| Author |
phones4u and my broken mobile phone - grrr
|
|
|
| Hi,
the guys at uk.legal suggested I post this here to find out
if anyone has had a similar experiance.
I purchased a mobile phone (Sony D750i) from a high street retailer
(phones4u),
within a month the phone started crashing and eventually
wouldn't turn back on.
A few days later I took the phone back to request a refund/repair.
Unfortunately I'd had the phone now for 32 days and so the phone
had to be sent away for repair, otherwise they would have swapped
it in the shop for a new one.
4 weeks later I pop back into the shop to see what's happening
with my new phone.
Apparently a component has lifted off the circuit board which they
claim is not covered on the warranty because the phone couldn't
have been made like that. and they won't repair it because
it's beyond economical repair.
now I have to pay =A317.50 to get the phone back or they will destroy
it.
btw when I brought the phone back to shop it was confirmed as being
in brand new condition and not having any impact damage. and
no I didn't drop it!
I believe the onus is on the retailer to prove that the phone
component was connected properly when sold.
I can't possibly see how I could have broken a component inside the
phone without opening it up. Also I didn't open the phone up to inspect
the
components in the shop or when I got home, am I supposed to??
Their customer services department say that the engineers report is
proof enough that the fault is not covered by the warranty and that's
why
they send it away to an engineer. is this enough proof? I can't see how
it
could be, components can lift off due to bad/weak solders/glue or a
poor QC.
anyone had this happen??
I'm not too happy that my phone has broken down after 32 days,
from hardly any use and is now ready to be binned with no
comeback.
can I get my phone back working!? or my money back,
I'm on a 12 month contract with no phone!
has anyone had a similar problem with phones4u and got their
phone back working/money back?
or does anyone know about components lifting off?
| |
| Mike GW8IJT 2005-09-25, 5:49 pm |
| "Stu" <stuayre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127649971.412180.209690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
the guys at uk.legal suggested I post this here to find out
if anyone has had a similar experiance.
I purchased a mobile phone (Sony D750i) from a high street retailer
(phones4u),
within a month the phone started crashing and eventually
wouldn't turn back on.
A few days later I took the phone back to request a refund/repair.
Unfortunately I'd had the phone now for 32 days and so the phone
had to be sent away for repair, otherwise they would have swapped
it in the shop for a new one.
4 weeks later I pop back into the shop to see what's happening
with my new phone.
Apparently a component has lifted off the circuit board which they
claim is not covered on the warranty because the phone couldn't
have been made like that. and they won't repair it because
it's beyond economical repair.
now I have to pay £17.50 to get the phone back or they will destroy
it.
btw when I brought the phone back to shop it was confirmed as being
in brand new condition and not having any impact damage. and
no I didn't drop it!
Sounds you need to contact your local Citizens' Advice Bureau AND your
local Trading Standards Office.
Regards Mike.
I believe the onus is on the retailer to prove that the phone
component was connected properly when sold.
I can't possibly see how I could have broken a component inside the
phone without opening it up. Also I didn't open the phone up to inspect
the
components in the shop or when I got home, am I supposed to??
Their customer services department say that the engineers report is
proof enough that the fault is not covered by the warranty and that's
why
they send it away to an engineer. is this enough proof? I can't see how
it
could be, components can lift off due to bad/weak solders/glue or a
poor QC.
anyone had this happen??
I'm not too happy that my phone has broken down after 32 days,
from hardly any use and is now ready to be binned with no
comeback.
can I get my phone back working!? or my money back,
I'm on a 12 month contract with no phone!
has anyone had a similar problem with phones4u and got their
phone back working/money back?
or does anyone know about components lifting off?
| |
| Mike GW8IJT 2005-09-25, 5:49 pm |
| "Stu" <stuayre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127649971.412180.209690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
the guys at uk.legal suggested I post this here to find out
if anyone has had a similar experiance.
