SAGA Magazine lifetime subscription - compulsory shift to digital format

born_again

Doc_N said:

user1977 said:

I'm intrigued by those so appalled and disgusted by Saga, but also apparently desperate to continue to read their publication?

Alderbank said:

user1977 said:

I'm intrigued by those so appalled and disgusted by Saga, but also apparently desperate to continue to read their publication?

I'm also intrigued by those unable to read digital text or unable to receive it in their homes but who can both read and reply on MSE Forum.

And I'm intrigued by those who aren't affected by this issue at all, don't know whether those complaining are doing so for themselves or for elderly relatives, and have not seen any of the relevant contractual details - but still feel the need to stick their oar in with unhelpful comments.

Why bother?  What do you get out of it?  You're not involved in any way and it puzzles me that you choose to have a go at people who feel they've been let down by Saga over a broken contract. 

If you want to carry on doing business with Saga - fine, do so.  Others will read that Saga have chosen to save themselves money at the expense of their elderly customers by breaking a contract - and decide they no longer trust Saga.

This thread was started on the basis of rights on this issue.

Many posters have great experience in this field. They may not have any actual interest in, that they do not receive the item. So are you saying that only people with a interest should be posting?
Going to be very one sided. As well as totally missing the point of a public forum.

As yet there is no proof of a "broken contract" As Saga are still supplying the magazine for free, only in a different format.

"expense of their elderly customers" A very ageist comment as many people that use Saga, access computers, mobile phone, Kindles etc.
As born out by the replies in this thread. If as you said, these people would not be posting they are unhappy, as they have no access to this medium to view the magazine.

Push too far & Saga, could well stop the magazine. Then restart it again under a new guise.

logic33

Alderbank said:

user1977 said:

I'm intrigued by those so appalled and disgusted by Saga, but also apparently desperate to continue to read their publication?

I'm also intrigued by those unable to read digital text or unable to receive it in their homes but who can both read and reply on MSE Forum.

Incidentally, I am contributing to this discussion purely on my mother's behalf and assume several others are doing the same. Although she is upset by Saga reneging on their promise to supply her with the magazine she would still like to receive it as she used to read and discuss it with my father who died 3 years. It is my contention that she shouldn't have to pay again for this. 
 
An update on Trustpilot after another post by someone discussed with Saga move to digital lifetime subscription in case anyone one this forum would also like to consider this action.

"Final update 7 June claim lodged for 10 years future subs + costs [cost of claim £35] via small claims court on line. Saga immediately requested 14 days extension so D Day is now 10 July. Seems they are rattled & inundated by volume of small claims actions!"

logic33

user1977 said:

I'm intrigued by those so appalled and disgusted by Saga, but also apparently desperate to continue to read their publication?

See previous reply as this quote was missing

EnjoysHelping

Had long conversation with highly trained, and totally controlled thinking advisor. Not his fault. Did not disagree with roughly correct details of circulation history supplied by statista.com( see website).
In 2003 when sold at news outlets circa 1,200,000.
By 2007 down to circa 600,000 followed by up to 100,000 increase to about 2012.
Drop to circa 325,000 by 2016.

Saga websites quote 213,401, which advisor stated is actually about 150,000.

if I heard him correctly quoted 20% is lifetime.

Monthly cover price is £5.95, for print copy, only a viable via complex methods and many websites . Most popular , says Saga , is via DDM directly to your door.

If, like myself, regularly receive , multi post outs and brochures the so called delivery costs and print costs become an embarrassment. 

Unfortunately SAGA . Which  I predicted to said advisor , was likely to receive adverse publicity and suggested action needed to divert this. Without my involvement the full page colour article hit the nail on the head on two points. Loss of good will to its whole ethos of providing superb service to the elderly.

Two other points. I nearly also bought shares and I only age related problem’s prevented that. Secondly, I’ve managed via Android pad to put magazine on that, BUT, neither of my two Apple iPad could cope. 

Said SAGA advisor admitted this also causing issues. 

Maybe lifetime subscribers would be able to claim a one off cost of buying the latest iPad
which is retailing for some circa £1,300. ?

P.s. I’ve now started receiving additional sales emails. 

Doc_N

logic33 said:

Alderbank said:

user1977 said:

I'm intrigued by those so appalled and disgusted by Saga, but also apparently desperate to continue to read their publication?

I'm also intrigued by those unable to read digital text or unable to receive it in their homes but who can both read and reply on MSE Forum.

Incidentally, I am contributing to this discussion purely on my mother's behalf and assume several others are doing the same. Although she is upset by Saga reneging on their promise to supply her with the magazine she would still like to receive it as she used to read and discuss it with my father who died 3 years. It is my contention that she shouldn't have to pay again for this. 
 
An update on Trustpilot after another post by someone discussed with Saga move to digital lifetime subscription in case anyone one this forum would also like to consider this action.

