I was just wondering, has there been any legal action taken against the ANCP? Or is the best we can do to avoid the "payment notices" (i.e."fines") is to just ignore them?
I'm kind of worried for all those people I just saw this morning complaining, clearly distressed, about the so called 'fine' and whether or not they 'have' to pay it or not.
I inspected one of those tickets on a car in the Bankstown ALDI in NSW and, I must say, it does seem like they would take legal action since ANCP has the owner's vehicle registration code.
I am not legally literate, so I really want to know what ANCP is able to do to shoppers who receive these tickets. Would they be able to obtain one's details from the RTA? Would they be able to obtain those details for the main reason of harassing people to pay their 'fine'? What would happen if one didn't pay them?
From what I've read, people who are literate in this sort of stuff say that ANCP has a really weak claim against the shopper and, in most cases, if challenged, will withdraw their 'charge'. So does that mean shoppers can only be exempt from the 'fine' if they bother to give out their details to ANCP and challenge them to court?
I suggest you read the whole post linked at the top of this thread.
Seriously, read it all before asking those questions because most of what you asked have been answered there. Best to inform yourself before taking on these guys.
In the two weeks since I wrote these, the world has moved on. It is increasingly apparent that private parking companies are deploying the same scam that exists in the UK, with escalating threats from the PPC, debt collectors and solicitors. My advice is now to IGNORE anything except court papers.
Given that we're still on the first page of the new thread, I thought a couple of standard form letters to send to Australian National Car Parks/Care Park et al might be in order (of course, they don't constitute, and are not a substitute for, legal advice). These are focused on Victorian punters who have been the subject of an ANCP threat.
LETTER TO CAR PARK OPERATOR
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
To Whom It May Concern:
PAYMENT NOTICE [insert number]
I write with respect to your correspondence of [insert date] demanding payment of Payment Notice [insert number] for a claimed breach of contract that occurred at [Location and suburb] on [insert date].
In your letter, you have indicated that you have sent the letter to me as the ‘registered owner/driver’ [or other terminology as per the letter]. While I admit to being the owner of the vehicle in question on the date the contract was alleged to have been formed between the driver of the vehicle and [Car park operator], it is not clear from your letter the grounds on which your organisation asserts that I was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time the breach of contract was alleged to have occurred. As such, you will need to pursue this matter with the driver concerned.
[If you're in Victoria, add the following: Please be aware that if an attempt is made to issue proceedings in any court other than the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, I will make an application to VCAT under s 112A of the Fair Trading Act 1999 prior to any hearing. This is to ensure that the claim is instead heard as a small claim at VCAT and that no costs can be recovered in accordance with cl 28GG of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.]
Please note also that in accordance with part 12 of the ACCC/ASIC Debt collection guideline: for collectors and creditors, if the matter is referred to a collection agent (however described), I will inform the collection agent (formally if requested) that I intend to defend any action brought against me.
I absolutely deny your claim that the amount claimed, or any amount at all, is due to you from me. I will welcome the opportunity to defend your allegation and am confident of success. Therefore, I demand you cease and desist from any further contact with me except to inform me that you are not pursuing this matter. If you fail to do so, I may lodge a formal complaint with the ACCC about your conduct, which would be in breach of both the ACCC/ASIC debt collection guidelines as well as the prohibition on coercion and undue harassment contained in s 60 of the Trade Practices Act.
Yours sincerely
LETTER TO DEBT COLLECTOR
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
I refer to your letter dated xxxxx
I am currently disputing this matter with [Insert name of car park operator].
I absolutely deny that the amount claimed, or any amount at all, is due to be paid to [Car park operator] by me. [Car park operator] appears to have commenced this action on the basis that I was both the registered owner and driver of the vehicle in question at the time the alleged breach of contract occurred. While I admit to being the owner of the vehicle in question on the date the contract was alleged to have been formed between the driver of the vehicle and [Car park operator], the grounds on which [Car park operator] asserts that I was the driver of the vehicle in question at the time the breach of contract was alleged to have occurred are not clear. As such, [Car park operator] will need to pursue this matter with the driver concerned.