I purchased a mobile phone (Sony D750i) from a high street retailer
(phones4u),
within a month the phone started crashing and eventually
wouldn't turn back on.
Sounds you need to contact your local Citizens' Advice Bureau AND your
local Trading Standards Office.
Regards Mike.
| |
|
| > Sounds you need to contact your local Citizens' Advice Bureau AND your
> local Trading Standards Office.
> Regards Mike.
Thanks Mike, I've contacted Trading Standards, I'll give the Citizens'
Advice Bureau a shout too. thanks
Stu
| |
|
| stuayre@hotmail.com declared for all the world to hear...
<snip>
That's a tricky one.
It is down to the retailer to prove the fault was not there in the first
6 months, however components don't come off circuit boards without a
good jolt.
Were I in your shoes I might look into claiming on home insurance.
If you are absolute sure you would win in court then sue them. Give them
one last chance to sort it out and if they don't then do whatever you
need to do to get a replacement and sue them for all of the costs in the
small claims court.
--
Regards
Jon
| |
|
| > however components don't come off circuit boards without a good jolt.
this is true, but I have a signed document that states the phone was in
brand
new condition when I took it back, not even a scratch. So there is no
impact
damage to suggest it has been dropped.
> If you are absolute sure you would win in court then sue them. Give them
> one last chance to sort it out and if they don't then do whatever you
> need to do to get a replacement and sue them for all of the costs in the
> small claims court.
that's my plan of action. :)
| |
| Jeffro Toll 2005-09-25, 5:49 pm |
|
"Stu" <stuayre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127649971.412180.209690@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
the guys at uk.legal suggested I post this here to find out
if anyone has had a similar experiance.
I purchased a mobile phone (Sony D750i) from a high street retailer
(phones4u),
within a month the phone started crashing and eventually
wouldn't turn back on.
A few days later I took the phone back to request a refund/repair.
Unfortunately I'd had the phone now for 32 days and so the phone
had to be sent away for repair, otherwise they would have swapped
it in the shop for a new one.
4 weeks later I pop back into the shop to see what's happening
with my new phone.
Apparently a component has lifted off the circuit board which they
claim is not covered on the warranty because the phone couldn't
have been made like that. and they won't repair it because
it's beyond economical repair.
now I have to pay £17.50 to get the phone back or they will destroy
it.
btw when I brought the phone back to shop it was confirmed as being
in brand new condition and not having any impact damage. and
no I didn't drop it!
I believe the onus is on the retailer to prove that the phone
component was connected properly when sold.
I can't possibly see how I could have broken a component inside the
phone without opening it up. Also I didn't open the phone up to inspect
the
components in the shop or when I got home, am I supposed to??
Their customer services department say that the engineers report is
proof enough that the fault is not covered by the warranty and that's
why
they send it away to an engineer. is this enough proof? I can't see how
it
could be, components can lift off due to bad/weak solders/glue or a
poor QC.
anyone had this happen??
I'm not too happy that my phone has broken down after 32 days,
from hardly any use and is now ready to be binned with no
comeback.
can I get my phone back working!? or my money back,
I'm on a 12 month contract with no phone!
has anyone had a similar problem with phones4u and got their
phone back working/money back?
or does anyone know about components lifting off?
you need more BALLS...........go back to the shop, get the Manager out front
stay at the main desk and start ranting..........F 's and the like, they
dont like/want other customers to see this..................
you should not need any court actions on this one. Also did you pay by
credit card..........give them a call...........explain you want a refund.
| |
| SteveH 2005-09-25, 5:49 pm |
| Jeffro Toll < OneTwo@Threebtintern
et.com> wrote:
> can I get my phone back working!? or my money back,
> I'm on a 12 month contract with no phone!
>
>
> has anyone had a similar problem with phones4u and got their
> phone back working/money back?
>
> or does anyone know about components lifting off?
>
> you need more BALLS...........go back to the shop, get the Manager out front
> stay at the main desk and start ranting..........F 's and the like, they
> dont like/want other customers to see this..................
