Taking Red Letter Days to court....

Azari

Alpine_Star wrote: »

This is where you're wrong.

Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations the court will only be concerned with the fairness of the terms within the contract and will not consider the fairness of any unilateral attempt by you to make a payment that falls outside of the terms of the contract.

That is correct but it may influence the judge if s/he is trying to decide if the expiry date has been set up with a valid commercial justification or if it just something done by the company to increase their profits at the expense of their customers.

I agree with those who say it will all hinge on whether or not the expiry date is prominent and unmissable or hidden away.

The fact that the company caved in last time they were threatened with court might indicate they are not sure of their ground.

Fundamental_2

Azari wrote: »

That is correct but it may influence the judge if s/he is trying to decide if the expiry date has been set up with a valid commercial justification or if it just something done by the company to increase their profits at the expense of their customers.

I agree with those who say it will all hinge on whether or not the expiry date is prominent and unmissable or hidden away.

The fact that the company caved in last time they were threatened with court might indicate they are not sure of their ground.

I agree that it may influence the judge in their decision but I am not convinced that even a prominent/unmissible date would be held to be fair; as stated above, it is the balance of the rights of the parties that is considered and I can only see commercial benefits to the retailer as the reason for an expiry date- there is no equal benefit to the consumer.

Cheers

FDM

DCFC79

The OP is at fault for forgetting about the item, cant see how you would get anywhere in court.

Fundamental_2

DCFC79 wrote: »

The OP is at fault for forgetting about the item, cant see how you would get anywhere in court.

But then the goods/services have been paid for but not provided. A term in the contract (redeem by X date) is unfair in that it creates a contractual inbalance in favour of the retailer with no discernible benefit to the consumer.

Cheers

FDM

Azari

Fundamental wrote: »

But then the goods/services have been paid for but not provided. A term in the contract (redeem by X date) is unfair in that it creates a contractual inbalance in favour of the retailer with no discernible benefit to the consumer.

You are banging your head against a brick wall.

This thread is now nothing more than a succession of posters who have not read - or who have read and ignored - previous posts and just make a 'me too' statement in support of the company. (Which, of course, they are entitled to do - just don't expect any logic or critical thinking from them.)

This despite various posts explaining that there is, at the very least, a case to answer, and the fact that there is evidence on this site that when someone determinedly challenges them they cave in.

pendulum

Fundamental wrote: »

A term in the contract (redeem by X date) is unfair in that it creates a contractual inbalance in favour of the retailer with no discernible benefit to the consumer.

In your opinion, but I don't share it. Specifying an expiry date does have a benefit to the consumer in that they know the date by which they must book so as to ensure they will receive the full benefit of the voucher. Not specifying an expiry date would be unfair as the consumer would then not know when the voucher was valid until (and it cannot be expected to last forever). Imagine being told you cannot redeem your voucher even though you were never told of its expiry date.

Moglex

pendulum wrote: »

In your opinion, but I don't share it. Specifying an expiry date does have a benefit to the consumer in that they know the date by which they must book so as to ensure they will receive the full benefit of the voucher. Not specifying an expiry date would be unfair as the consumer would then not know when the voucher was valid until (and it cannot be expected to last forever). Imagine being told you cannot redeem your voucher even though you were never told of its expiry date.

Are you being deliberately perverse?

The question is not whether it is fair to have an expiry date and not specify it.

It is whether it is fair to have an expiry date in the first place (and there may well be reasons why it is) and was enough done to ensure that whoever ended up with the voucher had that date made very clear to them.

If it was very clear what constituted the voucher and the voucher had the expiry date printed on it very clearly and distinctly in large letters (as it would be just about the most important piece of information on there), then the OP probably has no case.

DCFC79

Fundamental wrote: »

But then the goods/services have been paid for but not provided. A term in the contract (redeem by X date) is unfair in that it creates a contractual inbalance in favour of the retailer with no discernible benefit to the consumer.

Cheers

FDM

Ive not had an issue with expiry dates on vouchers and wouldnt do on a gift from RDL, id simply not forget about it.

It will be interesting to see what the result is.

texranger

Moglex wrote: »

Are you being deliberately perverse?

The question is not whether it is fair to have an expiry date and not specify it.

It is whether it is fair to have an expiry date in the first place (and there may well be reasons why it is) and was enough done to ensure that whoever ended up with the voucher had that date made very clear to them.

If it was very clear what constituted the voucher and the voucher had the expiry date printed on it very clearly and distinctly in large letters (as it would be just about the most important piece of information on there), then the OP probably has no case.

regardless to the size of the expiry date as long as it is on the voucher then any court in ther land would laugh this out of court as the OP waited 11 months OVER the expiry date and then wanted them to honour the voucher.

Fundamental_2

Azari wrote: »

You are banging your head against a brick wall.

Agreed- I will just finish by wishing the op good luck as I consider their reasoning to be sound.

time to move on I think

Cheers

FDM