Jane Norman: won't let me use my gift voucher without paying the same amount on top.

Lisa83

ET1976 - Which store did you use your gift card in?

dan_l

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I can and have, obviously you are a bit effete and take what you are given by the great and good, your choice I suppose.

Nope not at all, I would probably do what you are advising but I would do it with the possibilty that it could be potentially classed as theft.

I wouldn't be telling people on a public forum to just go and take what they like just because "I did it once and got away with it".

look4abargain

My partner and I had the same problem in store over the weekend. What is particulalrly grieving is the fact this gift card was purchased by her grandmother whose funeral we attended yesterday.
I emailed the customers services making them aware of my thoughts on the matter and they sent me a stock reply on an unrelated subject. I have just email back telling them to actually read my email then reply properly. If we are not given a suitable replacement card that will work or the cash equivalent I will telling them to expect further contact vis my solicitor, I am sure the fact that their legal fee's will ammount to more than the gift cards value should get them moving a bit.

adouglasmhor

dan_l wrote: »

Nope not at all, I would probably do what you are advising but I would do it with the possibilty that it could be potentially classed as theft.

I wouldn't be telling people on a public forum to just go and take what they like just because "I did it once and got away with it".

But no one said that, they said take something to the value stated and leave the voucher and walk out, do you get the difference.

dan_l

adouglasmhor wrote: »

But no one said that, they said take something to the value stated and leave the voucher and walk out, do you get the difference.

Yes I do understand I was being a bit flippant with that comment but do you not understand the voucher is not money and they have been told it cannot be spent like money. If they chose to ignore that and just take items worth what the number says on the front of the voucher they could potentially get in trouble.



Once the company went into administration the owner of that voucher became a creditor, on your advice all the other creditors can just come in and take what they are owed, it doesn’t work like that.

We are going round in circles, all I am trying to say is IMO there is a risk of getting arrested if you just go in and take what you think you are entitled to.

DCodd

dan_l wrote: »

Yes I do understand I was being a bit flippant with that comment but do you not understand the voucher is not money and they have been told it cannot be spent like money. If they chose to ignore that and just take items worth what the number says on the front of the voucher they could potentially get in trouble.



Once the company went into administration the owner of that voucher became a creditor, on your advice all the other creditors can just come in and take what they are owed, it doesn’t work like that.

We are going round in circles, all I am trying to say is IMO there is a risk of getting arrested if you just go in and take what you think you are entitled to.

This is not correct, the owner of the voucher is the OP, it is not a credit note but a credit of payment and there is a difference. A credit note is not a cash equivalent but a credit against an account (implied account) where as a voucher is a cash equivalent and as such the store cannot dictate that they "cannot be spent like money".

dan_l

DCodd wrote: »

This is not correct, the owner of the voucher is the OP, it is not a credit note but a credit of payment and there is a difference. A credit note is not a cash equivalent but a credit against an account (implied account) where as a voucher is a cash equivalent and as such the store cannot dictate that they "cannot be spent like money".

Have a read of this regarding vouchers and companies in administration. I would imagine Watchdog would of highlighted the fact if the companies in administration were wrong not to honour these but they haven't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2009/01/gift_vouchers.html

This is quoted from another Watchdog/BBC site:

“The general position when a company goes into Administration is that customers would no longer be able to redeem any form of gift cards or vouchers purchased prior to the date of Administration, and would rank as an unsecured claim against the company (ie. a pre Administration claim)."

DCodd

dan_l wrote: »

Have a read of this regarding vouchers and companies in administration. I would imagine Watchdog would of highlighted the fact if the companies in administration were wrong not to honour these but they haven't.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/watchdog/2009/01/gift_vouchers.html

This is quoted from another Watchdog/BBC site:

“The general position when a company goes into Administration is that customers would no longer be able to redeem any form of gift cards or vouchers purchased prior to the date of Administration, and would rank as an unsecured claim against the company (ie. a pre Administration claim)."

But your confusing the fact that while Jane Norman are / were in administration, the administrators are still trading with the company, in order to do this they are subject to usual trading laws and regardless of what is said on that watchdog link unless the voucher has no expiry date the op can not be seen as a creditor (as a creditor debt can not expire) and as such has recourse through the small claims court.

dan_l

I don't think I'm consfusing anything, the link I have posted regarding Zavvi and this link regarding Borders http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/consumer_advice/borders.shtml are both talking about the company still trading and accepting cash but not vouchers, the same as what this thread is about.
Now I am not saying Watchdog cannot have got it completely wrong but bearing in mind they are quoting other administrators in that link saying the voucher owners are creditors now and Watchdog don't seem to disagree with them, on that basis I wouldn't recommend just walking into a shop where you have previously been told the vouchers now have restrictions, taking stuff to the value of the number on the voucher and just walking out.

DCodd

dan_l wrote: »

I don't think I'm consfusing anything, the link I have posted regarding Zavvi and this link regarding Borders http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/consumer_advice/borders.shtml are both talking about the company still trading and accepting cash but not vouchers, the same as what this thread is about.
Now I am not saying Watchdog cannot have got it completely wrong but bearing in mind they are quoting other administrators in that link saying the voucher owners are creditors now and Watchdog don't seem to disagree with them, on that basis I wouldn't recommend just walking into a shop where you have previously been told the vouchers now have restrictions, taking stuff to the value of the number on the voucher and just walking out.

I agree that the idea of just walking out with stuff to the value is not a good idea especially as gift cards are not identifiable therefore no proof of purchase is available without a reciept. I am saying that as far as accounting is concerned the gift card can not be a creditor as it usualy has an expiry date. The administrators will say what ever they want as long as they can generate extra money (and therefore extra fees) for the company they are administering.

The thing is, if the voucher expires and the administrtors can keep the company trading beyond the expiry dates of all their current vouchers then that can remove £100K's off their debtors and make the Company viable again.