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
    • Azure6
    • By Azure6 6th Jul 18, 9:50 AM
    • 22Posts
    • 6Thanks
    Azure6
    PLEASE HELP - POPLA appeal rejected - Minster Baywatch
    • #1
    • 6th Jul 18, 9:50 AM
    PLEASE HELP - POPLA appeal rejected - Minster Baywatch 6th Jul 18 at 9:50 AM
    Dear reader,

    I have followed the NEWBIE thread after receiving a postal PCN from Minster Baywatch for not paying for a ticket. The signage was unclear.
    Site: Mecca Bingo, Oldham.

    I proceeded through the various stages and then submitted POPLA appeal and then rebutted evidence however yesterday POPLA rejected my appeal - they are saying signage was clear and 100 is reasonable based on Beavis case.

    They now want me to pay 100 pounds. I am incredibly disheartened as I have invested considerable time and effort into this with the help of this forum of course.
    I genuinely believed in my case and feel the signage is so unclear with font size illegible.

    What shall I do now? I am afraid of further court fees and feel Minster Baywatch have the upper hand as they have won POPLA appeal.

    Please help.
    Thank you
Page 2
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 7th Jul 18, 2:18 PM
    • 21,987 Posts
    • 34,638 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    I notice no GPEOL is where POPLA appeals have been won the most - does this mean we should not use GPEOL now? (I did mention amount being punitive too)
    Thank you
    Originally posted by Azure6
    You won't spot many dated after November 2015 - the month The Supreme Court kicked GPEOL into the long night in the PE v Barry Beavis case.

    While in a legal context it's not utterly dead and buried, the very mention of it in a current POPLA appeal sees the assessor, like a Pavlovian dog, reach for the 'Beavis button' on their computer and out shoots a rejection and the template crud that the '85 charge is in the region of 100'.

    Well, 100 is actually 17.65% higher than 85, and I for one don't think that 17.65% difference is 'in the region of' anything.

    Appalling bias displayed by POPLA in so shamelessly misinterpreting The Supreme Court Judgment in favour of the parking companies and obviously so weighted against the consumer. This is no impartial Ombudsman service!
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    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.
    • Azure6
    • By Azure6 7th Jul 18, 2:44 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Azure6
    Thank you - that's cleared that up for me.
    Forgive me if i sound foolish ( I am a total novice to all this):

    1) As the Beavis case is being referenced to so much should POPLA (maybe they do) not have records of which PPC matches the Beavis case details - e.g signage similar criteria and income situation similar?
    Only because I know a kind person has posted about the income being different for Minster Baywatch and Beavis - and i thought would it not be fair/right for POPLA to have this information to assess against? (I have no idea if they do)

    2) Second - if I've lost at POPLA what gives me any chance at winning in small claims court?

    3) Thirdly - these debt collector letters I should be expecting - will the 100 fine be honoured or will they add other charges to that - which i would have to pay if SCC lost?

    Thank you kindly in advance
    Im ever so grateful for all your help - Im out my depth here
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 7th Jul 18, 2:58 PM
    • 38,219 Posts
    • 22,229 Thanks
    Quentin
    Debt collector letters should just be ignored. Irrespective of how much they ask for!

    See all the successful wins reported here from Court hearings

    (A Court hearing doesn't necessarily follow a popla appeal!)
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 7th Jul 18, 3:05 PM
    • 21,987 Posts
    • 34,638 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    1. No idea. It doesn't change anything in your case. Nothing totally predictable with POPLA.

    2. Well, they might not issue court proceedings. If they do, a strong defence will assist. Litigation is always risky - for both sides.

    3. It's not a 'fine'! Debt collectors always add their (no collection, no fee) 60 to the 100 original charge. But no one in their right mind would pay a debt crawler. If it went to court and you lost, the cost (everything included) would amount to little more than ~175.

