Parking Eye - What's the current advice for these?
Discussion
rj1986 said:
blueg33 said:
Where we cannot use barriers and have pay and display machines, we have spent quite a bit of time getting the contract right between us and the parking company. We have not lost a POPLA appeal to date, but then we have only had one because we dont take the piss.
Hypothetical question- say there was a car park that charged £2.50/hour (not massive amounts, but if you went to a cinema showing, could be in the region of £10 which was the car park's daily cap).Edited by blueg33 on Saturday 20th September 12:09
You were cheeky and tried to get away with it and not buy a ticket. Come back and find a PCN on your windscreen.
Now we know the PPC's pick a number out of the air, double it, add 4 and divide by the national debt of South Korea to come to the penalty figure, from £50-£100 depending on how long you take to pay it. Which is what get's people's backs up as it is a rip off, and then they do the whole not paying, and the PPC's do POPLA, DVLA etc and it ends up costing them money.
If the PPC put on a modest charge of say £30, or £15 if paid with 14 days, would people be more inclined to pay it, as it would only be £5-£15 more than the longest time?
We feel that £10 is plenty, and indeed if they tell the parking office on site that they will be overstaying then we will just levy the correct daily rate. In many cases they get a pass and don't pay for more than 1 hour regardless of how long they stay. We can demonstrate that £10 is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but have never had to do so.
The fundamental difference is that our pay and display car parks are managed by a parking company, but they are paid an amount per annum through their contract with us, they do not get any receipt from parking tickets.
But a typical carpark for us generates circa £10k a day so a contract at £50k pa is easy to justify.
blueg33 said:
rj1986 said:
blueg33 said:
Where we cannot use barriers and have pay and display machines, we have spent quite a bit of time getting the contract right between us and the parking company. We have not lost a POPLA appeal to date, but then we have only had one because we dont take the piss.
Hypothetical question- say there was a car park that charged £2.50/hour (not massive amounts, but if you went to a cinema showing, could be in the region of £10 which was the car park's daily cap).Edited by blueg33 on Saturday 20th September 12:09
You were cheeky and tried to get away with it and not buy a ticket. Come back and find a PCN on your windscreen.
Now we know the PPC's pick a number out of the air, double it, add 4 and divide by the national debt of South Korea to come to the penalty figure, from £50-£100 depending on how long you take to pay it. Which is what get's people's backs up as it is a rip off, and then they do the whole not paying, and the PPC's do POPLA, DVLA etc and it ends up costing them money.
If the PPC put on a modest charge of say £30, or £15 if paid with 14 days, would people be more inclined to pay it, as it would only be £5-£15 more than the longest time?
We feel that £10 is plenty, and indeed if they tell the parking office on site that they will be overstaying then we will just levy the correct daily rate. In many cases they get a pass and don't pay for more than 1 hour regardless of how long they stay. We can demonstrate that £10 is a genuine pre-estimate of loss, but have never had to do so.
The fundamental difference is that our pay and display car parks are managed by a parking company, but they are paid an amount per annum through their contract with us, they do not get any receipt from parking tickets.
But a typical carpark for us generates circa £10k a day so a contract at £50k pa is easy to justify.
Some of these demanding £120 off a 40p ticket is daylight robbery.
rj1986 said:
See, that's fair - that's £5 idiot tax.
Some of these demanding £120 off a 40p ticket is daylight robbery.
I agree. Our car parks are all at acute hospitals so its extra sensitive. Some people say we shouldn't charge at all, but its private land not owned by the state and we leverage the income to provide capital contribution to the hospital for improvements. Eg at one we put £13m of equity into a new A&E department.Some of these demanding £120 off a 40p ticket is daylight robbery.
(before the haters start, its not PFI)
My wife has one of these at the moment for parking at her brothers flat clearly displaying the guest parking pass! she took a photo of the pass when she returned to the car to find the ticket they are still badgering her even though she has e-mailed them pictures of the displayed guest parking permit which is blue tacked to the dashboard.
Needless to say they won't be getting a penny of their £100 penalty!
Needless to say they won't be getting a penny of their £100 penalty!
Is it a penalty for allegedly not displaying or an invalid a permit? Or some other contravention? It depends on which PPC it is as to whether it 'does court', but ignoring is no longer the sensible option since PoFA came into force. Check that the Notice to Keeper is fully compliant. If the PPC won't cancel the ticket on appeal then use POPLA - it costs the PPC money if they lose. The MSE site is an excellent source of help for the correct way to go about this.
