Sunday Times subscription - Beware!

Azari

arcon5 wrote: »

If arguing anything, then it would be on the grounds the stockists have a short supply and unable to fulfil the order, not on the grounds "some" of the newsagents don't take the voucher, that's a very weak argument when numerous places local to op DO accept the voucher.

arcon, firstly, can I ask you to actually read the OP before making things up. Nowhere in the OP does it say that there are 'numerous' local shops. All he said was that the local ones sell out quickly and 'some' shops don't accept the vouchers. There is nothing to suggest that there are 'numerous' local outlets.

And the argument is not 'weak' at all. It may be that the one newsagent in walking distance does not accept vouchers and all the others require a car journey.

Clearly a subscription that is promoted on the grounds of saving money is not fit for purpose when all you save is 20p and you need to make an otherwise unnecessary car journey to get your paper.

arcon5

Azari wrote: »

arcon, firstly, can I ask you to actually read the OP before making things up. Nowhere in the OP does it say that there are 'numerous' local shops. All he said was that the local ones sell out quickly and 'some' shops don't accept the vouchers. There is nothing to suggest that there are 'numerous' local outlets.

So if "some" don't accept the voucher, that is not all. Since op refers to the ones that do as "they" it's a safe assumption that more than 1 other place accepts them. Thus numerous places accept the voucher.

Although the pedantic points about choice of word is irrrelevant.

And the argument is not 'weak' at all. It may be that the one newsagent in walking distance does not accept vouchers and all the others require a car journey.

Now you're making things up.

Op makes no mention nor implies anywhere that they are not within reachable distance. Infact op specifically says "stores nearby", making it a safe assumption the stores that do accept them are..well...nearby.

Clearly a subscription that is promoted on the grounds of saving money is not fit for purpose when all you save is 20p and you need to make an otherwise unnecessary car journey to get your paper.

You are saving though -- you are saving 20p per newspaper. It is up to op to look at the logistical aspects of the purchase and potential savings before hand.

Op not only failed to do this -- but also failed to read exactly what was being agreed to, otherwise op would have known vouchers are sent to you and not the actual newspaper.

Zedicus

poppyfreckles wrote: »

2) The Sunday Times gets sold out of the stores nearby pretty quickly, which would mean I didn't always get it and 3) Some stores wouldn't accept the vouchers. The subscription saves you 20p a week on the cover price.

Can you not find a newsagent that accepts the voucher and ask them to save you one?

The website advertises the subscription as "Subscribe to the Times on your terms" and only mentions the 'minimum 52 week subscription' in the small(ish) print on the very first page - which is below the 'Subscribe link', which means I didn't see it and just clicked on 'subscribe'. On the page where you fill in your details, they make you tick a box acknowledging that you have read the terms and conditions (which I did look through)- these conditions say nothing about the minimum subscription, and in fact say that you can cancel at anytime.

Then they must let you cancel. The stated T&Cs override everything else.

How often do we see people here say "you should have read the T&Cs" when a company does something dodgy on the basis of something hidden there?

They can't have it both ways. If the T&Cs are what counts they must honour those. (And if the T&Cs are ambiguous then the " contra proferentem" rule may well apply and that would, of course, be in your favour.)

It also seems absurd to lock somebody into a subscription to something that they have to go and collect from a shop themselves, but maybe that's just me.

Particularly if you cannot use the newsagent of your choice. What if you lived in a remote village and the nearest newsagent that honoured the voucher was 20 miles away?

Did they make it clear BEFORE you subscribed that not all newsagents honour the scheme? If not you have a cast iron case against them.

On top of this, they have since ended the 2 for 1 cinema offer, before I even managed to take advantage of it.

Was this part of the inducement to subscribe?

If so, was the termination date of the offer stated BEFORE you signed up?

gardner1

just cancel your dd with bank

Azari

arcon5 wrote: »

Now you're making things up.

No, I was just positing a particular scenario. Not stating what applied in this case.

You are saving though -- you are saving 20p per newspaper. It is up to op to look at the logistical aspects of the purchase and potential savings before hand.

You are not saving anything if you need to make a special journey in a car. That sort of consideration is what separates savvy money savers form idiots who only look at the headline figure.

RadoJo

gardner1 wrote: »

just cancel your dd with bank

This is not a great idea - it won't cancel your contract with the Times and may result in further charges if they have to pursue you for payment.

gardner1

RadoJo wrote: »

This is not a great idea - it won't cancel your contract with the Times and may result in further charges if they have to pursue you for payment.

it will stop any further payments going out of his bank account and at the end of the day they have not promised the service he payed for
very unlikely they would chase up its a subscription to a 2 bit newspaper not a million pound contract

arcon5

Zedicus wrote: »

Then they must let you cancel. The stated T&Cs override everything else.

How often do we see people here say "you should have read the T&Cs" when a company does something dodgy on the basis of something hidden there?

Terms and conditions can't overwrite your statutory rights -- op doesn't have a statutory right to cancel. So why exactly must they let op cancel?

arcon5

gardner1 wrote: »

just cancel your dd with bank

How does that resolve anything? DD is merely the means of payment, it doesn't cancel a contract

it will stop any further payments going out of his bank account and at the end of the day they have not promised the service he payed for

yes they have

gardner1 wrote:

very unlikely they would chase up its a subscription to a 2 bit newspaper not a million pound contract

they probably wouldn't, doesn't make it any less wrong.

You are not saving anything if you need to make a special journey in a car. That sort of consideration is what separates savvy money savers form idiots who only look at the headline figure.

Not the Sunday Times problem. If op has to drive to get the paper, ops problem. Should have checked this out before buying.

Particularly if you cannot use the newsagent of your choice. What if you lived in a remote village and the nearest newsagent that honoured the voucher was 20 miles away?

Then you wouldn't sign up in the first place?

Zedicus

arcon5 wrote: »

Terms and conditions can't overwrite your statutory rights -- op doesn't have a statutory right to cancel. So why exactly must they let op cancel?

Sorry, arcon5, but that has to be one of the most stupid things I've ever seen written in these forums. If your knowledge of how the law works is really so abysmal you really do need to do some reading to try and get some sort of a clue.

Posting bilge like this will just make you a laughing stock.