    Don't feel out of your depth, you will quickly get the hang of this, especially if you don't restrict yourself to just your own thread. Read around some of the others each day on the forum. All adds to your knowledge and understanding - and confidence.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    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.
    • Azure6
    • By Azure6 7th Jul 18, 5:12 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Azure6
    Thank you so much everyone!!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 7th Jul 18, 7:22 PM
    • 67,373 Posts
    • 79,614 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    should POPLA (maybe they do) not have records of which PPC matches the Beavis case details - e.g signage similar criteria and income situation similar?
    Don't be daft. No cases are like the Beavis case and the income made no difference.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Azure6
    • By Azure6 12th Jul 18, 1:01 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Azure6
    If no case is like the Beavis case then how are POPLA able to reference the Beavis case in appeal rejections?
    Thank you
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Jul 18, 1:26 PM
    • 10,536 Posts
    • 13,942 Thanks
    beamerguy
    If no case is like the Beavis case then how are POPLA able to reference the Beavis case in appeal rejections?
    Thank you
    Originally posted by Azure6
    In a nutshell, nowadays POPLA don't have a clue
    what they are doing.

    POPLA clearly don't understand the difference between
    the Beavis case and all the others.
    POPLA also cannot understand the problems with ANPR

    All in all, a useless bunch, they are just a bi product of
    the BPA in disgrace

    If motorists are to deal with morons, at least make
    sure the morons are intelligent
    Last edited by beamerguy; 12-07-2018 at 1:39 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 12th Jul 18, 1:50 PM
    • 4,864 Posts
    • 5,901 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    If no case is like the Beavis case then how are POPLA able to reference the Beavis case in appeal rejections?
    Thank you
    Originally posted by Azure6
    Because theyve been told to do so. Theyre no longer legally trained, and seem barely trained.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jul 18, 2:42 PM
    • 67,373 Posts
    • 79,614 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yep, because they were spoon fed some words by the BPA.

    If an appellant dares to mention 'no loss' even in the completely different context of a pay & display car park, POPLA come crashing in with a 'Beavis case kills your argument' trashy template.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Azure6
    • By Azure6 18th Nov 18, 7:17 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Azure6
    Court Claim Update - please help
    Hello everyone,

    Just to update I have received a county court letter from Minster Baywatch dated 07 Nov 18.
    I have been onto MCOL and submitted an Acknowledgement of Service to earn myself 14 more days.
    I will look for Mecca Bingo, Oldham similar defence posts and adapt and then post here for your kind thoughts.
    Is there anything else I should be doing at this stage?
    P.S - Will i physically have to go to court and verbally defend myself?
    Kind thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Nov 18, 7:26 PM
    • 67,373 Posts
    • 79,614 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Will i physically have to go to court and verbally defend myself?
    Probably. It is best to appear in person (not rely on your paperwork being heard in your absence). But this will be at your local court, and to read what that's like, search the forum for another one bites the dust to read 'court reports' from relieved people who all won!

    Plenty were not even required to utter a word...
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 18th Nov 18, 7:51 PM
    • 21,987 Posts
    • 34,638 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Don't feel out of your depth, you will quickly get the hang of this, especially if you don't restrict yourself to just your own thread. Read around some of the others each day on the forum. All adds to your knowledge and understanding - and confidence.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Will i physically have to go to court and verbally defend myself?
    Kind thanks
    Originally posted by Azure6
    I'm very surprised you're not aware of this. Over 4 months ago I suggested you did some advance planning for this by reading other threads on a regular basis.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    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.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 18th Nov 18, 11:31 PM
    • 12,877 Posts
    • 13,864 Thanks
    KeithP
    Just to update I have received a county court letter from Minster Baywatch dated 07 Nov 18.
    Originally posted by Azure6
    It looks like you have a Claim Form with an Issue Date of 7th November 2018.

    Is that correct?

    With a Claim Issue Date of 7th November, and having done the Acknowledgement of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 10th December 2018 to file your Defence.

    That's three weeks away. Loads of time to produce a perfect Defence, but don't leave it to the very last minute.


    When you are happy with the content, your Defence should be filed via email as suggested here:
    1. Print your Defence.
    2. Sign it and date it.
    3. Scan the signed document back in and save it as a pdf.
    4. Send that pdf as an email attachment to CCBCAQ@Justice.gov.uk
    5. 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'.
    6. Log into MCOL after a few days to see if the Claim is marked "defended". If not chase the CCBC until it is.
    7. Do not be surprised to receive a copy of the Claimant's Directions Questionnaire, they are just trying to put you under pressure.
    8. 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.
    Last edited by KeithP; 02-12-2018 at 9:56 PM.
    .
    • Azure6
    • By Azure6 2nd Dec 18, 9:26 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Azure6



    IN THE COUNTY COURT
    CLAIM No: Removed

    BETWEEN:
    Minster Baywatch (Claimant)

    -and-

    xxx car reg xxx (Defendant)



    DEFENCE




    Background

    1. The Defendant is the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. This vehicle is routinely used by more than one individual. The Defendant denies being the driver at the time of the alleged incident. The Claim relates to an alleged debt arising from the drivers alleged breach of contract when parking at xxxxxx xxxxxx car park on the xxth.