Parking Eye ... Bunch of scamming arse !..
took them to the regulator for a "speculative invoice" (not parking fine) they sent me for £100 for 32 minutes of being stationary in a car park (didnt actually leave the vehicle).
Anyway, appealed and won.
Used MoneySavingExpert forums for all appeal templates and for advice on how to word the POPLA appeal too.
4 weeks later, Parking Eye didnt even bother to submit a defense to my arguments that they have no permission to send me a ticket as they are not the owners of the land, and that £100 was not a true reflection of any revenue "lost" by traders because of my actions.
Jason 1 .. Parking Eye 0
One thing that has been highlighted again and again,, Never ignore the letters, if you do, Parking Eye will always win if it goes to court.
If it goes to appeal, Parking Eye will be charged by POPLA for taking the case for review.
took them to the regulator for a "speculative invoice" (not parking fine) they sent me for £100 for 32 minutes of being stationary in a car park (didnt actually leave the vehicle).
Anyway, appealed and won.
Used MoneySavingExpert forums for all appeal templates and for advice on how to word the POPLA appeal too.
4 weeks later, Parking Eye didnt even bother to submit a defense to my arguments that they have no permission to send me a ticket as they are not the owners of the land, and that £100 was not a true reflection of any revenue "lost" by traders because of my actions.
Jason 1 .. Parking Eye 0
One thing that has been highlighted again and again,, Never ignore the letters, if you do, Parking Eye will always win if it goes to court.
If it goes to appeal, Parking Eye will be charged by POPLA for taking the case for review.
Edited by JVaughan on Friday 26th September 14:17
Here is a copy of my successful appeal to POPLA regarding my parking at Southampton Quays after my appeal to Parking Eye was rejected (and they kindly extended the grace period for me to pay the £100)
Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice
POPLA Verification Ref: XXXXXXXXX
I am the registered keeper of Vehicle XXXX XXX and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye whilst at Town Quays Short Stay CarPark, Southampton.
I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
In Summary
1) The Speculative parking Invoice sent is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2) No standing or authority to neither pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
3) Flawed landowner contract
4) The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice
5) ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice
6) Southampton Town Quay car park has no keeper liability - due to byelaws prevailing. POPLA decision code 6060344057
Specifically:-
1) The Invoice sent is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
There was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. ParkingEye notices allege 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event.
The car park at the time of the alleged breach, was less than half full and so it cannot be said that any impact would have been felt by the business in any case by other users not being able to park, either by ParkingEye or by other businesses in the area surrounding Town Quay.
This charge from ParkingEye as a third party business agent is an unenforceable penalty. In ParkingEye v Smith, Manchester County Court December 2011it was rules that the only amount the Operator could lawfully claim was the amount that the driver should have paid into the machine. Anything else was deemed a penalty.
The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.
I have no doubt that ParkingEye will respond with a response claiming to assert some ''commercial justification'' but I refute their arguments. In a recent decision about a ParkingEye the same location (Town Quay), POPLA Assessor Marina Kapour did not accept ParkingEye's generic submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of the car park management services is commercially justified.
''The whole business model of an Operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant.''
2) ParkingEye do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Even if a contract is shown to POPLA, I assert that there are persuasive recent court decisions against ParkingEye which establish that a mere parking agent has no legal standing nor authority which could impact on visiting drivers.
ef. ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646
Parking Eye v Gardam, Case No.3QT60598
3) Under the BPA CoP Section 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name in the courts and grant them the right to form contracts with drivers. I require ParkingEye to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and that it is the same flawed business agreement model as in Sharma and Gardam. (above)
If ParkingEye are able to 'witness statement' in lieu of the contract then I will immediately counter that with evidence that these have been debunked in other recent court cases due to well-publicised and serious date/signature/factual irregularities. I do not expect it has escaped the POPLA Assessors' attention that ParkingEye witness statements have been robustly and publicly discredited and are - arguably - not worth the paper they are photocopied on. !
4)The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver
I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Further, because ParkingEye are a mere agent and place their signs so high, they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance).
Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) ParkingEye have no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. The only signs are up on poles with the spy cameras and were not read nor even seen by the occupants of the car.
5) ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I say that Parking Eye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code.
In addition I question the entire reliability of the system.
I require that ParkingEye present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.
