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

Lisa83

Are they still classed as being in administration though since they have been bought over by Edinburgh Woolen Mill?

System

Lisa83 wrote: »

Are they still classed as being in administration though since they have been bought over by Edinburgh Woolen Mill?

Maybe not but since Jane Norman is now a trading name of Edinburgh Woollen Mills and Jane Norman the company has ceased trading then they can quite legally take the line that the gift vouchers are nothing to do with them.

ET1976

Lisa83 wrote: »

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

Grand Arcade in Cambridge.

antrobus

DCodd wrote: »

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.

I believe it is you that is confused. The fact that the administrators of any company continue trading (which, of course, is the whole point of administration in the first place) has now bearing on the legal status of any debts incurred before the administrator was appointed. No creditor can bring an action before the small claims court against a company in administration, because the whole point of administration is that there is moratorium on such actions.

DCodd

antrobus wrote: »

I believe it is you that is confused. The fact that the administrators of any company continue trading (which, of course, is the whole point of administration in the first place) has now bearing on the legal status of any debts incurred before the administrator was appointed. No creditor can bring an action before the small claims court against a company in administration, because the whole point of administration is that there is moratorium on such actions.

But that only applies if there is a court order in place, and gift cards are a grey area as having a gift card does not make you a creditor. Most gift cardss have a "monetary" value of less than 1p, so the promisory note should be regarded as a contract or possibly a sale but not a credit.

Administrators, in very many cases, effectively work for the secured creditors only and are brought in by them to retrieve their monies, legal action is only restricted for creditors not customers i.e. SOGA / SOGAS is still in force.

Cwood26

I had the same problem today.... Did anyone find anything out?

mynameisdave

Edit: I see the point I am replying to is not really the point that is being discussed anymore (it was when the exchange started)

unholyangel

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Theft act 1968


if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person;



So I don't think it's theft.

IMO the paragraph you have quoted relates to recovering your own posessions. I cannot go into a shop, place the money (to the value of the wholesale cost) and walk out with an item simply because i believe i have fufilled the necessary requirements to not make it shoplifting.

You offer payment. If they decline your offer, then you do not have any right to just take it. Using your logic i could be selling my car, someone could offer me the money, i could refuse for any reason i like yet they can leave the money and just take my car?

The only time there may be confusion is when the person had ownership of it previously or had part ownership. THEN they may believe they are entitled to the goods. However with stores, it is pretty blatant who has ownership otherwise you wouldnt offer payment if you believed the goods belonged to you!


It may be a civil matter but the civil matter would be the breach in "contract" on the retailers side.

You are also forgetting a very important part of the Theft Act 1968......

"(2)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property."

adouglasmhor

unholyangel wrote: »

IMO the paragraph you have quoted relates to recovering your own posessions. I cannot go into a shop, place the money (to the value of the wholesale cost) and walk out with an item simply because i believe i have fufilled the necessary requirements to not make it shoplifting.

You offer payment. If they decline your offer, then you do not have any right to just take it. Using your logic i could be selling my car, someone could offer me the money, i could refuse for any reason i like yet they can leave the money and just take my car?

The only time there may be confusion is when the person had ownership of it previously or had part ownership. THEN they may believe they are entitled to the goods. However with stores, it is pretty blatant who has ownership otherwise you wouldnt offer payment if you believed the goods belonged to you!


It may be a civil matter but the civil matter would be the breach in "contract" on the retailers side.

You are also forgetting a very important part of the Theft Act 1968......

"(2)A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property."

But payment has been made and accepted already when the voucher was purchased., Sorry the argument made was not understood by you. But you tried, bless.

unholyangel

adouglasmhor wrote: »

But payment has been made and accepted already when the voucher was purchased., Sorry the argument made was not understood by you. But you tried, bless.

No, it hasnt. They agreed you can later spend x with the store but they never agreed you can exchange x for y (and we dont even know if it was the OP who made this agreement or someone else). If i pay for a meal for a friend and all that is agreed is that they will pay me back later, it does not then mean that i can go and help myself to their belongings whenever i see fit. As the act states, it can still be dishonest even if you do offer payment of some kind. Taking goods you have already been informed cannot be purchased with the voucher would amount to dishonesty.

And you're right, the argument made wasnt understood by me as i understand logic/common sense and not bullcrap

Go try your stunts for goods of any real value in any shop that has a zero tolerance policy and see how far you get out the door.

Do i think the shop are right to attach additional conditions after the voucher has been purchased? Nope. But nor am i foolish enough to get myself in trouble over £20.