    1.1 The signage states that it is for use of Banktop Tavern and Mecca Bingo patrons only, and that such patrons be on the authorised user list. The sign does not state how to be on the authorised user list but does state that customers can use the parking site so it is a frustration of contract.

    1.2 These are not the 'brief, simple and prominently proclaimed' terms that convinced the Supreme Court in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 to bend the penalty rule in that unique, fact-specific case only. The Claimant will have some difficulty in justifying their misleading and confusing terms.

    1.3 These concealed restrictions are misleading and excessive and tip the balance so far against visitors that there is an imbalance in the rights and interests of consumers, which is contrary to the listed Prohibitions in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

    1.4 The driver was a customer of Mecca Bingo but was unaware they needed to be on the “authorised user list” as this was written in an unreadable font size. Therefore, any breach is denied, and it is further denied that there was any agreement to pay the Claimant's 100 Parking Charge Notice.

    1.5 The allegation appears to be based on images by their ANPR camera at the entrance and exit to the site. This is merely an image of the vehicle in transit, entering and leaving the car park in question and is not evidence of the driver not being a patron of Mecca Bingo, Oldham.


    Denial of contract due to inadequate signage

    2. Due to the illegibility of signage font and inherent frustration of contract it is denied that the Defendant, or any driver of the vehicle breached any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.

    2.1. Furthermore, 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.


    2.2. It was noticed that there is no prominent signage at the entrances to the site from the main road and within the car park itself.

    2.3 Any signage present is simply unreadable whilst driving. In addition, it is placed in locations where it is not obvious to the driver i.e. blind spots from the driver’s line of sight, near give way lines before mini roundabout where a driver would need to look right opposite where signage is placed. Therefore, the signage on this site is inadequate to form any contract with the motorist. Photos are to be presented as evidence.

    2.4 The capital font height of the group 1 text (“Pay & Stay”) on the entry sign to this site is only 30mm high. The entrance sign is located on an access road, so the Appendix B of the BPA code says that the minimum capital height for group 1 text, even on a barrier-controlled site is 50mm for an access road the minimum height is 90mm. The group 1 text is 3x too small and thus does not meet BPA code regulations.


    2.5 The sole PDT machine looks like an unremarkable electrical unlit terminal 'box’ camouflaged against an obscure wall and is easily missed. This black ‘box’ has no distinguishing features or signage on the back and from the roadside, to associate it with parking. There is no ''Pay Here'' arrow or other prominent signpost or any 'Have you paid and displayed?' reminders as drivers enter the car park.



    Data Protection concerns

    3. The Defendant had no idea about any ANPR surveillance and received no letters after the initial 'PCN' a vague document which gave no indication as to what the alleged breach actually was. No photographic evidence of the terms on signage has been supplied, not even in the postal PCN.

    3.1 The Claimant is put to strict proof of any breach and of their decision-making in processing the data and the human intervention in deciding to issue a PCN and why, as well as the reasoning behind trying to collect 238.16 instead of the few pounds tariff, if it is their case that this sum went unpaid.

    3.2 Under the GDPR, the Claimant is also put to strict proof regarding the reason for such excessive and intrusive data collection via ANPR surveillance cameras at a remote car park where there would likely be no cars unconnected to patrons, no trespass nor 'unauthorised' parking events.

    3.3 It is one thing to install PDT machines, but quite another to run a hidden ANPR camera data stream alongside the PDT data stream, and then use one against the other, against the rights and interests of thousands of unsuspecting visitors who are being caught out regularly by this trap.

    3.4 Silently collecting VRN data in order to inflate the 'parking charge' from 2 to 100 and write (weeks later) to registered keepers at their own homes - whether they were driving or not - is excessive, untimely and intrusive to registered keeper data subjects.