(Ref ParkingEye v Fox-Jones 08/11/2013)
6) Southampton Town Quay car park has no keeper liability - due to byelaws prevailing. Specifically ABP Town Quay car park not being "Relevant Land".
It is my understanding that ParkingEye are aware of this issue following POPLA decision code 6060344057.
I request that based on the above defence, my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to instruct ParkingEye to cancel the ‘PCN’.
Yours faithfully,
Re: ParkingEye Parking Charge Notice
POPLA Verification Ref: XXXXXXXXX
I am the registered keeper of Vehicle XXXX XXX and I wish to appeal a recent parking charge from ParkingEye whilst at Town Quays Short Stay CarPark, Southampton.
I submit the points below to show that I am not liable for the parking charge:
In Summary
1) The Speculative parking Invoice sent is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
2) No standing or authority to neither pursue charges nor form contracts with drivers
3) Flawed landowner contract
4) The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice
5) ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice
6) Southampton Town Quay car park has no keeper liability - due to byelaws prevailing. POPLA decision code 6060344057
Specifically:-
1) The Invoice sent is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
There was no damage nor obstruction caused so there can be no loss arising from the incident. ParkingEye notices allege 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from the parking event.
The car park at the time of the alleged breach, was less than half full and so it cannot be said that any impact would have been felt by the business in any case by other users not being able to park, either by ParkingEye or by other businesses in the area surrounding Town Quay.
This charge from ParkingEye as a third party business agent is an unenforceable penalty. In ParkingEye v Smith, Manchester County Court December 2011it was rules that the only amount the Operator could lawfully claim was the amount that the driver should have paid into the machine. Anything else was deemed a penalty.
The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that a 'parking charge' is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists. And the BPA Code of Practice states that a charge for breach must wholly represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss flowing from the parking event.
I have no doubt that ParkingEye will respond with a response claiming to assert some ''commercial justification'' but I refute their arguments. In a recent decision about a ParkingEye the same location (Town Quay), POPLA Assessor Marina Kapour did not accept ParkingEye's generic submission that the inclusion of costs which in reality amount to the general business costs incurred for the provision of the car park management services is commercially justified.
''The whole business model of an Operator in respect of a particular car park operation cannot of itself amount to commercial justification. I find that the charge is not justified commercially and so must be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of loss in order to be enforceable against the appellant.''
2) ParkingEye do not own the land mentioned in their Notice to Keeper and have not provided any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from a driver or keeper. Even if a contract is shown to POPLA, I assert that there are persuasive recent court decisions against ParkingEye which establish that a mere parking agent has no legal standing nor authority which could impact on visiting drivers.
ef. ParkingEye v Sharma, Case No. 3QT62646
Parking Eye v Gardam, Case No.3QT60598
3) Under the BPA CoP Section 7, a landowner contract must specifically allow the Operator to pursue charges in their own name in the courts and grant them the right to form contracts with drivers. I require ParkingEye to produce a copy of the contract with the landowner as I believe it is not compliant with the CoP and that it is the same flawed business agreement model as in Sharma and Gardam. (above)
If ParkingEye are able to 'witness statement' in lieu of the contract then I will immediately counter that with evidence that these have been debunked in other recent court cases due to well-publicised and serious date/signature/factual irregularities. I do not expect it has escaped the POPLA Assessors' attention that ParkingEye witness statements have been robustly and publicly discredited and are - arguably - not worth the paper they are photocopied on. !
4)The signage was not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice so there was no valid contract formed between ParkingEye and the driver
I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Further, because ParkingEye are a mere agent and place their signs so high, they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance).
Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) ParkingEye have no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival. The only signs are up on poles with the spy cameras and were not read nor even seen by the occupants of the car.
5) ANPR Accuracy and breach of the BPA Code of Practice 21.3
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I say that Parking Eye have failed to clearly inform drivers about the cameras and what the data will be used for and how it will be used and stored. I have also seen no evidence that they have complied with the other requirements in that section of the code.
In addition I question the entire reliability of the system.
I require that ParkingEye present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.
(Ref ParkingEye v Fox-Jones 08/11/2013)
6) Southampton Town Quay car park has no keeper liability - due to byelaws prevailing. Specifically ABP Town Quay car park not being "Relevant Land".
It is my understanding that ParkingEye are aware of this issue following POPLA decision code 6060344057.
