Rip-off membership renewal

Hintza

esuhl wrote: »

What makes you think the OP was a member?

The first two words of the OP.

esuhl wrote: »

Are you saying that if you were mugged by a charity you'd let them have the money and, in turn, mug an innocent person to recoup your losses? .

No I am not saying that. I am saying that the OP is using a foreign membership to gain cheap entry into National Trust properties which to me is dishonest if they are resident in the UK.



Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Hintza

esuhl wrote: »

I'd double-check the agreement you initially made, and if appropriate, threaten legal action to recover the loss.

Where is the OP going to raise this claim? NZ!

halibut2209

[QUOTE=Hintza;49324777 I am saying that the OP is using a foreign membership to gain cheap entry into National Trust properties which to me is dishonest if they are resident in the UK.
[/QUOTE]

Not dishonest in the slightest. It's excellent money-saving.

texranger

halibut2209 wrote: »

Not dishonest in the slightest. It's excellent money-saving.

so if everyone did that then no money goes to National Trust, so National Trust closes due to lack of funds, so their will be no NT places to visit.

NT relies on Memberships and donations to keep their properties open and in good order.

Hintza

halibut2209 wrote: »

Not dishonest in the slightest. It's excellent money-saving.

Well I guess that depends on your moral compass.

pendulum

Hintza wrote: »

On what grounds?

On the grounds that they signed up to 12 months of access, and didn't get it. It's a better idea than persuing them through a foreign court as previously suggested.

Hintza wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Have you been watching too much Shawshank Redemption?

texranger

pendulum wrote: »

On the grounds that they signed up to 12 months of access, and didn't get it. It's a better idea than persuing them through a foreign court as previously suggested.

they will need to take this up with whoever they paid, but if when they repaid and chose renew then it would renew from their last subscription after 2 months it would of been better just to rejoin then it would have started from this point.

arcon5

Personally I think its well unreasonable to provde 10 months membership when op paid for 1 year. I'm betting if op tried to use it during the past 2 months they would have told them it had expired. The argument that the year starts from the end of the previous service is weak.

wealdroam

arcon5 wrote: »

The argument that the year starts from the end of the previous service is weak.

But the argument that a subscription renewal starts from the expiration of the old subscription year seems quite sound to me.

arcon5

wealdroam wrote: »

But the argument that a subscription renewal starts from the expiration of the old subscription year seems quite sound to me.

Why so?

It's like me joining LA Fitness this month, then them charging me for the last 15 months since my last membership expired. It's a very wierd way to do things. That's what they've effectively done, charged op for the two months they wasn't a member.

The only way i'd understand it would be if the company had a fixed term, e.g. all memberships was between Sep to Sep, so when you join you paying upto the rest of the term -- similar to how a company accountant works,