> you should not need any court actions on this one.
Erm, doing the above will have you removed and banned from company
premises. Not a good way to get what you want.
--
Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE - COSOC KOTL
BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
| |
| strange_too 2005-09-25, 5:49 pm |
| I'd contact SE too, they might be helpful.
| |
|
| stuayre@hotmail.com declared for all the world to hear...
> this is true, but I have a signed document that states the phone was in
> brand
> new condition when I took it back, not even a scratch. So there is no
> impact
> damage to suggest it has been dropped.
A phone can easily fall onto a surface which would not scratch it (e.g.
carpet) but could render enough force to dislodge a component.
It's unlikely of course, but possible. In such cases only an internal
examination would reveal the damage.
--
Regards
Jon
| |
|
| OneTwo@Threebtintern
et.com declared for all the world to hear...
> you need more BALLS...........go back to the shop, get the Manager out front
> stay at the main desk and start ranting..........F 's and the like
Not a good idea, you're likely to get thrown out if you use foul
language. I've done it twice in 3 years and would not hesitate to again.
--
Regards
Jon
| |
| Lorenzo 2005-09-25, 5:49 pm |
|
"Stu" <stuayre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127650588.036677.35090@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Thanks Mike, I've contacted Trading Standards, I'll give the Citizens'
> Advice Bureau a shout too. thanks
>
> Stu
>
Take immediate legal action against the retailer, get a small claims pack
and sue them. That is unacceptable.
| |
| Jeffro Toll 2005-09-25, 5:49 pm |
|
"SteveH" <steve@italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1h3g7c5. 1w1pmyb21yklcN%steve
@italiancar.co.uk...
> Jeffro Toll < OneTwo@Threebtintern
et.com> wrote:
>
>
> Erm, doing the above will have you removed and banned from company
> premises. Not a good way to get what you want.
> --
> Steve H 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
> http://www.italiancar.co.uk - Honda VFR800 - MZ ETZ300 - Alfa 75 TSpark
> Alfa 156 2.0 TSpark Lusso - Passat 1.8 Turbo SE - COSOC KOTL
> BoTAFOT #87 - BoTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
someone else with no BALLS...............
| |
| Jeffro Toll 2005-09-25, 5:49 pm |
|
"Jon" <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote in message
news:MPG. 1da0bc7f41439245989b
7e@usenet.plus.net...
> OneTwo@Threebtintern
et.com declared for all the world to hear...
>
> Not a good idea, you're likely to get thrown out if you use foul
> language. I've done it twice in 3 years and would not hesitate to again.
> --
> Regards
> Jon
what you've thrown someone out or had the BALLS..............
| |
| Richard Colton 2005-09-25, 5:49 pm |
|
"Jeffro Toll" < OneTwo@Threebtintern
et.com> wrote in message
news:dh6dle$3h0$1@nw
rdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "SteveH" <steve@italiancar.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1h3g7c5. 1w1pmyb21yklcN%steve
@italiancar.co.uk...
>
> someone else with no BALLS...............
As opposed to you with no brains?
Much as I hate to admit it, SteveH is right. Ranting and raving will not
help the situation, but being firm and non-confrontational (particularly on
a busy day) should yield some result other than being removed from the
premises.
--
<<< Unlock Your Phone's Potential >>>
<<< www.uselessinfo.org.uk >>>
<<< www.thephonelocker.co.uk >>>
<<< www.gsm-solutions.co.uk >>>
| |
|
| OneTwo@Threebtintern
et.com declared for all the world to hear...
>
> "Jon" <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG. 1da0bc7f41439245989b
7e@usenet.plus.net...
>
> what you've thrown someone out or had the BALLS..............
Thrown someone out.
--
Regards
Jon
| |
| Jeffro Toll 2005-09-25, 5:49 pm |
|
"Jon" <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote in message
news:MPG. 1da10454a8529824989b
7f@usenet.plus.net...