I request that based on the above defence, my appeal is upheld and for POPLA to instruct ParkingEye to cancel the ‘PCN’.
Yours faithfully,
Red Devil said:
Is it a penalty for allegedly not displaying or an invalid a permit? Or some other contravention? It depends on which PPC it is as to whether it 'does court', but ignoring is no longer the sensible option since PoFA came into force. Check that the Notice to Keeper is fully compliant. If the PPC won't cancel the ticket on appeal then use POPLA - it costs the PPC money if they lose. The MSE site is an excellent source of help for the correct way to go about this.
Not displaying it. She has sent photos clearly showing the permit. We will appeal I'm guessing whoever issued it didn't spot the permit. They are taking the piss big time it's costs us time and effort appealing we should be able to claim our costs.
BoRED S2upid said:
Red Devil said:
Is it a penalty for allegedly not displaying or an invalid a permit? Or some other contravention? It depends on which PPC it is as to whether it 'does court', but ignoring is no longer the sensible option since PoFA came into force. Check that the Notice to Keeper is fully compliant. If the PPC won't cancel the ticket on appeal then use POPLA - it costs the PPC money if they lose. The MSE site is an excellent source of help for the correct way to go about this.
Not displaying it. She has sent photos clearly showing the permit. We will appeal I'm guessing whoever issued it didn't spot the permit. They are taking the piss big time it's costs us time and effort appealing we should be able to claim our costs.
Feel free to use any of the above appeals information if it can be of use to you. I was guided by MSE
Breadvan72 said:
That letter above contains a good chunk of barrack room lawyer tosh. In any event, it is best to write in plain English, not in some imagined version of legal speak.
I read through this earlier, and deleted a longer post, as I gave up... I was saying the same.A very condensed version is just because a Code of Practice of a third party says something with regards to contract formation etc this does not change the law or how it is interpreted.
Breadvan72 said:
That letter above contains a good chunk of barrack room lawyer tosh. In any event, it is best to write in plain English, not in some imagined version of legal speak.
Whatever. The killer in this case is item 6). If parking at Town Quay is governed by Byelaws it is not 'Relevant Land'. Therefore there is no keeper liability under PoFA 2012. Accordingly PE cannot pursue the RK, only the driver. So without that info they are going nowhere. Furthermore, in any case Byelaw infringements (including Railway 14 ones) are dealt with by the Mags. Entirely different process. It would be interesting to know if not Relevant Land was the grounds used by the POPLA assessor for ruling against PE or whether it was something else (e.g. GPEOL which is the usual one that POPLA use to kick the case into the long grass).
BoRED S2upid said:
Red Devil said:
Is it a penalty for allegedly not displaying or an invalid a permit? Or some other contravention? It depends on which PPC it is as to whether it 'does court', but ignoring is no longer the sensible option since PoFA came into force. Check that the Notice to Keeper is fully compliant. If the PPC won't cancel the ticket on appeal then use POPLA - it costs the PPC money if they lose. The MSE site is an excellent source of help for the correct way to go about this.
Not displaying it. She has sent photos clearly showing the permit. We will appeal I'm guessing whoever issued it didn't spot the permit. They are taking the piss big time it's costs us time and effort appealing we should be able to claim our costs.
9mm said:
Petrus1983 said:
Strangely a friend put this on Facebook only on Friday -
"Parking Eye. You may recall, I sought advice from Facebook and real people as to the legality of these vultures charging me £100 to park in The Range for more than 2 hours.
I received many comments about how the fines are unenforceable and various pieces of advice, usually to ignore the letters and reminders.
Anyway, for anyone still interested ...
I ignored the letters until I received a notification from a central court that Parking Eye intended to take a civil action against me. I then instructed a solicitor (well, a mate who is a solicitor) to act for me in defending the case, as he felt it was worth giving it a go.
We tried to get the court and Parking Eye to agree to mediation (negotiation), but that failed and a court date was set for 1st September, where the charge was upheld and I lost.
We tried to say that there was no contract in place, the sign was not lit, no loss could be demonstrated etc, but it was rejected at Portsmouth Court.
So, the £100 fine (could have been reduced to £50 if paid in 14 days) ended up costing me £190. It is scant consollation that it has cost Parking Eye more than £190 to pursue me.
It's too late for me, but it might be worth bearing in mind if the same thing happens to YOU!"
Hope this helps.
