Author | Topic |

Location: Adelaide
Registered: July 2002
|
Re: SNAP, was that the control arm
|
Wed, 23 October 2002 14:47

|
 |
Personally i would have claimed and apealed the neglegent (sp?) charge on grounds of mechanical failure but thats just me and i've already had a crash so my premiums are up about as high as they can go
|
|
|
| Subject | Poster | Date |
 |
SNAP, was that the control arm
|
juzzo84 | Wed, 23 October 2002 07:36 |
 |
Re: SNAP, was that the control arm
|
CrAiGzEE | Wed, 23 October 2002 12:19 |
 |
Re: SNAP, was that the control arm
|
Hunty | Wed, 23 October 2002 14:47 |
 |
Re: SNAP, was that the control arm
|
faulksy | Wed, 23 October 2002 16:55 |
 |
Re: SNAP, was that the control arm
|
ra23celicachick | Wed, 23 October 2002 23:27 |
 |
Re: SNAP, was that the control arm
|
RA28midge | Wed, 23 October 2002 23:55 |
 |
Re: SNAP, was that the control arm
|
ra23celicachick | Thu, 24 October 2002 00:10 |
 |
Re: SNAP, was that the control arm
|
RA28midge | Thu, 24 October 2002 12:08 |
 |
Re: SNAP, was that the control arm
|
ra23celicachick | Thu, 24 October 2002 23:31 |
 |
Re: SNAP, was that the control arm
|
kerr | Thu, 24 October 2002 13:36 |
 |
Re: SNAP, was that the control arm
|
juzzo84 | Thu, 24 October 2002 14:16 |