I intend to defend any legal proceedings that are brought against me and therefore request that you refer this matter back to your principal. [If you're in Victoria, add the following: Please inform your principal that if an attempt is made to issue proceedings in any court other than the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, I will make an application to VCAT under s 112A of the Fair Trading Act 1999 prior to any hearing. This is to ensure that the claim is instead heard as a small claim at VCAT and that no costs can be recovered in accordance with cl 28GG of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.]
In accordance with Part 12 of the ACCC/ASIC debt collection guidelines, I also demand that you cease and desist from further contact with me regarding this matter. If you fail to do so, I may lodge a formal complaint with the ACCC about your conduct, which would be in breach of both the debt collection guidelines as well as the prohibition on coercion and undue harassment contained in s 60 of the Trade Practices Act.
Yours sincerely
Edited by surroundfan - 03/October/2009 at 18:44
I am not a lawyer and this post does not constitute legal advice.
I’ve written some FAQs. They are a bit of a moveable feast at the moment, because the outcomes of some strategies are not known. They are Victoria-centric in terms of enforcement. You should note that other states' procedures on small claims differ significantly, particularly with respect to costs.
What's this private parking malarky about anyway?
If you're reading this thread for the first time, welcome to the club.
In Victoria, NSW, SA and Queensland, shopping centres and other land owners often hire private parking companies (PPCs) such as Australian National Car Parks, Care Park, Parking Infringements Victoria and Adelaide City Fines/Park Fast to patrol car parking arrangements on their land.
In many cases, the arrangements work smoothly with a boomgate and a ticket being issued on entry and being paid for (or validated for free parking) before exit through another boomgate. Virtually everyone pays for the parking time which they have used and few problems arise.
The problems that have arisen are from so-called 'pay and display' car parks, where a driver is required to display a ticket on their dashboard, even to park in a 'free' spot. If you do not display a ticket or overstay the time, the private parking companies claim huge sums of money for this that are out of all proportion to the costs of parking. The legal status of these claims are discussed below.
I've just received a 'payment notice'. Where do I stand?
The first, and most important, thing to recognise is that a 'payment notice' is not a fine.
Despite being printed on pink paper and made to look official, private car park operators are not employed by the government. Payment notices which give the appearance of council-issued tickets have been held to be misleading and deceptive.* Any person who receives such a notice has not infringed any statute law, regulation or road rule. The cops will NOT pay a visit to the owner asking them to please explain. The sheriffs will NOT come in and seize your telly. In short, no government action will arise if you don’t pay. This contrasts with council tickets, which must be paid by the registered operator unless the driver is identified. DO NOT IGNORE A COUNCIL-ISSUED PARKING TICKET.
Instead, the PPC has just issued you with a claim for liquidated damages for breach of a contract with the PPC (more on this below). Such damages typically amount (at the time of writing) to $88 or $66 if paid within 14 days.
You can elect to pay $66 now and that will be the end of the matter. Life will return to normal and you’ll be $66 poorer. However, for reasons discussed below, you’re probably just as well off ignoring this demand.
* See Corporation of the City of Adelaide v Adelaide City Fines Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 132.
The PPC’s claiming I entered into a contract? I didn’t enter into any contract!
By driving onto the shopping centre’s land, the driver has got a licence to do so only on condition that he or she enters into a contract with the PPC.
The signs on the boards displayed contain terms of the contract, with unusual terms in large print and the balance of the terms in extremely fine print. At common law, unusual and onerous terms in an unsigned contract must meet the ‘red hand rule’ – this basically means they must be prominently displayed (see J Spurling v Bradshaw).
One of the key defences to any PPC allegation is therefore that the signs were not prominently displayed, and even if they were, that the onerous liquidated damages clauses were not.
Speaking of onerous claims, $88 is a bit much for not getting a pay and display ticket in a ‘free’ spot isn’t it?
Probably, although we can’t say definitively because no PPC has ever had the guts to take anyone to court who’s run such a defence.
Essentially, the common law prohibits liquidated damages clauses that are punitive (see Dunlop Pneumatic v New Garage Motor, reaffirmed in Australia in BP v Ringrow). Punitive liquidated damages clauses are ones that do not represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss experienced and are out of all proportion to the loss experienced. Clauses that apply the same penalty regardless of the scale of the breach (for example, parking in a spot for two minutes or two weeks) are presumed to be punitive.
