Just £16 to get off any private parking ticket

BenefitMaster

The_Deep wrote: »

We feel it is only right to comment on this matter and this will be our only comment. ...

Who are we? A reply via official channels will be perfectly acceptable.

"We" is the sole shareholder and nominee front man for PTAS (both versions).

AS this is publicly available information, published at http://companycheck.co.uk/company/08994668/PARKING-TICKET-APPEALS-SERVICE-LIMITED/directors-secretaries

I don't know why MSE team has removed Ricky Gater's name, and would like an explanation before I contact Martin Lewis about heavy-handed moderation again...

BenefitMaster

bazster wrote: »

Perky et al will be laughing their socks off at all this. Take it offline please.

By all means :-)

I'm sure Parky will report back when its all over.

In the meantime, I would encourage anyone considering using PTAS to ask why they have phoenixed the business, and why various random addresses seem to have hundreds of different people living their and claiming they are drivers of vehicles they have never seen,.

bod1467

These are also obvious Weasel-Words ... everyone knows that the liability being mentioned is in respect of "If we lose, we'll pay the PCN - the customer only pays £16". Does THAT liability (in the transfer of work) still apply?

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

henrik777

The_Deep wrote: »

There has been a fallout and now you want £25k from someone else despite not giving anything to the early adopters ?

Hang on, who are these "early adopters"?

Information on how to beat PPC scams is everywhere, CAB, CA, Honest John, Motoring Associations, Notomob, local papers, national papers, motoring magazines, Watchdog, Mumsnet, etc., etc., etc. How will you decide who deserves what?

Well you've missed the point. I never said anybody was entitled to anything. You have however stumbled on to the hypocrisy of someone suing for something that probably isn't theirs in origin.

I have never really understood why people pay £16 even though plenty obviously do.

TDA

BenefitMaster wrote: »

By all means :-)

I'm sure Parky will report back when its all over.

In the meantime, I would encourage anyone considering using PTAS to ask why they have phoenixed the business, and why various random addresses seem to have hundreds of different people living their and claiming they are drivers of vehicles they have never seen,.

Funny, I seem to remember PP advertising the latter service on a blog of his back in Oct 29?

I am still struggling to see why PP felt the need to remove the comment on his blog that ousted his conflict of interests here

BenefitMaster

1) It's public information that the person named is the sole director of the company. It is not a breach of forum rules to name people where the names are already in the public domain or a matter of public record.

2) As I've declared my own interest, it is also public information that I'm a director of a different company, Feel free to look me up

The_Deep

Take it offline please.

I disagree. This is a perfectly legitimate topic for discussion on this forum. A group of well respected posters involve themselves in a scheme to save people from being conned by PPCs. Others, myself included, endorse them.

We now learn that their business acumen may not be a match for the expertise in the matters with which this forum deals, and they themselves have been conned. What is there to cover up?

bod1467

BenefitMaster wrote: »

It is not a breach of forum rules to name people where the names are already in the public domain or a matter of public record.

I don't think it's quite so cut and dried as that ... many a time there have been posts deleted that named people, even though the info was in the public domain. In fact there have been posts deleted that simply LINKED to where the info was in the public domain.

The_Deep

Well you've missed the point.

I do not see how, please enlighten me.

I never said anybody was entitled to anything.

Of course you did not, but Henrik did.

You have however stumbled on to the hypocrisy of someone suing for something that probably isn't theirs in origin.

Have I. I understood that some of the intellectual property was theirs, but please correct me if I am wrong.

I have never really understood why people pay £16 even though plenty obviously do.

For the same reasons that people employ accountants, plumbers, and architects.

Parking-Prankster

TDA wrote: »

Funny, I seem to remember PP advertising the latter service on a blog of his back in Oct 29?

I am still struggling to see why PP felt the need to remove the comment on his blog that ousted his conflict of interests here

I advertised the service on every single blog post, via a link to the PTAS web site, not just on Oct 29.


The removal of the comment was purely to annoy you.


The comment was posted by a friend of the original person who ran the business (KIFL). KIFL emailed me on Friday to tell me he was no longer associated with the business, so I'm not quite sure why his friend keeps trolling my blog. As the statement made incorrect assertions, I was happy to delete it rather than give it air time.