Taking Red Letter Days to court....

Elle7

Would this not be the same as gift vouchers, which are usually only valid for a year?

I was lead to believe this was due to the voucher needing to be accounted for, and after this period it was unredeemable (although some companies may offer goodwill, etc).

Red Letter Days may rent tracks or cars etc for one year. If you don't use it within that year, they could need to charge more...I don't know if this is the case, but how much is the extra? Is it a small amount, or similar to the cost of re-buying the experience?

I can't see a judge deciding that setting a term for an activity is unlawful.

texranger

If the voucher had a clear expiry date and this was clearly mentioned in their TOS then they have broke no laws and have not breached the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations as a voucher was purchased with a clear expiry date that the purchased did not use the voucher before the expiry date, this has nothing to do with the vendor if the purchaser does not use the voucher in the allotted time. Any court would through this out.

Azari

texranger wrote: »

If the voucher had a clear expiry date and this was clearly mentioned in their TOS then they have broke no laws and have not breached the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations

Sorry, didn't realise you were a judge.

Elle7

So, does this

Do I have to choose a specific date for the experience when I buy?

No, our gift packs can be left "open-dated", so that your recipient can choose a date to take part in their experience themselves and make their booking before their expiry date. If you order yourself an eVoucher, dates can be booked or requested as soon as you register it to your Red Letter Days web account.

If you'd prefer to book the date of the experience when placing your order, contact our Customer Experience Centre. Please note that all dates are subject to availability.

And

Experience vouchers are valid for at least ten months from date of purchase, unless the terms of a particular offer specifically mention a shorter validity period. The exact expiry date will be printed on the voucher or advised upon successful activation. You must either redeem the voucher or, where applicable, bank its value to your Red Letter Days account as credit before this date, or the voucher will cease to be valid. Unless otherwise stated for a particular offer, the participation date for an experience can be any available date up until 31 December of the calendar year following the original year of purchase. Credit can also be used until this date and is non-refundable.

Lifestyle vouchers are valid for two years from date of purchase. The exact expiry date will be printed on the voucher or advised upon successful activation. You must use the voucher before this date or it will cease to be valid.

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!)

trevorhackett

Hi Elle7,

The point in the wording of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations is that Ts & Cs should not represent an unfair bias in favour of the supplier and against the consumer. No matter how clearly Ts & Cs are presented (and that's a separate issue), they have to meet various tests of fairness to remain valid and enforceable. So far is just a statement of objective fact (although I'm sure one or two on the board would write something contrary here just for the hell of it....).

The point from here (and this is where the court's judgement comes to play) is whether the RLD Ts & Cs coupled with their refusal to accept an additional payment to reflect any reasonable loss from late registration is fair. Clearly their position makes money for them above and beyond what is reasonable to reflect any loss from late registration, and clearly a fair percentage of their revenue depends on this happening to a lot of 'purchasers' of their services.

We'll see. It is going to court.


Regards,

Trevor.

Lip_Stick

I'm half asleep here, but, do these vouchers have two expiry dates? One for activation and one for taking the acutal experience?

arcon5

texranger wrote: »

If the voucher had a clear expiry date and this was clearly mentioned in their TOS then they have broke no laws and have not breached the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations as a voucher was purchased with a clear expiry date that the purchased did not use the voucher before the expiry date, this has nothing to do with the vendor if the purchaser does not use the voucher in the allotted time. Any court would through this out.

I second this. If your purchase was a voucher valid between date X and Y (x being date of purchase) and you didn't use it I fail to see how this is unfair.
Unless other terms or practices deemed it difficult to actually redeem it within this period, I fail to see how it's their fault.

burnleymik

I think it is deemed unfair because the product is still available to purchase and the only reason to enforce the activation date would be to take advantage of customers who forget, so purely financial gain on the company's part.

OP offered to make up any reasonable extra costs incurred to the company (i.e. the actual price of the experience increasing), but they flat refused, meaning they don't fulfil ANY of their obligation and don't have any financial burden upon themselves. Basically they are exploiting people who forget/don't have time, to use the voucher anbd trying to hide behind their T+C's as an excuse. As such this should (IMO) breach the Unfair Terms regs.

GL with this OP.

Basil1234

right just got in from work and knackerd right trevor going to say my bit here i see where you are coming from trevor but i think the point you are missing is rld is a business and lets say will sell 100 track days as an 'example' so will have a set price with the track for that particular year so will buy 100 track experiences and probabely pay for them as part of that deal they have say 9 months to cash them in from date of issue of voucher as agreed in there contract with the track.
as to the term of fairness doesn't come into it as a contract is binding, now whether that contract is legal and reasonable well thats a another matter all together but i suspect this contract has been through the solicitors and they have covered all there bases.
and at the end of the day 20 months on, a further 11 months twice past the expiry date of the voucher a judge imho would say that you are being unfair and unreasonable. it could be costs have risen 50% and as one point and he could find in your favour asking you to pay 50% the value of the voucher plus reasonable adminstration costs but then the question would then be would you be will to accept that?
but what i think you would find is rld as part of there contract has lost the money too the track and then would state this to the judge saying that it would cost them the full higher price again and how does that make it reasonable and fair to them.
overall tbh i think you are on a very sticky wicket with this one but i wish you well, but unfouranetly i don't think you will win but i look foward to seeing the result and being proved wrong.

a knackered and off to bed basil

burnleymik

and lets say will sell 100 track days as an 'example' so will have a set price with the track for that particular year so will buy 100 track experiences and probabely pay for them as part of that deal they have say 9 months to cash them in from date of issue of voucher as agreed in there contract with the track.

The problem is Basil you are making a huge assumption here, this may not be the case at all, we don't know. OP's case is based on whether or not this does cause financial burden to RLD. If it does because of the terms like you say then yes it's not an unfair clause because it would cost RLD money if they were to allow use of the voucher. That said I suspect OP doesn;t believe that is the case in hand here and RLD are using the T+C's time clause as a way to make easy money and exploit customers, hence it being unfair.