I expect that it will be hard for the PPC to argue that claiming $88 in liquidated damages for a punter parking for two minutes in a free spot without a ticket is not out of all proportion to the loss suffered.
If the liquidated damages clause is found to be void (which is highly likely), damages will be calculated on the basis that they would put the parties in substantially the same position as if the contract had been performed. What would have been the PPC’s position in the example above? Correct – they’d probably get nothing…
The PPC’s just got my ownership details from VicRoads. It’s a breach of my privacy! How dare they!?!
The PPCs can use a process called ‘preliminary discovery’ which gives them broadranging powers to identify prospective defendants in any action. VicRoads is legally obliged to hand over owners’ details if the court grants relief in this matter. As is revealed below though, this preliminary discovery process has a fatal flaw for the PPCs.
I’m the owner of the vehicle. Do I have to pay for the driver?
Simply put, no. As the NSW Court of Appeal said in its judgment handing over registered operators' details "The putative contract claim would lie against the driver of the car on the day in question. It is not suggested that there is some basis for inferring that the driver was the owner’s agent as a matter of contract law." (RTA v ANCP [2007] NSWCA 114, [26]). This comes down to arguments about privity of contract. One aspect of privity of contract is that a contract cannot impose a burden on a third party.
This is in contrast to most other matters involving motor vehicles where the registered operator is deemed to be liable regardless of who the driver is unless the owner identifies the driver.
This is where the flaw in the preliminary discovery process comes in. If, as suggested, you’ve ignored the payment notice, the registered operator of the vehicle will get a threatening letter or two asking them to cough up because these details are given up by VicRoads. Yet as mentioned above, it is the DRIVER who entered into the contract with the PPC. There is no obligation under the Road Safety Act 1986 for a registered operator to identify the driver to a PPC (unlike, say, the police). Unless the PPC can adduce evidence that you, the owner, were also the driver, they basically have no case against you. Houston, we have a problem…
Therefore, do NOT admit to being the driver of the car in any conversation or letter with a PPC. Also, if you are the owner but not the driver, make life difficult for the PPC by refusing to identify the driver.
I’m a Victorian. Isn’t it going to be hideously expensive for me if this gets taken to court and I lose?
Victorians are lucky people when it comes to small claims. We have the perfect mechanism to thwart potentally costly legal action by PPCs early on.
As this dispute is likely to be a ‘consumer and trader dispute’, if the PPCs try and issue proceedings in a court (i.e. not VCAT), you can use s 112A of the Fair Trading Act 1999 to have the hearing moved to the small claims list at VCAT (meaning no costs orders by virtue of cl 28GG of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, no lawyers cl 28BB, no risk of a judgment debt provided any order is paid in the unlikely event a PPC wins). It’s hence a very desirable course of action for a consumer.
You must make an application to VCAT BEFORE ANY HEARING, which requires you to act swiftly, and you must place the amount in dispute ($88) in trust with VCAT until the matter is resolved. In addition, if a hearing has commenced in a court, you can request that the court stay the proceedings and have the matter heard in VCAT under s 112 of the Fair Trading Act, although this is up to the discretion of the court.
I'm not in Victoria. What now?
If you're in another state, you probably don't need to worry anyway. PPCs are unlikely to take you to court provided you don't say or do anything stupid (like admit who the driver was or try to 'appeal'). One judgment against a PPC has the potential to expose the flaws in their case (many, but not all, of which are touched on in this post) that others can exploit and hence ruin their whole business model.
In the PPCs view, it's hardly worth it for $88, when you've got so many other suckers stumping up the cash because they don't know better.
Isn’t this going to ruin my credit rating?
No. The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) regulates credit files. In the current case, the two likely issues are that you get a court judgment (hey more unlikely things have happened, I’m sure!), or that a collection agent or the PPC will record a default against you.
If you’ve taken this matter to VCAT, in the unlikely event you lose, you will get an order against you. If you pay the order within the allotted time, the PPC will not be able to go to the Magistrates’ Court and get a judgment debt recorded against you (which WILL go on your credit file). This is why it’s desirable to get the matter moved from the Magistrates’ Court to VCAT.
