Home » Forums

[MSE Martin]

There has been a growth of Online Discount Vouchers or Codes being posted on the Grabbit Board. This is not the place for them.

Any online discount vouchers must be posted on the Online Discount Voucher board. They must also comply with the rules there - only this way are people protected from law suits and breaching terms and conditions.

I am sorry to be draconian, but having once had the might of Sainsbury legal department threaten this site because of these i need to protect the site. Having a specific board where the rules are prominently posted is how i do that.

If people continue to post online discount vouchers here, they will be removed and though i hate to do it, any persistent posters will have their access blocked from the site.

[Pat_]

Great, Thanks Martin, Hopefully now people will realise that posting in the wrong place, carries more than the normal issues, but the legal ones that threaten you and this site. It just means that if they take the time to think a bit more, there will be no more problems.

[Sub]

Originally Posted by MSE Martin

I am sorry to be draconian, but having once had the might of Sainsbury legal department threaten this site because of these i need to protect the site. Having a specific board where the rules are prominently posted is how i do that.

If people continue to post online discount vouchers here, they will be removed and though i hate to do it, any persistent posters will have their access blocked from the site.

What? The might of Sainsbury legal department? Oh don't be such a tart Martin.

The "might" of Sainsburys legal department is largely over those who are willing to tremble and cower in fear of a couple of sternly worded but ultimately impotent letters. Get a grip man, or at least, get some good legal advice of your own so that you properly understand you can safely tell them to go take a running jump.

I would have hoped such a prominent "consumer champion" would display rather more gumption when some corporate behemoth wags it's finger at him. But apparently not.

There is nothing criminal taking place on this board, so, in the words of the immortal Michael Winner, "Calm down Dear...."

[divadee]

Sub, from what i can remember Martin had got legal advice of his own (correct me if i am wrong martin). And you will find on most vouchers they say not transferable and for use of the named person only. So in effect sharing the voucher is fraud as you are not that said person.

[Sub]

Originally Posted by divadee

Sub, from what i can remember Martin had got legal advice of his own (correct me if i am wrong martin). And you will find on most vouchers they say not transferable and for use of the named person only. So in effect sharing the voucher is fraud as you are not that said person.

Divadee, I don't believe you are qualified to offer even an accurate definition of the offence of fraud, let alone meaningfully discuss how that might or might not apply to the online discussion of discount vouchers.

I don't intend to play internet lawyers with you, so I'll simply restate my initial sentiment that people should show a bit of backbone and not go all weak at the knees because someone waves a solicitors letter at them.

[JPS]

Sub, Martin put this advice here as it was needed, not because he felt like it. A lot of vouchers float around on the MSE forums, and all Martin is saying is keep them on the vouchers board in order to protect MSE from any legal action, which companies have the right to do if they feel their vouchers are being misused, and could even be fraudulant as divadee said.

[JPS]

Originally Posted by Sub

Divadee, I don't believe you are qualified to offer even an accurate definition of the offence of fraud, let alone meaningfully discuss how that might or might not apply to the online discussion of discount vouchers.

And may I ask who exactly you think you are, Sub?

[m00nie]

could you not lock this thread before it gets out of hand.


martin has stated his wishes, lets just comply.

[MSE Martin]

Acutally Sub. You're quite right. Not only did i not cow-tail to Sainsbury, but 4 national newspapers followed the story of what Sainsbury tried to do and the inefficiency of the system.

The point about Sainsbury is a simple one - it was reading the site and using tracking. This is not anonymous.

MoneySaving is ABOUT legality. Play the system yes, but legally. Hence why there are rules about what discount vouchers are appropriate and which aren't. That's why there's an online discount voucher board to protect the site and the users so we can take on the might of the big boys.

This isn't about a lack of back bone - its about making sure you're wearing the right armament!

[culpepper]

Im suprised they are not just targetting the original posters rather than the whole site.
Course they could just not accept vouchers at all which would be much simpler but they wouldnt make such a splash that way.

[calibrax]

Originally Posted by Sub

Divadee, I don't believe you are qualified to offer even an accurate definition of the offence of fraud, let alone meaningfully discuss how that might or might not apply to the online discussion of discount vouchers.

I don't intend to play internet lawyers with you, so I'll simply restate my initial sentiment that people should show a bit of backbone and not go all weak at the knees because someone waves a solicitors letter at them.

Sub, surely if Martin was going "weak at the knees", he would have just banned all discount vouchers from the site, rather than simply posting a cautionary note? The concept of "prudence" is a very useful thing in law, and in finance too.

Also, your tone comes across as confrontational and even insulting - for example, calling people unqualified when you don't really know the first thing about them. Please try and show a little respect for the people running this site... I believe that they have earned it many times over.

Steve

[one-non-blonde]

Does anyone think there's any chance of eg. Boots ever trying to go after individuals to recoup costs on grounds of fraud?

[Pat_]

Originally Posted by Sub

Divadee, I don't believe you are qualified to offer even an accurate definition of the offence of fraud, let alone meaningfully discuss how that might or might not apply to the online discussion of discount vouchers.

I don't intend to play internet lawyers with you, so I'll simply restate my initial sentiment that people should show a bit of backbone and not go all weak at the knees because someone waves a solicitors letter at them.

And what qualifys you.

