Taking Red Letter Days to court....

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

The only reason they came up was you made one of your usual ridiculous sweeping statements about how M&S don't operate the same as RLD (therefore claiming RLD were in the wrong). The Gift cards prove you're wrong.

LOL, the fact that you are now resorting to blatant lies (You and the other RWA's said that 'every' company had expiry dates and I simply pointed out my experiences with two who didn't), shows quite clearly that, in your desperation, you've lost the plot.

The whole 'who does what' argument has, anyway, been shown to be completely irrelevant.

Or are you still desperately clinging to the absurd and fanciful "everyone does it, so that makes it acceptable", nonsense?

System

Azari wrote: »

LOL, the fact that you are now resorting to blatant lies (You and the other RWA's said that 'every' company had expiry dates and I simply pointed out my experiences with two who didn't), shows quite clearly that, in your desperation, you've lost the plot.

The whole 'who does what' argument has, anyway, been shown to be completely irrelevant.

Or are you still desperately clinging to the absurd and fanciful "everyone does it, so that makes it acceptable", nonsense?

You're such a muppet. Where do you get this stuff from?

I do enjoy your ridiculous posts on this forum. No matter what the subject is you wade in with some ridiculous claims about how right you are! It does make me laugh how you always insist you are right and thats the end of the argument

Gift cards are identical to gift vouchers, they are in fact the replacement to gift vouchers. M&S still do both because they have an older customer base who would rather use vouchers. However in the next few years they will disappear and only Gift Cards will be available. Gift cards all have an expiry date on as it is unreasonable to expect the company to hold this data forever. No law will say that gift cards, vouchers or anything similar should have no expiry date on it. The whole case will hinge on whether the court believes the expiry date on the RLD voucher was fair and prominent. Pretty much every reasonable person believes that 9 months is a fair duration and although I have never seen one the expiry date on a RLD voucher seems to be prominently placed! Therefore although I wish the OP all the best in their legal battle if RLD don't settle beforehand (they may decide its not worth the hassle), then I think its very unlikely that they will win.

biscit

People keep repeating that this is about fair terms and conditions as if that is somehow not obvious to those who disagree. Fact is some people see a clear expiry date as perfectly fair.

I think the thing is- do people see things like being organised, savvy, inteligent, responsible as positive character traits or neutral ones? Do you see disorganisation, and not being very observant as negative character traits that people should accept the due consequences of, or as disabilities that the world should be designed to mitigate. Do you think systems designed to be clear to absolutely everyone, no matter how clueless are polite and helpful, or rude and patronising?

Is it fair that someone who knows the train booking system, for example, gets a better deal than those who don't have a clue and walk up to the window and ask for a ticket? Some will say yes, some will say no.

Is it fair that careful people get their banking subsidised by people who can't keep track of their money? Some will say that it is absolutely fair, some will disagree.

Is it fair that savvy shoppers have their shopping baskets subsidised by people who aren't so observant or clued up to the marketing tricks supermarkets used? Some will say, yes absolutely, some will say no the supermarkets are taking advantage.

So if an expiry date is printed on a ticket or voucher and the recipient either forgets or doesn't see it, is it fair that the forgetful person then misses out on the service. Who's fault is it- the company for printing the expiry date, or the person who is careless or unobservant for being careless and unobservant?

Opinions differ. But I think it would be helpful for people to understand why other people see things differently.

Azari

goater78 wrote: »

You're such a muppet. Where do you get this stuff from?
I do enjoy your ridiculous posts on this forum. No matter what the subject is you wade in with some ridiculous claims about how right you are! It does make me laugh how you always insist you are right and thats the end of the argument

Ad hominem waffle.

Gift cards are identical to gift vouchers, they are in fact the replacement to gift vouchers. M&S still do both because they have an older customer base who would rather use vouchers. However in the next few years they will disappear and only Gift Cards will be available. Gift cards all have an expiry date on as it is unreasonable to expect the company to hold this data forever. No law will say that gift cards, vouchers or anything similar should have no expiry date on it. The whole case will hinge on whether the court believes the expiry date on the RLD voucher was fair and prominent. Pretty much every reasonable person believes that 9 months is a fair duration and although I have never seen one the expiry date on a RLD voucher seems to be prominently placed!

General, irrelevant, waffle.

You are still demonstrating a total lack of understanding of unfair terms legislation. You still have this bizarre and naive view that if you make the terms clear enough, and everyone is doing the same, that will defeat the legislation.

I think its very unlikely that they will win.

I'll wait and see what a judge has to say.

burnleymik

For me personally it's about the T+C's for this voucher being too bias towards the Voucher seller (RLD), if and only if, it causes them no financial burden, then there is no reason to enforce the expiry date so strictly, other than to profit from people's forgetfulness or inability to take up the voucher.

Azari

biscit wrote: »

People keep repeating that this is about fair terms and conditions as if that is somehow not obvious to those who disagree. Fact is some people see a clear expiry date as perfectly fair.

