Just £16 to get off any private parking ticket

Coupon-mad

EDITED as things changed.

Guys_Dad

I am one of these who suggested to people who clearly had difficulties in following the forum guidelines that there was a service that could help - for a fee that was less than the £100 being demanded by the PPC.

Why did I do this? Because I had trust and faith in the original people who were behind the organisation and the forum tactics based around GPEOL etc were currently winners.

I did have email correspondence with one of them stating reservations about what would result if Beavis appeal was lost but was told that they would be slowing down on new cases that would not be dealt with POPLA before the Beavis appeal.

I was most certainly not a proponent of the accommodation address strategy that was being offered as another option.

As with the Prankster and others who had confidence in the original team, this latest twist and the departure of the originals has made me reverse my previous position.

I welcome Prankster removing any recommendations from his blog as in common with people who come on here saying "I was advised to ignore" because they have read old posts, things read online may be out of date.

There is nothing sinister about this change of advice, no conflicts of interest and readers of this thread are now advised of what is going on.

Attacks on the Prankster over this are so way off beam as to be laughable. Any suggestion that he is creaming loads of money off the backs of motorists lack substance and I, along with most other reasonable contributors on here, know which side of the fence he is on and why.

Quentin

Guys_Dad wrote: »

....I, along with most other reasonable contributors on here, know which side of the fence he is on and why.

You are entitled to voice your opinion here on anything.


But what gives you the right to say you speak on behalf of "other reasonable" contributors?


And what do you mean by "reasonable contributors"?

Guys_Dad

Quentin wrote: »

You are entitled to voice your opinion here on anything.


But what gives you the right to say you speak on behalf of "other reasonable" contributors?


And what do you mean by "reasonable contributors"?

Still smarting from previous differences of opinion of the Mobile Phones forum from a few years ago, I see. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I take that right until sufficient regulars tell me I am wrong. So if I am wrong about my views about the Parking Prankster,

"Attacks on the Prankster over this are so way off beam as to be laughable. Any suggestion that he is creaming loads of money off the backs of motorists lack substance and I, along with most other reasonable contributors on here, know which side of the fence he is on and why."

then they can flame me.

But I am not holding my breath.

Ryan_Bryan

All this infighting is detracting from the basic fact. A once excellent service that was doing a great job in giving the PPCs something of a bloody nose is now seemingly a shambles. Of the people involved in it I have 100% trust in KIFL and Benefit Master. In my short time as a member of the forum their advice and postings here are testimony enough. The same goes for Parking Prankster. At this stage the PPCs are the only winners.

Coupon-mad

EDITED as things changed.

Ryan_Bryan

Coupon-mad wrote: »

BenefitMaster wasn't in PTAS, just to be clear. Some of us, including BM and myself and others, were paid a small sum by PTAS to write bespoke defences for people who had court claims, which we did. Then they stopped asking us/stopped paying us/stopped providing 'bespoke' tailored defences. It's not looking good for PTAS but there were always concerns about some aspects - as I have already said.

I was merely advocating B-M. I wasn't aware till today that he had any input. I did know of KIFL's involvement.
Mind you it gives me the chance to say I have 100% trust in you as well.:D

Coupon-mad

EDITED, do not read old threads.

TDA

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Attacks on the Prankster over this are so way off beam as to be laughable. Any suggestion that he is creaming loads of money off the backs of motorists lack substance and I, along with most other reasonable contributors on here, know which side of the fence he is on and why.

No one was 'attacking' PP. The question was merely one of transparency (a lack of which many of us are particularly critical of the BPA/PPCs for!). Whilst it has now been made clear why the comment was deleted, a more appropriate initial response would have been to rebut the erroneous assertion. Deleting the comment suggests a guilty conscience, regardless of whether the actual facts are otherwise. Regardless, the question has been addressed now.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I was most certainly not a proponent of the accommodation address strategy that was being offered as another option.

This was always a dodgy option, and when you have to lower yourself (even if you argue you are adopting an 'if they can play dirty, we can too' attitude) you are inherently damaging your ability to take the high ground in criticising dubious practices where they are found.

In any event, good to hear that alternatives to PTAS are being made available.

Guys_Dad

TDA wrote: »

No one was 'attacking' PP.

You need to re-read your posts !!!

TDA wrote: »

Deleting the comment suggests a guilty conscience, regardless of whether the actual facts are otherwise. Regardless, the question has been addressed now.

Not so. I wish all the pre-2012 comments on "Best to Ignore" could be removed from this forum as Newbies hit on these via Google and get it wrong. Removing something that is misleading does NOT automatically lead to the suggestion that there is a guilty conscience issue.

In any event, the explanation is now out there, so we can move on.