Road Angel Classic - When is Lifetime Subscription not for Life?

ashleypride

sakiboy wrote: »

It is worth mentioning that if Road Angel discontinue updates they are making the unit unfit for purpose and a refund might be in order.

Probably not, your consumer rights under SOGA are limited to 6 years and the onus on you to prove it is unfit over 6 months. You would be looking at a pro rata refund of the unit itself ie. peanuts.

sakiboy

ashleypride wrote: »

Probably not, your consumer rights under SOGA are limited to 6 years and the onus on you to prove it is unfit over 6 months. You would be looking at a pro rata refund of the unit itself ie. peanuts.

The point is that they are going to make it unfit for purpose.

Flyboy152

There really is only one way to ensure that that you don't have to spend money on safety camera detectors.

banjo_2

Steal them ?

cofi53

ashleypride wrote: »

Probably not, your consumer rights under SOGA are limited to 6 years and the onus on you to prove it is unfit over 6 months. You would be looking at a pro rata refund of the unit itself ie. peanuts.

This really is irrelevant. This involves a breach of contract issue and so this post really is a red herring

The point made by Grizzly1911 is absolutely right.

There could be a possibility that the company has trading difficulties (on its last submitted accounts in May 2011 it posted a pretax loss of c. £3/4 m). The general principle is that a company unable to meet its debts as they fall due must cease trading but if a company can raise money it may well be able to trade out of its difficulties (or it may be merely delaying the inevitable).

Even if one were to win a court case against such a company, if there were no assets in that company, there would be nothing to gain (apart from a Pyrrhic win) but one may become another of the unsecured creditors. And a company that faces many legal actions on top of trading difficulties may chose another route to be rid of its creditors.

banjo_2

Ashlepride you seem to have a very negative attitude to our posts, is there anything you can say to help or support us ?

ashleypride

cofi53 wrote: »

This really is irrelevant. This involves a breach of contract issue and so this post really is a red herring

Red herring - that is exactly my point, using SOGA laws are not the way forward.

ashleypride

banjo wrote: »

Ashlepride you seem to have a very negative attitude to our posts

Negative? I am saying that SOGA / consumer protection / unfit for purpose is not the way to tackle this, and breach of contract is.

banjo wrote: »

is there anything you can say to help or support us ?

Well, I've already said GLO is not the right way, and SOGA is not the right way. Trading standards, letter before action, and then one of you take a punt in small claims claiming a reasonable amount.
The claim could go either way so spending a vast amount of money on litigation is not wise.

cofi53

The claim could go either way so spending a vast amount of money on litigation is not wise.[/QUOTE]


You appear still to miss the point. It is not that the claim might go either way, it is that a company could go into receivership / administration / liquidation. If that happens a victory in court is only a Pyrrhic victory and potentially could prove expensive. One might win but only ends up losing.

Really do not understand why you wish to post on this Ashleypride?

ashleypride

cofi53 wrote: »

You appear still to miss the point. It is not that the claim might go either way, it is that a company could go into receivership / administration / liquidation.

The claim can go either way, and clawing back the money may be tricky. I am not 'missing the point' it goes without saying.