Meaningless without transcripts and documentation. A cynic might say your friend works for parking Eye and would like to promote this kind of story. "Parking Eye. You may recall, I sought advice from Facebook and real people as to the legality of these vultures charging me £100 to park in The Range for more than 2 hours.
I received many comments about how the fines are unenforceable and various pieces of advice, usually to ignore the letters and reminders.
Anyway, for anyone still interested ...
I ignored the letters until I received a notification from a central court that Parking Eye intended to take a civil action against me. I then instructed a solicitor (well, a mate who is a solicitor) to act for me in defending the case, as he felt it was worth giving it a go.
We tried to get the court and Parking Eye to agree to mediation (negotiation), but that failed and a court date was set for 1st September, where the charge was upheld and I lost.
We tried to say that there was no contract in place, the sign was not lit, no loss could be demonstrated etc, but it was rejected at Portsmouth Court.
So, the £100 fine (could have been reduced to £50 if paid in 14 days) ended up costing me £190. It is scant consollation that it has cost Parking Eye more than £190 to pursue me.
It's too late for me, but it might be worth bearing in mind if the same thing happens to YOU!"
Hope this helps.
Breadvan72 said:
That letter above contains a good chunk of barrack room lawyer tosh. In any event, it is best to write in plain English, not in some imagined version of legal speak.
Saved me £100, and i took the time to read the case notes and understand my rights, so Barrack Room lawyer Tosh it might be, but it makes sense to me and was applicable in me winning my appeal.Parking Eye also were charged fees by the regulatory body so in effect, I was able to penalize them by taking my appeal all the way
Edited by JVaughan on Thursday 2nd October 18:03
JVaughan said:
Saved me £100, and i took the time to read the case notes and understand my rights, so Barrack Room lawyer Tosh it might be, but it makes sense to me and was applicable in me winning my appeal.
Parking Eye also were charged fees by the regulatory body so in effect, I was able to penalize them by taking my appeal all the way
Its ok, lawyers always say stuff like that when a layman deals with the law himself. Parking Eye also were charged fees by the regulatory body so in effect, I was able to penalize them by taking my appeal all the way
Edited by JVaughan on Thursday 2nd October 18:03
I had a most entertaining meeting a couple of years ago where a solicitor was telling me and my colleague that we had no idea what we were talking about. The colleague,m who I forgot to introduce was a leading barrister in that area of the law.
Breadvan72 said:
I post here partly because I think that legal knowledge should not be confined to lawyers, and am all in favour of improved citizen awareness of the law, but the letter quoted above, although it contains some good points, saddles these with some silly ones.
Actually I agree with you and your knowledge is much appreciated. I know its frustrating knowing people are saying stuff that is technically wrong, but sometimes it works. I have similar issues with posts on development and planning.
Just had a cancellation of ticket notice from PE.
So far Me 4 - Parking Cos 0
One for Gerard here - what is your view on the particular merits of this as an argument.
PE locally to me have ANPR enforced 3 hour parking in what is otherwise a free car park with £100 penalty for over stay. Problem is this isn't just a supermarket or similar car park - it serves an M&S Food & Per Una, Boots, Laura Ashley, Pets at Home, Home Furnishings, a gym and sportswear retailer, mountain warehouse and a starbucks.
These shops are there to invite you in to browse and purchase. You could quite easily do a family food shop, pick up a prescription, browse for school or sports wear or home wares/furnishings and then follow that up with a leisurely danish and a mochachocastrawberrylatte and exceed the 3 hour limit by some margin.
I wonder if any court in the land would agree that this was a fair contract bearing in mind the intended use of the car park.
Whadyafink
So far Me 4 - Parking Cos 0
One for Gerard here - what is your view on the particular merits of this as an argument.
PE locally to me have ANPR enforced 3 hour parking in what is otherwise a free car park with £100 penalty for over stay. Problem is this isn't just a supermarket or similar car park - it serves an M&S Food & Per Una, Boots, Laura Ashley, Pets at Home, Home Furnishings, a gym and sportswear retailer, mountain warehouse and a starbucks.
These shops are there to invite you in to browse and purchase. You could quite easily do a family food shop, pick up a prescription, browse for school or sports wear or home wares/furnishings and then follow that up with a leisurely danish and a mochachocastrawberrylatte and exceed the 3 hour limit by some margin.
I wonder if any court in the land would agree that this was a fair contract bearing in mind the intended use of the car park.
Whadyafink
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff