Taking Red Letter Days to court....

System

ThumbRemote wrote: »

In your opinion.

Indeed, everything on this forum is someone's opinion. Thanks for pointing that out

arcon5

As a side note, highstreetvouchers.com delivery policy would be deemed as 'unfair':

'*If you opt to have your vouchers delivered by 1st Class post we cannot be held liable for their non-delivery/replacement.'

magenta22

This post is getting quite humourous.

You are completely missing the point, there is an expiry date on the voucher - some people may not agree with it but there is one.

The OP had at least 9 months to book said experience day, the OP for whatever reason put it out of sight and forgot about it (from the OP's post, this is how it reads) OP then tries 11 months AFTER the expriry date to book said experience day. RLD/Organisers says that voucher code has expired. OP gets in a huff.

I await this to be on watchdog!

If_it_can_go_wrong

magenta22 wrote: »

This post is getting quite humourous.

You are completely missing the point, there is an expiry date on the voucher - some people may not agree with it but there is one.

The OP had at least 9 months to book said experience day, the OP for whatever reason put it out of sight and forgot about it (from the OP's post, this is how it reads) OP then tries 11 months AFTER the expriry date to book said experience day. RLD/Organisers says that voucher code has expired. OP gets in a huff.

I await this to be on watchdog!

You are right and I think most of us sussed that from post 1.
The point you are missing is that the debate since then has been about whether the expiry dates represent an unfair clause. The Op obviously believes so and is willing to test it in court.

ThumbRemote

magenta22 wrote: »

This post is getting quite humourous.

You are completely missing the point, there is an expiry date on the voucher - some people may not agree with it but there is one.

The OP had at least 9 months to book said experience day, the OP for whatever reason put it out of sight and forgot about it (from the OP's post, this is how it reads) OP then tries 11 months AFTER the expriry date to book said experience day. RLD/Organisers says that voucher code has expired. OP gets in a huff.

I await this to be on watchdog!

Further to "If it can go wrong"'s answer, the motivation of the OP is of no relevance whatsoever as to whether the term is unfair.

They are, as you clearly identify, in a huff because they are unable to use the voucher. As a result they have made an effort to challenge the terms of the voucher.

Many legal precedents come from people who have challenged something due to being "in a huff"

FunnySaving

OP - do you have a court date? Given that the only thing the posters on this thread seem able to agree on is that a judge will have to decide, perhaps you could give us an idea of when we will be put out of our misery?

Azari

FunnySaving wrote: »

OP - do you have a court date? Given that the only thing the posters on this thread seem able to agree on is that a judge will have to decide, perhaps you could give us an idea of when we will be put out of our misery?

Most likely RLD will capitulate as they did the last time someone reported here.

The last thing they want is a judge ruling against them which would undoubtedly become widely known and lead to a lot more people questioning their terms - knowing that they would have a good chance of winning if they went to court.

I really hope the OP pursues this as the outcome will be interesting - whichever way it goes.

pmduk

If RLD do capitulate, which I consider likely, it is more probable that it will be the cost of defending the action rather than their reluctance to cause a precedent which will have caused their decision.

biscit

Azari wrote: »

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.

Great that means it was as even handed as I intended it to be

Azari

pmduk wrote: »

If RLD do capitulate, which I consider likely, it is more probable that it will be the cost of defending the action rather than their reluctance to cause a precedent which will have caused their decision.

In your opinion.

But I think that demonstrates a lack of critical thinking.

If you were regularly losing a sum of money because you were being threatened with court over an alleged unfair term and you are confident that the term is fair and legal. What would you do?

a) Keep paying out so that your continue to lose revenue to which you believe you are entitled? (And, remember, this revenue comes straight from your bottom line.)

b) Spend a few hundred to defend the case so that, in future, you could refer any claimants to the result (decisions in small claims courts do not set legal precedents but they would certainly be persuasive to people contemplating laying out on a claim) and maintain that part of your revenue stream?

On the other hand, if you are not confident of your position you would almost certainly simply give in so that you could maintain that part of your revenue from people who do not know about, or do not understand, unfair terms and conditions legislation.