    3.5 Unlike the free car park in Beavis, this car park is a site where the Claimant has machines to take payment of tariffs. Clearly there will be staff regularly onsite to empty the money from the machines, who could reasonably enforce parking rules with drivers face to face, whilst managing the car park fairly and ensuring that any PDT machine is clear and obvious to drivers and not a hidden 'pitfall or trap'. The ANPR cameras represent disproportionate and excessive data processing, given the nature of this location, and the Claimant's DPO is put to strict proof of its data risk assessment and compliance with the Information Commissioners Office's ANPR surveillance camera Code of Practice.


    No standing or authority to form contracts and/or litigate

    4. 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 parking charge notices, and to pursue payment by means of litigation against patrons.



    No 'legitimate interest' or commercial justification - Beavis is distinguished

    5. With no 'legitimate interest' excuse for charging this unconscionable sum given the above facts, this Claimant is fully aware that their claim is reduced to an unrecoverable penalty and must fail. The Beavis case confirmed that the penalty rule is certainly engaged in any case of a private parking charge and was only disengaged due to the unique circumstances of that case, which do not resemble this claim. The driver has not been identified, the PDT machines and signs/terms are not prominent, the VRN data is harvested excessively by two automated but conflicting data systems and the PCN was sent very late with a 'parking charge' that bears no resemblance to the 2 'parking charge' tariff, and as such, this case is fully distinguished in all respects, from ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, where the decision turned on a legitimate interest and clear notices.

    5.1 The Defendant avers that the factually-different Beavis decision confirms the assertion that this charge is unconscionable, given the signage omission at the time and the other facts of this case. To quote from the Supreme Court:

    Para 108: ''But although the terms, like all standard contracts, were presented to motorists on a take it or leave it basis, they could not have been briefer, simpler or more prominently proclaimed. If you park here and stay more than two hours, you will pay 85''.

    Para 199: ''What matters is that a charge of the order of 85 [...] is an understandable ingredient of a scheme serving legitimate interests. Customers using the car park agree to the scheme by doing so.''

    Para 205: ''The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.''




    Unconscionable, punitive 'parking charge' - again, Beavis is distinguished

    6. If the 'parking charge' (the first interpretation meaning the car park tariff) was unpaid, then the sum 'owed' is a quantifiable figure. The sum 'owed' was a small tariff of some 2. Had the Defendant been clearly alerted to the sum on the day - or even simpler, if they could have had the certainty of paying for it upon entry by way of barriers and entrance tickets- there would be no unfair penalty, and the sites (or landowner) would gain in income and avoid any parking issues at all.

    6.1. Instead, this Claimant is operating a punitive unjustified and excessively data-intrusive ANPR system to their own ends, which is not transparent to consumers. A hidden 'parking charge' of 2 unexpectedly becomes an extortionate 100 bill several weeks later (described also as the 'parking charge') and yet this is not the sort of 'complex' issue with a 'compelling' commercial justification that saved the charge in Beavis from the penalty rule.

    6.2. Taking the comments of the Supreme Court (and the Court of Appeal in the earlier hearing in Beavis) into account, the 'parking charge' sum owed in this case can, at most, only be 2 and there was ample opportunity to fairly collect and transparently advertise that sum on site, on the material day.

    6.3. This regime in a car park that was always free until recent years is not commercially justified, is damaging the reputation of the sites and driving away visitors in future and is surely the epitome of unfairness and unconscionableness. Thus, it cannot be excused from the penalty rule by any 'legitimate interest', both taking into account the GDPR data principles meaning and under the Beavis case definition. Online complaints from other poor victims show how the site appears to suffer from exactly the sort of concealed 'pitfalls or traps' that the Beavis case Judges warned against:

    http://www.chepstowbeacon.co.uk/article.cfm?id=107788&searchyear=2017

    6.4 At #22, in Beavis, the Supreme Court explored Lord Dunedin's speech in Dunlop: ''as Lord Dunedin himself acknowledged, the essential question was whether the clause impugned was unconscionable or extravagant. [...] The four tests are a useful tool for deciding whether these expressions can properly be applied to simple damages clauses in standard contracts.''

    6.4.1 And at #32: ''The true test is whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes a detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest {of ParkingEye} [...] In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin's four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity.''