The other important thing to recognise is that you probably haven’t defaulted on a credit contract. Dun and Bradstreet and other debt collectors writing threatening letters saying that they (or their principal) will make a recording in your file on the grounds that you have defaulted on an account.
It is extremely unlikely that you’ve entered a credit contract though, because the contract provides for the payment to occur at the same time as supply of the parking services and is therefore unlikely to meet the definition of a ‘loan’ (no, delaying payment of a claim for liquidated damages is not a loan!). In addition, s 18E(8)(c) of the Privacy Act requires that the credit provider (i.e. the PPC) must have, at the time of, or before, acquiring the information on the default, informed you that the information might be disclosed to a credit reporting agency. I don't think any PPC has ever done that! See C v Service Provider [2004] PrivCmrA 17 for more.
Won’t it be better to just use their appeals mechanism? They’ll see my side of the story and cancel the ticket, I’m sure.
No it won’t. No they won’t. Unlike councils etc who have genuine appeals processes, it is not in a PPC’s interest to cancel your ticket because they make money from it. If you do appeal and it is denied (as is likely), they may well use your letter against you in court proceedings.
What should I do now?
There are two main strategies for dealing with PPCs.
1. The angry 'cease and desist letter'. See my post above for examples. This will basically tell the PPC to put up (i.e. take you to court) or shut up.
In most cases, the PPC will be reluctant to take the matter to court, although there's a small risk they might. This course of action also means no threatening letters from debt collectors or solicitors, but it costs you a 55c stamp. The PPC may also interpret 'p*** off' to mean 'please send me more crap', in which case move on to option 2.
2. Ignore, ignore and ignore some more. Preferred. This basically involves doing nothing. Be prepared for 1-2 letters from the PPC, 1-2 letters from a debt collector (Dun and Bradstreet in the case of ANCP, 'Crown Collections' in the case of Care Park*) and 1-2 letters from the PPC's tame firm of solicitors (A'Beckett Lawyers in the case of ANCP, 'Parke Lawyers' in the case of Care Park*), each ratcheting up the histrionics and the 'costs' that they won't be able to claim.**
It remains to be seen what the outcome of this strategy is, although the experiences of tigermoth and Moray on the forum suggests nothing will occur. If the PPCs here are like those in the UK, they won't go anywhere near a court for fear of getting their bottom spanked. There is a small risk that a PPC will attempt to lodge a false default on your credit history, potentially leading to the hassle of having to get it removed.
* Crown Collections and Parke Lawyers appear to be trading styles of Care Park. If you have the crazy notion that you'd like to write to them, you may as well write to Care Park directly. But you should just treat them all with the contempt they deserve and ignore them.
** Something along the lines of: 'We wrote to you a week ago indicating that you had to pay $1 million and that we would kill your cat. As you have ignored us, the debt you owe is now $10 million and we will kill your cat AND eat your children. You have lost all appeal rights.'
Edited by surroundfan - 17/November/2009 at 22:35
I am not a lawyer and this post does not constitute legal advice.
The D&B letter does not state that D&B will list me, but says that their client, ANCP “lists the details of unpaid accounts with a Consumer Credit Bureau”.
My only concern in responding to D&B is that they will report back to ANCP. So far I have totally ignored correspondence from ANCP and their “solicitors”. As earlier contributors have stated, ignoring them is the best strategy.
If I respond to D&B I might shake off D&B but unfortunately they will confirm with ANCP that I am contactable. Actually, I wonder if the D&B letter is bait and the primary objective is to flush out non-respondents.
Ah - I never got to a D&B letter. I wrote straight off telling ANCP to cease and desist and haven't heard a peep in the month since I did (they're no fun, really - I wanted to toy with them a bit!) Thanks for letting me know how the system operates on this front.
ANCP already knows you're contactable - they got your details from VicRoads/RTA. Therefore, a letter back to D&B in similar terms to those provided above will basically tell both ANCP and D&B to back off, and open an avenue to a wrongful listing complaint to the Federal Privacy Commissioner if ANCP do list (see the ACCC/ASIC debt collection guidelines for guidance on what debt collectors and creditors should do if informed that the debt is in dispute).
It's important to remember that ANCP is not sending out an 'account' as any normal human being would understand the term (i.e. like a phone or gas bill), which represent the seller of the goods or services permitting you to delay payment of those goods or services (and hence giving rise to a right to report for non-payment).
