terms and conditions of the site would be unknown to the majority of drivers and many more PCNs would be issued here.'
    It would however appear that signage at this location do not comply with road traffic regulations or their permitted variations and as such are misleading - they are unable to be seen by a driver and certainly are not placed at the entrance nor the whole area to the site of the carpark between Dacatlon and Ikea stores at Giltbrook Shopping Park, where the car was parked. The driver was not given the chance to be aware of the risk involved at the time of parking or leaving the vehicle and therefore the signage do not comply with the BPA code of practice.

    B4.2 'Signs must show, in plain and intelligible language, all the terms on which an operator may wish to rely. Signs must be placed at the entrance to the site, and there must be enough signs placed in other locations throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to be aware of the risk involved at the time of parking or leaving the vehicle.'
    CP Plus are required to show evidence to the contrary.



    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 POPLA but 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,

    I therefore request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel this PCN.
    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 22nd Jan 18, 11:14 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    Is this all right to send to POPLA? I wanted to add some photos but not sure how I can do it as a new user? The photos clearly show there is no signage all around the area where the car was parked, nor the entrance to this carpark site.

    Could anyone help PLEASE?

    I only have time to send it by Wednesday or pay the fee and don't know what to do. Would be very grateful for your comment.
    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 22nd Jan 18, 8:23 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    Don't send it until you have put it up here for comments
    Originally posted by Quentin
    Hi, any comments to my previous post? Please, I need help
    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 22nd Jan 18, 8:25 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    As this must have been a windscreen PCN, we hope that you followed the NEWBIES advice to wait till day 26, so by now, having finally got this rejection letter, you are now almost certainly already well over halfway to day 56, with no NTK.

    You WILL win at POPLA on that basis, of course, but include the extra words

    ...just to make sure.

    And don't do the POPLA appeal until day 55/56 (from the parking event) as long as the POPLA code doesn't expire sooner!
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Any chance for your comment, please!?
    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 22nd Jan 18, 8:27 PM
    • 29 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    You should edit your first post immediately to remove information about who did what, assuming you didn't reveal the driver's identity in your first appeal.

    Only ever refer to The Driver and The Keeper, who are two different people.

    If you have a PoPLA code, then use it.

    Use all the template appeal points available to you from post 3 of the NEWBIES thread.

    These should include, not the landowner, no standing to issue charges in their own name, non POFA compliant NTK (you will have to show where it fails to comply with the POFA 2012), inadequate signage, £120 exceeds the maximum amount allowed by the BPA CoP, and anything else you can find.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    Can I ask you for your comment on my appeal please?
    • waamo
    • By waamo 22nd Jan 18, 8:30 PM
    • 3,386 Posts
    • 4,500 Thanks
    waamo
    CP Plus rarely send POFA compliant paperwork. Unless I!!!8217;m missing it you could do with a paragraph challanging POFA compliance.
    This space for hire.
    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Feb 18, 12:26 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    Hi all,

    I have sent the above appeal and CP come back with the evidence pack where they give some photo evidence which only shows how far the signs are on this car park and can not prove that there is any signage available on the site that the car was parked as there isn't over the whole area. No signs visible from that parking spaces. They only say that the driver would have passed several signs when entering the car park
    "Entrance to the site !!!8211; The driver would have driven past several signs
    throughout the car park before parking in a small section at the back of the
    car park, please note that these entrances to the site are the only way drivers
    can gain access"
    The only signs that are available on the entrance are the ones saying
    "Please see signs in the car park for the details" - which the driver did not have a chance to see from where the car was parked.
    Another thing is the contract with the landowner. They provided only one page - Signed Land Owner Agreement between British Land and CP Plus Ltd. It's only signatures and it don't even show the date that it was signed nor other details of the agreement I asked to see.
    Can anyone help me to put some comments together, please?
    Last edited by Madzamdzasz; 05-02-2018 at 12:29 AM.
    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Feb 18, 12:38 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    This is one of their photos. I will upload some more. I would be very grateful if anyone could have a look at them and your feedback will be much appreciated.

    • Madzamdzasz
    • By Madzamdzasz 5th Feb 18, 12:40 AM
    • 29 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    Madzamdzasz
    https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/320xq90/r/923/jKKCSh.png

    https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/320xq90/r/923/l1KOtn.png
    Last edited by Madzamdzasz; 05-02-2018 at 11:43 PM.
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

1,511Posts Today

8,063Users online

Martin's Twitter