    6.5 The Court will be aware that Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty include the principle - which went unchallenged in the completely different 'free car park' considerations in the Beavis case - that: ''it will be held to be a penalty if the breach consists only in not paying a sum of money, and the sum stipulated is a sum greater than the sum which ought to have been paid''.

    6.6 Even if the court is minded to accept that the terms were clear and prominent, the 'parking charge' tariff was indisputably a 'standard contract', which would be subject to a simple damages clause to enable recovery of the sum that 'ought to have been paid' which was believed to be 2 and no more.

    6.7 No complicated manipulations of the penalty rule can apply to a standard contract like this one, with quantified damages, otherwise every trader could do this.

    6.8 In Beavis it was held that the claim could not have been pleaded as damages, as that would have failed. It was accepted that 85 was the sum for parking, and that was the 'parking charge' for want of any other monetary consideration in a free car park. It was not pleaded in damages, unlike here, where the sum for parking was just 2 and the Claimant is trying to claim damages of 238.16, no doubt hoping for a Judge who cannot properly interpret the intricacies of the Beavis case.

    7. Further, and in support of the view of the unconscionableness of this charge, given this set of facts, the Defendant avers that a breach of the data principles and failure to comply with ICO rules regarding data captured by ANPR, when added to the lack of clear signage and sparse POC, transgresses the tests of fairness and transparency of consumer contracts, as set out in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

    8. In addition to the original parking charge, for which liability is denied, the Claimants have artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding purported Solicitor's Costs of 50, which have not actually been incurred by the Claimant.

    8.1. Whilst 50 may be recoverable in an instance where a claimant has used a legal firm to prepare a claim, the Claimant has not expended any such sum in this case. This Claimant has a Legal Team with salaried in-house Solicitors and it files hundreds of similar 'cut & paste' robo-claims per month, not incurring any legal cost per case. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof to the contrary, given the fact that their in-house Solicitors cannot possibly be believed to be paid in the millions per annum for their services.

    9. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (the POFA) Schedule 4, at Section 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper (NTK) in this case 100. In the Beavis case, ParkingEye were only able to seek the only stated 'parking charge' sum on their NTK, since there was no quantifiable tariff.

    10. It is not accepted that the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements of the POFA to hold the Defendant liable as registered keeper (and for this they are put to strict proof) and nor is it accepted that 238.16 can be claimed instead of 2 in this case and appears to be a disingenuous attempt at double recovery.

    11. 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.

    I believe the facts contained in this Defence are true.


    Name

    Signature

    Date
    • Azure6
    • By Azure6 2nd Dec 18, 9:29 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Azure6
    Hi everyone,

    Just to say thank you firstly for your generous help.

    I've heavily adapted and tailored above defense ready for submission

    Is this ok?

    Thank you kindly,
    • Azure6
    • By Azure6 4th Dec 18, 7:56 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Azure6
    Court Claim Update - Defense ok?
    Hi again,

    Just to ask again whether the defense I've adapted is ok?
    Will email through as soon as it is

    Thanks,
    • Azure6
    • By Azure6 6th Dec 18, 7:04 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Azure6
    Help! Only few days left before defence submission
    Hi everyone,

    I'll need to submit my defence by Monday 10th

    Please please can you let me know if defence is ok?

    Many thanks
    • Azure6
    • By Azure6 6th Dec 18, 7:10 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Azure6
    Please check defence! Only few days left
    Hi ,

    I've managed to create a new title something I've failed to do past few posts

    I have until Monday 10th to submit defence

    Please let me know If there are any issues

    Thank you
    • Azure6
    • By Azure6 10th Dec 18, 11:36 AM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    Azure6
    Submitted Defence
    Hi Keith,

    Thank you so much for that advice

    I have now submitted defense and will wait for DQ from CCBC
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

1,910Posts Today

8,078Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Right back to self imposed twitter exile until Thur - trying to be off work (not v successfully)

  • Too painful to talk about. That result really was offsensive. For rancid cheese & onion to beat powerful salt & v? https://t.co/FJchchPk0o

  • If you think this hypothetical's bad, here's some of my past polls - Which past PM would u resurrect to aid politi? https://t.co/N61QGBOJ6b

  • Follow Martin