I think the thing is- do people see things like being organised, savvy, inteligent, responsible as positive character traits or neutral ones? Do you see disorganisation, and not being very observant as negative character traits that people should accept the due consequences of, or as disabilities that the world should be designed to mitigate. Do you think systems designed to be clear to absolutely everyone, no matter how clueless are polite and helpful, or rude and patronising?

Is it fair that someone who knows the train booking system, for example, gets a better deal than those who don't have a clue and walk up to the window and ask for a ticket? Some will say yes, some will say no.

Is it fair that careful people get their banking subsidised by people who can't keep track of their money? Some will say that it is absolutely fair, some will disagree.

Is it fair that savvy shoppers have their shopping baskets subsidised by people who aren't so observant or clued up to the marketing tricks supermarkets used? Some will say, yes absolutely, some will say no the supermarkets are taking advantage.

So if an expiry date is printed on a ticket or voucher and the recipient either forgets or doesn't see it, is it fair that the forgetful person then misses out on the service. Who's fault is it- the company for printing the expiry date, or the person who is careless or unobservant for being careless and unobservant?

Opinions differ. But I think it would be helpful for people to understand why other people see things differently.

A good post and one that demonstrates quite clearly that this case is one that would need to be decided by a properly qualified judge.

Given the length of time the OP left it I don't really have a clear feeling one way or the other.

Do bear in mind, though, that legislation is often designed to assist those who may not be as literate, either legally, financially, or literally, as others. Whilst some people on this (and other) forums will always adopt the smug and self righteous 'You should do x and then you wouldn't have the problem' approach, various measures taken by governments over the years demonstrate that this is not the fundamental principle on which all legislation is based.

System

Azari wrote: »

Ad hominem waffle.



General, irrelevant, waffle.

You are still demonstrating a total lack of understanding of unfair terms legislation. You still have this bizarre and naive view that if you make the terms clear enough, and everyone is doing the same, that will defeat the legislation.


I'll wait and see what a judge has to say.

But the terms are not unfair therefore your whole argument is just a waste of everyones time. Although I don't agree with Burnleymiks views he has made me think about this issue and I can see where he is coming from.

I realise you live for this forum and enjoy sprouting your views on here a few hundred times a week but sometimes you need to just think a bit and realise what you post is just 90 % cr*p......

arcon5

Azari wrote: »

Or are you still desperately clinging to the absurd and fanciful "everyone does it, so that makes it acceptable", nonsense?

you'd think though, since pretty much every company has this term (from the largest organisations all the way down to the small local retailers across a vast range of industries & markets) that if is was truly unfair then at some point it would have been challenged by TS or there'd be more case law of civil complaints about it.

So i'd be asking, why are these practices allowed to continue so widely without scrutiny.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

Zedicus wrote: »

That has already been demonstrated to be untrue. I checked ebay and there are a lot of non-expiring M&S vouchers available so it is confirmed they have been issued.

And as has already been mentioned these are indeed being phased out and ones that were issued years ago are still valid but with the move to the gift card system where you can top up the gift card rather then having to keep buying vouchers then these do have an expiry date - if not used.

Zedicus wrote: »

Not sure where you get that from but I'm happy to confirm that ANYONE who makes a dogmatic statement about the outcome of some future court case is demonstrating a considerable degree of both ignorance and arrogance. The main thrust of my post, which you seem to have ignored, was that:

(a) Writing something in the terms and conditions, no matter how clearly, is no defence to a claim for unfair terms - how could it be?

(b) The fact that 'everyone' does it (even if they don't) is, again, no defence in law.

These seem to be the two main planks of the argument that those who claim there is no case. And, please note, that there is a fundamental difference between those who say "There is no case", who are effectively judging the issue themselves, and those who say "There is a case", who are effectively saying that a court needs to decide the issue. So your implicit accusation of lack of even-handedness does not really hit the mark.

I dont believe anyone has made a dogmatic statement about a future court case with regards to this issue and as such there is no arrogance or ignorance on anyones behalf. Merely what myself and others have been pointing out is that overall - RLD have an expiry date on their voucher along side other gift card/voucher schemes which others seemed to think they didnt.

Not many, myself included have said its a clear open and shut case either and should be indeed tested in a court as it would be better for all concerned to get the matter sorted for once and for all.


Though in a similar situation, if you were to buy a direct voucher/gift card for an attraction that went into recievership and closed forever by the time you wanted to use it you would be so far down the pecking order of creditors that you may not get anything back at all. If it was the case that you purchased this through a company lik eRLD who had already used that money to purchase your voucher/gift card for the attraction and it didnt have an expiry date on it - would they then be forced to pay you the monies back you paid for it because the attraction closed and thus they would be at the bottom of the pile of creditors so is it unfair on the company to refund you even though they would lose money through this?

Has this happenned in the past? I dont know but its worth mentioning. At what point do you declare something as an unfair T&C? for the customer or for the business that is supplyin gthe customer?

ThumbRemote

goater78 wrote: »

But the terms are not unfair

In your opinion.