Taking Red Letter Days to court....

burnleymik

If they are still selling the experience exactly the same as 11 months before what relevance does the time period have?

I don't really know if people in this thread are deliberately missing the point or not, but the experience voucher is unique, it's not the same as a concert ticket or returning an item of clothing, because of financial burden left on the seller.

As has been stated so many times throughout this thread, if RLD have no financial burden with this voucher then the T+C's are unfair and as such OP should challenge them. I guess from the links posted that they don't have any such burden and that is why they have always relented in the past.

texranger

burnleymik wrote: »

If they are still selling the experience exactly the same as 11 months before what relevance does the time period have?

I don't really know if people in this thread are deliberately missing the point or not, but the experience voucher is unique, it's not the same as a concert ticket or returning an item of clothing, because of financial burden left on the seller.

As has been stated so many times throughout this thread, if RLD have no financial burden with this voucher then the T+C's are unfair and as such OP should challenge them. I guess from the links posted that they don't have any such burden and that is why they have always relented in the past.

so you get a voucher in a daily newspaper to go to Asda for a 1kg bag of mccain frozen chips which says valid from 9/12/2011 until 13/12/2011. Asda will still have these on sale on 14/12/2011 but do you think they will honour this voucher well the answer will be NO as it clearly has the expiry date printed.
RLD as i stated would have booked the experience venue for so many people for a specific time period it id the OP that did not book in the clearly WRITTEN time period that is at fault and not RLLD or the experience venue.

Zedicus

burnleymik wrote: »

I don't really know if people in this thread are deliberately missing the point or not

I'm pretty sure they are. There must be some reason why they are studiously ignoring the fact that when threatened with court RLD have, in the past, capitulated. If they were sure of their ground I very much doubt they would have done that. They are obviously concerned that if they are taken to court, the case will go against them and then the cat will be well and truly out of the bag. At the moment they can get away with their 'terms' because there are plenty of people who do not understand 'unfair terms' legislation and how it may well apply in a case like this.

texranger

Zedicus wrote: »

I'm pretty sure they are. There must be some reason why they are studiously ignoring the fact that when threatened with court RLD have, in the past, capitulated. If they were sure of their ground I very much doubt they would have done that. They are obviously concerned that if they are taken to court, the case will go against them and then the cat will be well and truly out of the bag. At the moment they can get away with their 'terms' because there are plenty of people who do not understand 'unfair terms' legislation and how it may well apply in a case like this.

WRONG a court case if you win or lose will damage a companies reputation, so most companies will settle just to avoid any court case.
the point is the OP had a voucher with an expiry date CLEARLY WRITTEN on it and could not be bothered to use it and then thought he would chance his luck 11 months AFTER the expiry date, but this failed to work.

NO unfair terms have been broken by RLD. i have been in business 11 years and are very aware of the law.

burnleymik

How do you know "he couldn't be bothered" to use the voucher? What if there was a legitimate reason, such as illness, working away etc etc.

Have you actually read the other threads? I suggest you do before you reply any further.

Once again though you are missing the point, the time is irrelevant because of the nature of the voucher sold.

Zedicus

texranger wrote: »

WRONG a court case if you win or lose will damage a companies reputation, so most companies will settle just to avoid any court case.
the point is the OP had a voucher with an expiry date CLEARLY WRITTEN on it and could not be bothered to use it and then thought he would chance his luck 11 months AFTER the expiry date, but this failed to work.

NO unfair terms have been broken by RLD. i have been in business 11 years and are very aware of the law.

You're entitled to your opinion. But that's all it is: an opinion. And despite your dogmatism not all the facts are known so it's not actually a very reliable opinion.

arcon5

Zedicus wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion. But that's all it is: an opinion. And despite your dogmatism not all the facts are known so it's not actually a very reliable opinion.

fantastic counter argument!

texranger

burnleymik wrote: »

How do you know "he couldn't be bothered" to use the voucher? What if there was a legitimate reason, such as illness, working away etc etc.

Have you actually read the other threads? I suggest you do before you reply any further.

Once again though you are missing the point, the time is irrelevant because of the nature of the voucher sold.

this must means that all the below and many more must be breaking the law being unfair as these all have vouchers with expiry dates on, which most will give the card a 3 yr expiry date

argos vouchers
high street vouchers
Arcadia Gift Vouchers
Currys & PC World Gift Vouchers
Debenhams Gift Vouchers
John Lewis Vouchers
National Garden Gift Vouchers

burnleymik

System

Everything has an expiration date. This whole argument is ridiculous. No court in the land will say its unfair for a company to declare they don't want an offer to last for ever. Frankly this is another example of people with too much time on their hands launching ridiculous law suits. We are close to being Americans....,