It's a claim for liquidated damages for breach of contract. After all, you weren't permitted to delay paying for parking/obtaining the ticket, were you?
Edited by surroundfan - 21/September/2009 at 19:30
I am not a lawyer and this post does not constitute legal advice.
Well I have now received a second letter from D&B demanding payment within 48 hours or they ..... "may refer the file to our client and seek instructions for further recovery action".
I'm still in two minds whether to write back to D&B or whether to wait and see what instructions their client(ANCP)will give them.
I might be wrong but I can't see ANCP giving D&B any further instructions. Because as I see it, if I don't respond, D&B will simply have to tell their client that they tried to contact me and failed - which will mean ANCP will have to give up or try yet another avenue.
Aside from all this legal mambo jambo, isn't anyone concerned that this company is sending notices 2 years after the alleged 'incident'...Obviously waiting for person to forget all about it (even if they have paid the 'fine') and then issuing it again!
Hi Eddie81
Yes, I am concerned about that and the fact that they also send these 'Intention to Sue' Notices to people who were never originally issued a so called 'infringement notice' (as in my case) 10months-2years prior the so called alledged 'breach of contract'. As stated in a previous post, I have witnessed these so called 'parking inspectors' writing Registration Numbers into a notepad. My thought on this is they are illegally writing down a heap of Rego Numbers on any given day and then 10 months to 2 years down the track, they send out 'Intention to Sue' notices to unsuspecting people who would never remember details of where they were.
I am quite shocked that a business like this, dishonest and clearly corrupt, can continue to operate.
My case was 'cancelled' by these crims at ANCP because I told them directly that I was happy and committed to being taken to court by them to fight it. Again I've been following this for quite a while and researched and written to many people. I still haven't heard of a case where they have actually taken anyone to court.
Makes me so mad!! And as mentioned in a previous post by someone, it's not 'stupid' people that are paying these, it's unsuspecting and confused people who are happy to make it go away. ANCP are no doubt making a lot of money out of this venture.
I think that in my message to Care Park in my previous post that using the words 'unsuspecting and confused' would have been a little long winded in the short sharp message I was trying to send to these idiots.
Appologies to anyone who took offence.
I am allowed to call ANCP 'idiots', aren't I??
Has anyone considered that the inspectors may not be all that proffessional in their duties. They are given the job to check a number of car parks and issue fines. Instead, they could get out of bed around 11am drive to the first car park, jot down the number plates of a few of the cars present (with tickets or not), do the same for the next few car parks, then head to the beach and a surf for a few hours, dry off, do another lap of the car parks jotting down some more numbers and then head home and sit in front of the tv, beer in hand filling in the 'fines'. He knows it will be months before anything happens about them, and by then he'll be working somewhere else anyway.
I have undeniable proof I was not at the car park with documented proof. I even have video of where I actually was. As for the driver... Dunno, too long ago to remember!!
Hellop everyone,
I am new here and having a question to ask if anyone can help.I received a letter from Australian National Carpark ANC) requested a payment of $88 that issued on 25 Augist 2008 which I did not know. I ignored their letter and subsequently I received letter from Dun&Bradstreet Debt collection Services and today (30/09/2009) from A'Beckett Lawyers from Victoria threaten to take me to court if I do not pay $163 by 5/10/2009. If I have to go to court Do I have to go to Melbourne for the hearing...etc? What should I do now? I never park in that car park since 2006 and if I park anywhere I always play by the rules. Please help, I am very appriciated.
I've moved your post to this thread, please read the information above and in the previous thread, there are several templates for reply letters some of which will apply in your case.
Good luck.
I am NOT a lawyer. Anything said is NOT legal advice.
Surroundfan seems to have a good answer to your problem.
Originally posted by surroundfan
Victorians are lucky people when it comes to small claims. Unlike our NSW and Queensland counterparts, we have the perfect mechanism to thwart potentally costly legal action by PPCs.
