United we stand: Zavvi gift vouchers/cards

Houseimp54

Great idea bashmore75 - I would thank you officially via the website - if only I knew how!

It would be good if your link could be publicised on other discussion boards (outside of MSE) in order to reach a wider audience as we really do need to know the scale of the problem.

Does anyone have any press contacts to put bashmore75's idea out in the public domain.

Thanks also to Gracie Diver - quite right about E&Y - that they wouldn't welcome negative publicity. I thought this was a moneysaving website - so can't understand the other comments that we should just accept this situation and let the big boys get away with it!

dawny10

Gracie_Diver wrote: »

We live in a consumer centric age - the power is with the consumer, not with a dozen or so Ernst & Young employees, who are doing their best for themselves and which ever creditor brought them in (commonly a bank).

I read somewhere that it was actually Virgin who brought in the administrators, as one of the major creditors. If this is the case, would they have any sway on how E&Y manage the administration?

My big issue with the whole situation is that Zavvi (albeit under administration) continues to trade, I can go in there and spend cash but not the 'cash' I happen to have stored on a plastic card.

Woolworths administrators honoured their vouchers - even after it was clear that no-one would come in and buy the chain, so there was no need to avoid tarnishing the name. It would be interesting to learn why they felt able to do this and E&Y cannot.

Silicon

Several points, to try and help clarify the situation:

The sale of vouchers is not covered by the Sale of Goods Act. It's covered by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Part 2 S13 is the one you want).

Gift vouchers after the 27th November are being honoured as this is the date that EUK went into administration. When this happened Zavvi's directors opened a separate account to put voucher sales receipts into with the foresight that they themselves might be in trouble.

Gracie_Diver wrote: »

sorry zenseeker i have to totally disagree; i hardly think realising our constitutional rights is militant. If you want to stand at the back of the queue behind other creditors who are paid out using funds raised from voucher sales so be it; me i'm not prepared to lie down, the actions fo Ernst & Young are morally reprehensible.

The UK does not, and never has had, a formal constitution. Arguing that we have constitutional rights is pointless. UK law is made up of Common Law, precedent, various statutory agreements and other bits and bobs. Whether that's correct or not is for a discussion at another time.

Gracie_Diver wrote: »

The administrators are simply interpreting the law as they see fit, there is no case law on this issue so it certainly does not mean they are right, far from it and i certainly don't think we should just accept their interpretation as being correct. Their arguement is that people buying vouchers were suppliers to Zavvi - suppliers of money, rather than consumers, this is a tenuous line at best. In the event that the stores had shut sadly this would be true, but as they are open for business this is simply stretching things, especially since vouchers purchased after 27/11/08 are considered acceptable for a refund. We have been sold something that does not work as it should - Sales of Goods Act covers this.

The administrators are correct. SOGA doesn't apply to vouchers, regardless of whether the stores are open or not. Voucher holders are creditors. Nothing more nothing less. E&Y are not interpreting the law as they see fit - they are applying the correct law; it's just not the one you think it is.

Gracie_Diver wrote: »

We live in a consumer centric age - the power is with the consumer, not with a dozen or so Ernst & Young employees, who are doing their best for themselves and which ever creditor brought them in (commonly a bank). We are also voters and politicans who want our vote have the capacity to make organisations like Ernst & Young accountable; that is how it should be.

Administrators are legally bound to work in the best interests of the creditors. Failure to do so leaves them open to legal action from those creditors. Applying emotional arguments to this is not very productive, regardless of how we think it should be.

Gracie_Diver wrote: »

It may be that we do not get our money back, but we should not be defeatist from the word go, instead we should make a moral stand, do the right thing and make our feelings known to those who can make a difference. This also includes Ernst & Young senior management; becuase in this event their own actions fly in the face of their own Values and Code of Conduct. These large organsiations do sometimes act in haste and we should remind them of this through whatever legal and peaceful means available

Here I agree with you. E&Y are acting well within the law but it's a PR disaster all round.

frugal_rock

A pal of mine tried spending his £15 Zavvi voucher on boxing day and was told they wouldnt accept them. He then placed the voucher on the check out desk and walked out with his £15 worth of CDs.

Fair play I say!

tcall

frugal_rock wrote: »

A pal of mine tried spending his £15 Zavvi voucher on boxing day and was told they wouldnt accept them. He then placed the voucher on the check out desk and walked out with his £15 worth of CDs.

Fair play I say!

I would love to see them try to prosecute him. I cant see how their case could possibly ever stand up in court.

amandajim36

frugal_rock wrote: »

A pal of mine tried spending his £15 Zavvi voucher on boxing day and was told they wouldnt accept them. He then placed the voucher on the check out desk and walked out with his £15 worth of CDs.

Fair play I say!

good on him. My brother has £40 worth of vouchers and this is what he wants to do ive been trying to talk him out of it in case he does get arrested :rotfl:

kat212

even though zavvi have got a sale on some stuff at the moment, has anyone notice how they put the prices up on may other things?

magyar

tcall wrote: »

I would love to see them try to prosecute him. I cant see how their case could possibly ever stand up in court.

Sadly, it would. Whilst it might be poetic justice and I for one would happily turn a blind eye, he has committed a criminal offence of theft. Refusing to honour the gift voucher is a civil matter, not a criminal one.

Anyone thinking of doing this should consider it very carefully. They could well be prosecuted.

withabix

It is long overdue that the laws should be changed in this country, to put the CONSUMER at the top of the list in terms of priority unsecured creditors, rather than HMRC.

Consumers should also have priority over suppliers, as the pro-rata loss is greater for the consumer than it is for the supplier.

Eg: Supplier has unsecured loss of approx £5 for a £10 CD, whereas consumer has £10 unsecured loss for a £10 CD.

Also, the consumer is losing money that has been subject to income tax, NI, VAT etc, whereas the supplier can write their losses off against corporation taxes etc, can they not? (assuming that they are profitable, as most companies are!)

northerngeezer

Has anyone actually rang Ernst & Young on 0161 333 3000 to see if there has been any change with the situation.