[Marigold123]

Originally Posted by one-non-blonde

Does anyone think there's any chance of eg. Boots ever trying to go after individuals to recoup costs on grounds of fraud?

I think for Boots, at least, to do that, they would have to be following the activities of individual customers more accurately. If they were able to do this, they would presumably have cancelled duplicate orders in the first place.

That's not to say that the situation won't change when they upgrade their online ordering system, (which, after the last week or so, I am sure they will do!)

[Derek_Duval]

Originally Posted by Sub

so I'll simply restate my initial sentiment that people should show a bit of backbone and not go all weak at the knees because someone waves a solicitors letter at them.

How can Martin & the team be accused of having no backbone? I think they've been brave to fight the corporate world with the motto "companies try to screw us for profits, Money saving shows you how to screw them back", and to do so on radio tv & in the press.
It would be a big shame to push it too far, & lose everything. Myself and most members of the board are very grateful for what MSE does for us, & wish it to stay that way. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

[David_Brent]

Originally Posted by one-non-blonde

Does anyone think there's any chance of eg. Boots ever trying to go after individuals to recoup costs on grounds of fraud?

No, if you made orders using the online code, its their own fault in the first place for having a weak online ordering system that didn't pick up on it, they had the chance to cancel orders, but didn't and have taken money from accounts for the purchases... so theres no way it can be fraudulent. These companies releasing online codes need to plan and organise a well run online voucher system before releasing the codes in the first place.. and stop complaining when people exploit them, because they are to lazy to keep themselves upto date, if they can't put up with it don't bloody release the codes.

[purplepatch]

Originally Posted by MSE Martin

Acutally Sub. You're quite right. Not only did i not cow-tail to Sainsbury, but 4 national newspapers followed the story of what Sainsbury tried to do and the inefficiency of the system.

The point about Sainsbury is a simple one - it was reading the site and using tracking. This is not anonymous.

I take it this has all been resolved now and the website is not in any trouble.

Any chance of any links to these stories? I haven't been able to find much from google and would be very interested to know more (having used the naughty codes in question!! )

[Marigold123]

I did a search on Google on 'Sainsbury's code' the other day and an article came up mentioning MSE in connection with the issue. Very interesting. Don't remember where it was, though. I don't know whether it's one you've seen, but if not, I could probably find it again.
-------------------------------------

EDIT: Look what I DID find, though! This was in the Early Day Motions of the House of Commons, dated 20th January this year.

564 MONEY SAVING ADVICE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC 20:1:05
Mr Gregory Campbell
Mr Nigel Dodds
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Bob Spink
* 4
That this House commends the activities of those persons and groups dedicated to assisting members of the public get value for money in purchases, insurance, overdrafts and mortgages; and recognises that money saving experts like Martin Lewis at http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/ provides, on a not-for-profit basis, an incentive for ordinary consumers to pressurise large providers and financial institutions to hold down prices to the general public.

I'm sending this to Martin directly, in case he hasn't seen it.

[Marigold123]

Originally Posted by David_Brent

No, if you made orders using the online code, its their own fault in the first place for having a weak online ordering system that didn't pick up on it, they had the chance to cancel orders, but didn't and have taken money from accounts for the purchases... so theres no way it can be fraudulent. These companies releasing online codes need to plan and organise a well run online voucher system before releasing the codes in the first place.. and stop complaining when people exploit them, because they are to lazy to keep themselves upto date, if they can't put up with it don't bloody release the codes.

While I agree totally that companies whose online ordering is full of holes are certainly at fault, I'm not sure that that LEGALLY entitles us to exploit those weaknesses.

When registering with a website a user agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of that site, including conditions of individual offers. Just because their ordering software is not well written, it doesn't mean we have a RIGHT to take advantage of it. If someone leaves their car unlocked, it doesn't mean a thief is allowed to steal the car or the handbag inside.

I was wondering about the actual legality of registering more than once, (or even several times), with a site, for the purpose of using the same code more than once, when the conditions state that it may only be used once per customer. If you are entitled to use the code once only, wouldn't a second use by the same customer constitute a similar infringement to using a code you weren't entitled to at all?

I imagine it's a fairly woolly area, as if you've lost your registration details you might very easily re-register with the same site a second time and not be doing anything wrong.

And while it wouldn't be unreasonable of them to cancel an order if they felt the system was being abused, once they have taken the money and dispatched the goods, I don't think it would be worth their while spending the time and money pursuing those people who got away with it. The resources would be better spent on tightening up their systems!

And paradoxically, they have gained a lot of new online customers, many of whom will probably shop with them again under ordinary circumstances! When you think about what big companies like these normally spend on advertising and expanding their customer base, I think they may have gained more than they've lost.

/rant

(BTW Martin, an elegant response, sir! *takes hat off*)

[Marigold123]

Originally Posted by purplepatch

Any chance of any links to these stories? I haven't been able to find much from google and would be very interested to know more (having used the naughty codes in question!! )

This is the one that I read: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11...de_sainsburys/

Some interesting stuff in there, but apparently Martin has asked us not to discuss the specific issue on the boards until it has been resolved. Nothing to say we can't pass on web links to articles, though.

(If posting the link here is NOT acceptable, please, Martin or mods, do remove it - or PM me and I'll remove it myself.)