As this dispute is likely to be a ‘consumer and trader dispute’, if the PPCs try and issue proceedings in a court (i.e. not VCAT), you can use s 112A of the Fair Trading Act 1999 to have the hearing moved to the small claims list at VCAT (meaning no costs orders by virtue of cl 28GG of Schedule 1 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998, no lawyers cl 28BB, no risk of a judgment debt provided any order is paid in the unlikely event a PPC wins). It’s hence a very desirable course of action for a consumer.
You must make an application to VCAT BEFORE ANY HEARING, which requires you to act swiftly, and you must place the amount in dispute ($88) in trust with VCAT until the matter is resolved. In addition, if a hearing has commenced in a court, you can request that the court stay the proceedings and have the matter heard under s 112 of the Fair Trading Act, although this is up to the discretion of the court.
I shall probably receive a letter from the same lawyers myself. It looks like they are dealing with us reprobates in batches. I have had two letters from ANCP. One from a lawyer in Sydney and two from Dun & Bradstreet. I have responded to none so I too will probably get a letter from Abecket. I will deal with it as the above posts suggests.
Keep on ignoring, honmy. If you don't tell them, they won't know who the driver is.
If they're anything like UK PPCs (of which you can read more on Pepipoo), you'll probably get one more letter from the lawyers and they'll give up.
Even though you're in NSW by the looks of it, ANCP et al are unlikely to want these matters taken to court because a properly prepared defence (send me a PM if needed) will expose these 'fines' for the scams they are. Why go to that hassle when you've got lots of suckers willing to stump up the $88 and the only cost incurred is a fancy letterhead and some red ink?
Edited by surroundfan - 01/October/2009 at 07:52
I am not a lawyer and this post does not constitute legal advice.
I shall probably receive a letter from the same lawyers myself. It looks like they are dealing with us reprobates in batches. I have had two letters from ANCP. One from a lawyer in Sydney and two from Dun & Bradstreet. I have responded to none so I too will probably get a letter from Abecket. I will deal with it as the above posts suggests.
Just as I thought would happen, I got my letter today from A'Backett Lawyers. There is no street address, only a St Kilda Rd PO Box. This is how the letter reads:
We act for Australian National Carparks Pty Ltd.
We are instructed to ensure that you have been given full opportunity to settle this debut. We therefore ask that you consider all options for payment, and contact our client's agent Dun & Bradstreet (Australia) Pty Ltd to arrange payment no later than 04/10/2009
If no arrangement has been made to pay this debt by the stated date, our client may have no choice but to commence legal prodeedings to revover the debt owing. If legal prodeedings are commenced, you may be liable for any legal costs incurred as a result.
If you wish to put your response in writing, please forward it to our office and we will obtain our client's instuctions.
No real threat of legal action when you think about it. More "May's" and "If's". I look at it as more bait. They just want someone to get their hooks into. It must be frustrating for them to pursuit someone who refuses to respond. For all they know, I might be deceased or out of the country. Come to think about it, for all they know I might not have been driving the car. My car might not have been in the carpark on the alleged day. I might have had a ticket on the dashboard anyway.
Seeing that they know so little they're certainly making some bold assertions. If this goes to court, I think I'd rather be in my position than their's. Not that it'll go to court anyway. Worse case scenario it'll end up with VCAT.
Thank you everyone.Very appreciate for your advices. Yes I am living in Sydney. I hated them because what they are doing is realy unjust.I ignored ANC, D&B and Other lawyer but with Abecket...I think this guy is a bit 'big'.Surroundfan says about 'VCAT' that is in Victoria, what about in NSW (Sydney)? My intention is to write to Abeckett telling them that if their client can prove I breached a contract with them then I will pay otherwise I will see them in court.
honmy, I've looked up the small claims process in New South Wales. I think it goes to Local Court (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), and I'm not sure there's any ability to award costs (EDIT deleted). One question I haven't found an answer to is whether ANCP can issue in any court except for Local Court such as the District Court, but I'm guessing it's unlikely. Another is what the implication of rule 14 of the Local Court Civil Procedure rules is.
At any rate, why offer to pay anything? I'd advise not contacting the lawyers. They're just sending out letters in the hope someone will bite. If you reply, they'll just send out more crap.
Moray, what a classic. Pigs MAY fly too!
Edited by surroundfan - 01/October/2009 at 20:39
I am not a lawyer and this post does not constitute legal advice.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Topic Options
top
Pigs MAY fly too! 
