Taking Red Letter Days to court....

lincroft1710

Azari wrote: »

That's irrelevant.

He's just giving the lie to the idea that 'everyone' has two year or less validity.

Although that had already been shown to be nonsense way back in the thread.

No it's not "irrelevant". It just shows that there is no consensus in the gift token/card industry about the length of time a token or card is valid, and that many players do rightly or wrongly put a limit on the period in which the token/card can be used.

Azari

lincroft1710 wrote: »

No it's not "irrelevant". It just shows that there is no consensus in the gift token/card industry about the length of time a token or card is valid, and that many players do rightly or wrongly put a limit on the period in which the token/card can be used.

Yes, sorry, I shouldn't have said: 'irrelevant', rather that your post backed up the idea that there is no consistency.

Should a case ever come to court, a judge will have to decide if any limit is fair and if so, what the minimum term should be.

Many here seem to believe that just because a lot of people do it and it's stated in the terms and conditions that makes it OK.

It would have been interesting to see how they would have responded to consumer protection proposals back before the initial 'Sale of Goods Act' when retailers used to get away with the most appalling behaviour.

I can imagine some posters here getting very indignant about the idea that the person who sold you something is responsible if it is faulty or unfit for purpose and asking why the retailer should suffer if the manufacturer didn't make a good product.

Thankfully those days are well behind us now and companies have, by law, to behave in a more reasonable and responsible manner.

arcon5

Any update op................

Moglex

arcon5 wrote: »

Any update op................

Given that the OP has not revisited the site since the day after he made this thread I doubt that he'll see this bump.

Based on previous experience, reported on this site and others, RLD will have returned his money at the first threat of court action.

arcon5

Moglex wrote: »

Given that the OP has not revisited the site since the day after he made this thread I doubt that he'll see this bump.

Based on previous experience, reported on this site and others, RLD will have returned his money at the first threat of court action.

That's a shame, was hoping to hear the outcome

DCFC79

arcon5 wrote: »

That's a shame, was hoping to hear the outcome

So was I but oh well

parkersages

I have a voucher given to me as a present which has an expiry date very clearly as 5/9/2012 and thought this was Ok but then further reading of the accompanying documents brought to light the fact that the hotel night has to be used by 16th March Who wants to go away for one night in the winter, not worth the journey if it is bad weather. Sharp practice here

parkersages

Elle7 wrote: »

So, does this


And



not mean that RLD have covered themselves, in printing the expiry date on the voucher and stating it online?

(I'm just trying to understand, not pick fights!)

So as this posting has come from someone within RLD I must ask Why has the person who was sold the voucher I have been given as an 80th birthday gift been sold a voucher with an expiry date of 5/9/2012 yet when one reads the detail this date is worthless as the break has to be taken before 16 March 2012 . We are not decrepit but still do not fancy having to drive to the hotel for one night in what might turn out to be wintery weather. yet RLD say the terms must be adhered to I think this is msharp practice and will be examining the legal implications.

Azari

parkersages wrote: »

So as this posting has come from someone within RLD I must ask Why has the person who was sold the voucher I have been given as an 80th birthday gift been sold a voucher with an expiry date of 5/9/2012 yet when one reads the detail this date is worthless as the break has to be taken before 16 March 2012 . We are not decrepit but still do not fancy having to drive to the hotel for one night in what might turn out to be wintery weather. yet RLD say the terms must be adhered to I think this is msharp practice and will be examining the legal implications.

This is simply a matter of whether or not the requirement to take the break was clear at the time the voucher was purchased.

If it was there is no sharp practice (unless the main advertisement of the break made it appear that a lot of summertime activities were available and the date limit was buried away in small print - and this is not illegal, even if reprehensible).

Many hotels offer reduced price winter breaks and there is nothing really wrong with selling those on.

louise1122

Hi - I have had the same experience - I spent £100 on orbing but couldn't go as I became pregnant - we banked the voucher online to use on something else thinking when banked it was safe! but no just came to use it and it expired 20 days ago - wrote to red letter days and got same robotic response that there's nothing that can be done about it! I want to take this to court I did not see there was an expiry when booking online and this should be clearly stated. There seems to be many people out there that have this same problem with the short exp. date I think we should all get together and take them to court like with the unfair bank charges.