Sunday Times subscription - Beware!

Zedicus

you really are quite dumb, aren't you?

arcon5 wrote: »

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

OP told them to cancel the contract. There was nothing ion the T&C to say that she couldn't. So this is simply a method of confirming the cancellation.

yes they have

Unlikely.

It the offer is "We send you a voucher and then you must search for a newsagent who will accept it", then, yes, perhaps.

If the offer says "We send you a voucher and you take it to your newsagent" then they haven't.

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

They certainly wouldn't because they know they do not have a leg to stand on.

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

Are you really this stupid or are you trying to win a bet?

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

If the potential problem was evident in the original terms and conditions, then, no, you wouldn't.

If the T&C failed to make clear that not all newsagents accept the vouchers then the fault lies entirely with the ST.

annamarie1081

I am trying to cancel my ST subscription and it's turning into a headache. I subscribed last February. The first time I called in February to cancel I was told that I had to give three months notice to cancel. I called this month to check that indeed they planned to cancel since my sub was coming to an end, and I was told that it was an annual subscription so I could only cancel in Feb 2013. This got me thinking. I originally subscribed online. Much to my surprise I later received in the post the vouchers to pay for the paper at a newsagent. I was surprised because I didn't order the subscription that included the vouchers. I ordered the digital subscription - Or, so I thought. I haven't used the vouchers; I don't need them. I only wanted online access. Of course, because I got the vouchers it means I was actually subscribed to the annual subscription with no get out clause for a year. Were Gyms not fined by the Office of Fair trading, or something, for locking people into annual subscriptions? Two strange things have happened. 1. I received the vouchers. 2. The first time I called to cancel I was told 3 months notice would do. It feels like they are trying to pull the wool over my eyes and fleece me. I've cancelled the DD. Best way to cure the headache!

tonyhamm

Sad to say took up the Times web offer - £1 for first 30 days and then £2 per week, billed at £8.66 monthly. No mention of a year lockin anywhere but in the Tc and Cs. Like many web subscribers (the rules are different for phone subscribers) I didn't fully read the small print - thinking I would just give it a go for 2 months and cancel after that if I didn't like it, and only be charged for the month or so.


When phoning I find I am apparently stuck in a 52 week contract costing £104 for something I barely use. Totally different from the monthly cancellation impression it seem to give. Without forensically reading the Ts and Cs the impression would be that you still have the right to cancel.

Legally I am in the contract and I can imagine cancelling the direct debit would result in all sorts of hassle with possible court action, charges on top and a bad credit record.

I think the best approach to this is to take into account the recent Office of Fair trading ruling in the High Court in regard to Ashford Gyms.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/consumer-enforcement/consumer-enforcement-completed/ashbourne/

In May 2011 The Court held: various terms of Ashbourne's standard form agreements are unfair contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. In particular:

- Terms in contracts 1 to 10 which required consumers to pay in full for the remainder of the minimum membership period if they wished to cancel during this period. This was both because the minimum term operated as a "trap" for consumers who overestimate the use they are likely to make of the gym, and also because the contracts unfairly gave Ashbourne the right to demand too much in payment;

- Terms in contracts 11 to 13 which tie consumers in for more than 12 months. The judge indicated that if there is a longer period it would be unfair unless the consumer could give 30 days notice to cancel, and pay a modest sum in compensation. The court was willing to accept a 12 month minimum period in contracts 11 to 13 because they contain more circumstances in which the consumer can suspend or terminate their membership for stated reasons.

I believe the same law may apply to this internet subscription.
The 30 day £1 offer is a clear teaser to a locked in 52 week contract costing £104 per year
The monthly payment would lead many people to believe they are only locked into a monthly subscription, not a yearly subscription, this yearly subscription they find out only by very close examination of the Terms and Conditions of the contract.

tonyhamm

"The Times on YOUR Terms" Web offer at £2 per week, with no mention of a 12 month liability was the representation made to me when I signed up. A reasonable interpretation of this representation would be that you pay for only what content you consume on a weekly/monthly basis i.e. 'on your terms'.

If a person then locked into a 12 month contract by small print, contorary to the representation, AFAIK the contract is voidable by the person due to misrepresentation according to the common law of Misrepresentation because the contract should be entered on good faith terms (i.e. any representations made should be truthful). The Misrepresentation Act 1967 S3 states any exclusion terms in a contract to limit the effect of any misrepresentations made as inducements to enter the contract are also useless.

So just to say - I am cancelling the DD, sending them a letter stating I was made the representation above which is a misrepresentation of the actual contracted relationship. If they do then take me to court, which is unlikely, they may get an very unpleasant ruling against them which may cost them millions if others feel they have been victims of misrepresentation in the same way.

tonyhamm

Just to say no company under UK law - common law and statue (Misrepresentation Act) can entice people into a contract with Ts&Cs/small print that differs from the representation made to encourage people into that contract.

For example;
If a company advertises 'A subscription on your terms at x per week' but you then find the small print differs and you are locked in- (as with the Times offer) thats an unenforcable contract. The law also sides with the loosest customer interpretation of the representation.

There is a very long chain of case law which makes this clear(lookup the misrepresentation act).

ThumbRemote

tonyhamm wrote: »

Just to say no company under UK law - common law and statue (Misrepresentation Act) can entice people into a contract with Ts&Cs/small print that differs from the representation made to encourage people into that contract.

For example;
If a company advertises 'A subscription on your terms at x per week' but you then find the small print differs and you are locked in- (as with the Times offer) thats an unenforcable contract. The law also sides with the loosest customer interpretation of the representation.

There is a very long chain of case law which makes this clear(lookup the misrepresentation act).

It's always good to spend time mulling over your response before posting. Three months is a lot of thinking though.

kermitfrog

ThumbRemote wrote: »

It's always good to spend time mulling over your response before posting. Three months is a lot of thinking though.

And he or she must have trawled through a multitude of threads to find this one.

tonyhamm

To update. Apart from an email demanding money, no action taken by the Times, as predicted.

jwilson49

Any further update regarding The Times chasing you for the subscription?
I am in the same position tied in until September 2014