> OneTwo@Threebtintern
et.com declared for all the world to hear...
>
> Thrown someone out.
> --
> Regards
> Jon
you will have asked them to leave.........not physically thrown them out.
| |
| Industrial 2005-09-25, 5:49 pm |
| Jeffro Toll wrote:
> you will have asked them to leave.........not physically thrown them out.
I removed someone from a shop after he abused a colleague.
I'm glad I don't work in retail anymore.
| |
| Richard Colton 2005-09-25, 5:49 pm |
|
"Jeffro Toll" < OneTwo@Threebtintern
et.com> wrote in message
news:dh6sm8$dcr$1@nw
rdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Jon" <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG. 1da10454a8529824989b
7f@usenet.plus.net...
>
> you will have asked them to leave.........not physically thrown them out.
Contrary to popular belief it is perfectly legal to eject someone
physically - but only under certain circumstances and you need to be
extremely careful about the level of force used.
--
<<< Unlock Your Phone's Potential >>>
<<< www.uselessinfo.org.uk >>>
<<< www.thephonelocker.co.uk >>>
<<< www.gsm-solutions.co.uk >>>
| |
| Mike H 2005-09-25, 5:49 pm |
| "Jon" <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote
> Thrown someone out.
Protesting inside, or outside on the pavement 'explaining' to potential
customers what the service levels are, are probably equally effective and
are an entertaining way to while away a Saturday or three. Even though
front-line staff should have communication skills such that robust language
should not cause personal affront [else they shouldn't BE front-line staff]
I cannot condone the deliberate use of bad language, but equally cannot
condone an absence of customer service.
Having said that, there are bound to be better ways to sort this out. If
paid by credit card use a chargeback etc and the OP is probably better
advised in uk.legal. (!)
One question which IS an issue, is was the warranty seal broken or could the
phone be proved to be opened? If not, then [their] proving internal damage
without external evidence of straying outside the boundaries of normal use
would appear to be difficult.
I trade online [not phones, and no ad here as I'm not a spammer] and have a
very flexible refund policy - better than is promised to the customer, and
therefore better than expected by the customer. Companies really should take
the 'longer view', and understand that you don't have to be a complete
b@st@rd to trade successfully - even if you're in the right!
- Mike
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2005-09-25, 11:48 pm |
| On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:21:11 +0100, Jon <spam@jonparker.plus.com>
wrote:
>It is down to the retailer to prove the fault was not there in the first
>6 months, however components don't come off circuit boards without a
>good jolt.
The law is clear. Unless they can provide evidence that he dropped it,
the law assumes that the damage occurred before it reached his
possession or after it went back for repairs. It's quite likely to
have been dropped en route to the repairers.
--
Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2005-09-25, 11:48 pm |
| On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:57:52 +0000 (UTC), "Jeffro Toll"
< OneTwo@Threebtintern
et.com> wrote:
>you need more BALLS...........go back to the shop, get the Manager out front
>stay at the main desk and start ranting..........F 's and the like, they
>dont like/want other customers to see this..................
>you should not need any court actions on this one. Also did you pay by
>credit card..........give them a call...........explain you want a refund.
Very bad advice. The thing to do is to get Trading Standards to fight
the case.
--
Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2005-09-25, 11:48 pm |
| On 25 Sep 2005 05:06:11 -0700, "Stu" <stuayre@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I purchased a mobile phone (Sony D750i) from a high street retailer
So far, so good.
>(phones4u),
Big mistake.
>within a month the phone started crashing and eventually
>wouldn't turn back on.
So it was faulty.
>A few days later I took the phone back to request a refund/repair.
Makes sense.
>Unfortunately I'd had the phone now for 32 days and so the phone
>had to be sent away for repair, otherwise they would have swapped
>it in the shop for a new one.
Utter and complete rubbish. The law is very clear. If the thing went
wrong within the first six months, the onus is on the retailer to
prove that it wasn't faulty when it was sold.
The contract you have is with the retailer, and after only a month or
so, you should have demanded a new replacement phone or a full refund.
Sending it away for repair was not something you should have consented
to.
>4 weeks later I pop back into the shop to see what's happening
>with my new phone.
>
>Apparently a component has lifted off the circuit board which they
>claim is not covered on the warranty because the phone couldn't
>have been made like that. and they won't repair it because
>it's beyond economical repair.
That's their problem, not yours. They are legally bound to provide you
with a new phone of satisfactory quality. It's their problem how to
manage that.
>now I have to pay £17.50 to get the phone back or they will destroy
>it.
Do you have a receipt for it having been returned to them?
Clearly you should not even think about paying this £17.50. The choice
for you is whether to try and get criminal charges pressed against
them as well as getting your Trading Standard Dept to lean on the
shop.
They are obviously breaking consumer protection law, but I suspect
that they are now also breaking criminal law.
>btw when I brought the phone back to shop it was confirmed as being
>in brand new condition and not having any impact damage. and
>no I didn't drop it!
Confirmed in writing?
--
Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!
| |
| littlemiss 2005-09-25, 11:48 pm |
| hairydog@despammed.com wrote:
> On 25 Sep 2005 05:06:11 -0700, "Stu" <stuayre@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> So far, so good.
>
>
>
>
> Big mistake.
>
>
>
>
> So it was faulty.
>
>
>
>
> Makes sense.
>
>
>
>
> Utter and complete rubbish. The law is very clear. If the thing went
> wrong within the first six months, the onus is on the retailer to
> prove that it wasn't faulty when it was sold.
>
> The contract you have is with the retailer, and after only a month or
> so, you should have demanded a new replacement phone or a full refund.
> Sending it away for repair was not something you should have consented
> to.
>
>
>
>
> That's their problem, not yours. They are legally bound to provide you
> with a new phone of satisfactory quality. It's their problem how to
> manage that.
>
>
>
>
> Do you have a receipt for it having been returned to them?
>
> Clearly you should not even think about paying this £17.50. The choice
> for you is whether to try and get criminal charges pressed against
> them as well as getting your Trading Standard Dept to lean on the
> shop.
>
> They are obviously breaking consumer protection law, but I suspect
> that they are now also breaking criminal law.
>
>
>
>
> Confirmed in writing?
>
When you returned the phone to P4U and they sent it for repair, you
should have signed at least one copy of a returns form and been given
one for your records. I don't know how well the sales advisor explained
this form to you but from my recollection of the form is as follows:
The description of the condition of the phone was not used as
confirmation a phone being dropped or not but so the shop could tell if
the phone had been scratched or damaged in any way whist at the repair
centre (used to be the Mobile Phone Repair Company) kinda like what they
do when the AA tows your car.
Also on this form near the bottom where you should have been asked to
sign it would have stated that you are giving your authorisation for the
phone to be sent for repair, you are confirming that all sim cards/
memory cards have been removed from the phone and that you understand
that if no fault is found with the phone or if the phone is proven to be
beyond economical repair due to liquid ingress or physical damage such
as being dropped that you will have to pay for the phone to be
returned(used to be £11.75) or it will be disposed of (used to be after
14 days I think)
If the sales advisor didn't get you to sign this form or if it wasn't
explained to you correctly I would get yourself straight on the phone to
P4U customer services department. 01782 600600 will take you straight to
caudwell group switch board.
Hope this has been of some help!
| |
|
| OneTwo@Threebtintern
et.com declared for all the world to hear...
> you will have asked them to leave.........not physically thrown them out.
I had to push one of them before he went of his own accord.
--
Regards
Jon
| |
|
| hairydog@despammed.com declared for all the world to hear...
> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 13:21:11 +0100, Jon <spam@jonparker.plus.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> The law is clear. Unless they can provide evidence that he dropped it,
> the law assumes that the damage occurred before it reached his
> possession or after it went back for repairs. It's quite likely to
> have been dropped en route to the repairers.
But it worked from day one, that would suggest to me that the phone was
in perfect condition at point of sale.
Had the fault been there from day one then there's no doubt that it
should have been a straight swap.
--
Regards
Jon
| |
| GlintingHedgehog 2005-09-26, 5:48 am |
| In article < q1sdj1l64be8a4it6osv
jrdinom14jtoqo@4ax.com>,
hairydog@despammed.com says...
> Very bad advice. The thing to do is to get Trading Standards to fight
> the case.
While Trading Standards should definitely be informed, they will not
fight individual cases on an individual's behalf. They will contact
the company involved and tell them to change their policies to
conform to legislation, but the individual consumer is on his/her
own.
If the OP ends up in Small Claims Court, however, the fact that
Trading Standards have been involved and have agreed with the
customer's side of things will be very strongly in his/her favour.
--
Hedgehog
| |
|
| Jon <spam@jonparker.plus.com> wrote:
[...]
> But it worked from day one, that would suggest to me that the phone
> was in perfect condition at point of sale.
Years ago, I worked for a place that made satellite gear using SMD
components. The pick and place machine sometimes missed, so components
would be held on the board with only a trace of solder. Sometimes
components would fall off while still in the factory, even though it
supposedly was a working unit.
Also remember that this is a *mobile* phone and a certain amount of
jolting and movement is to be expected. If that reasonable use causes
the components to fall off the board, it's the manufacturer that is at
fault, not the end-user.
--
The advice given me about Maglites is to hold it out sideways from yourself
but at shoulder height, this makes the opponent think you are standing 3
foot to one side of reality.
- Rob Adams in the Monastery
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2005-09-26, 5:49 pm |
| On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 08:02:27 +0100, GlintingHedgehog
<hedgehog@mailinator.com> wrote:
>While Trading Standards should definitely be informed, they will not
>fight individual cases on an individual's behalf.
Sorry, but I can assure you that this is utterly and completely wrong.
TS have in fact done this for me on several occasions.
>They will contact
>the company involved and tell them to change their policies to
>conform to legislation, but the individual consumer is on his/her
>own.
As I said, you are wrong.
--
Iain
the out-of-date hairydog guide to mobile phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html
Browse now while stocks last!
| |
| Jeffro Toll 2005-09-26, 5:49 pm |
|
"Richard Colton" < webmaster@NOSPAMusel
essinfo.org.uk> wrote in message
news:PGCZe.115620$G8.115376@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Jeffro Toll" < OneTwo@Threebtintern
et.com> wrote in message
> news:dh6sm8$dcr$1@nw
rdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> Contrary to popular belief it is perfectly legal to eject someone
> physically - but only under certain circumstances and you need to be
> extremely careful about the level of force used.
>
> --
> <<< Unlock Your Phone's Potential >>>
> <<< www.uselessinfo.org.uk >>>
> <<< www.thephonelocker.co.uk >>>
> <<< www.gsm-solutions.co.uk >>>
>
wrong...............
| |
|
| OneTwo@Threebtintern
et.com declared for all the world to hear...
> wrong...............
Yet again, you are.
Your point is?
--
Regards
Jon
| |
| Richard Colton 2005-09-26, 5:49 pm |
|
"Jeffro Toll" < OneTwo@Threebtintern
et.com> wrote in message
news:dh9drq$702$1@nw
rdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
> "Richard Colton" < webmaster@NOSPAMusel
essinfo.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:PGCZe.115620$G8.115376@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
<snip>
>
> wrong...............
Yes, I know you are. Would you care to cite the legislation which states
you cannot remove abusive and/or violent people from business premises?
--
<<< Unlock Your Phone's Potential >>>
<<< www.uselessinfo.org.uk >>>
<<< www.thephonelocker.co.uk >>>
<<< www.gsm-solutions.co.uk >>>
|
|
|
|