"Final update 7 June claim lodged for 10 years future subs + costs [cost of claim £35] via small claims court on line. Saga immediately requested 14 days extension so D Day is now 10 July. Seems they are rattled & inundated by volume of small claims actions!"

I'll be taking the same route - £35 extremely well spent.  £50 takes the maximum claim up to £500, and £70 to £1000 if something like an iPad forms part of the claim, which it might.  There's also the cost of an internet connection to bear in mind.

I'd very much anticipate that a County Court judge will find against Saga on this, with any possible doubt being decided in favour of the claimant as it's a consumer contract.

I'd also anticipate, though, that Saga will be absolutely horrified at the prospect of the appalling publicity arising from an adverse decision once it hits the media.

A small amount of money very well spent.  Win/win either way - the satisfaction of the adverse publicity for a company prepared to break its contracts with elderly people like this would more than make up for the very small cost.

powerful_Rogue

Doc_N said:

logic33 said:

Alderbank said:

user1977 said:

I'm intrigued by those so appalled and disgusted by Saga, but also apparently desperate to continue to read their publication?

I'm also intrigued by those unable to read digital text or unable to receive it in their homes but who can both read and reply on MSE Forum.

Incidentally, I am contributing to this discussion purely on my mother's behalf and assume several others are doing the same. Although she is upset by Saga reneging on their promise to supply her with the magazine she would still like to receive it as she used to read and discuss it with my father who died 3 years. It is my contention that she shouldn't have to pay again for this. 
 
An update on Trustpilot after another post by someone discussed with Saga move to digital lifetime subscription in case anyone one this forum would also like to consider this action.

"Final update 7 June claim lodged for 10 years future subs + costs [cost of claim £35] via small claims court on line. Saga immediately requested 14 days extension so D Day is now 10 July. Seems they are rattled & inundated by volume of small claims actions!"

I'll be taking the same route - £35 extremely well spent.  £50 takes the maximum claim up to £500, and £70 to £1000 if something like an iPad forms part of the claim, which it might.  There's also the cost of an internet connection to bear in mind.

I'd very much anticipate that a County Court judge will find against Saga on this, with any possible doubt being decided in favour of the claimant as it's a consumer contract.

I'd also anticipate, though, that Saga will be absolutely horrified at the prospect of the appalling publicity arising from an adverse decision once it hits the media.

A small amount of money very well spent.  Win/win either way - the satisfaction of the adverse publicity for a company prepared to break its contracts with elderly people like this would more than make up for the very small cost.

You won't be able to claim the cost of a tablet and/or internet connection.

Based on what i've read on this thread and with no-one being able to produce the T&C's, then I believe it would be a win for SAGA if all they have said is you will get 12 copies of the magazine each year.

I don't think any publicity would have the detrimental effect on SAGA you believe that it would.

Doc_N

powerful_Rogue said:

Doc_N said:

logic33 said:

Alderbank said:

user1977 said:

I'm intrigued by those so appalled and disgusted by Saga, but also apparently desperate to continue to read their publication?

I'm also intrigued by those unable to read digital text or unable to receive it in their homes but who can both read and reply on MSE Forum.

Incidentally, I am contributing to this discussion purely on my mother's behalf and assume several others are doing the same. Although she is upset by Saga reneging on their promise to supply her with the magazine she would still like to receive it as she used to read and discuss it with my father who died 3 years. It is my contention that she shouldn't have to pay again for this. 
 
An update on Trustpilot after another post by someone discussed with Saga move to digital lifetime subscription in case anyone one this forum would also like to consider this action.

"Final update 7 June claim lodged for 10 years future subs + costs [cost of claim £35] via small claims court on line. Saga immediately requested 14 days extension so D Day is now 10 July. Seems they are rattled & inundated by volume of small claims actions!"

I'll be taking the same route - £35 extremely well spent.  £50 takes the maximum claim up to £500, and £70 to £1000 if something like an iPad forms part of the claim, which it might.  There's also the cost of an internet connection to bear in mind.

I'd very much anticipate that a County Court judge will find against Saga on this, with any possible doubt being decided in favour of the claimant as it's a consumer contract.

I'd also anticipate, though, that Saga will be absolutely horrified at the prospect of the appalling publicity arising from an adverse decision once it hits the media.

A small amount of money very well spent.  Win/win either way - the satisfaction of the adverse publicity for a company prepared to break its contracts with elderly people like this would more than make up for the very small cost.

You won't be able to claim the cost of a tablet and/or internet connection.

Based on what i've read on this thread and with no-one being able to produce the T&C's, then I believe it would be a win for SAGA if all they have said is you will get 12 copies of the magazine each year.

I don't think any publicity would have the detrimental effect on SAGA you believe that it would.

In your opinion.

Many claimants have the original documentation from Saga, including the letters of confirmation. There were, as I recall, no T&Cs - just an offer of life membership (including the free magazines), an acceptance, and confirmation of the contract formed.  If there are any specific terms, which I very much doubt, it's for Saga to produce them - and so far they haven't, which tends to confirm the view that there aren't any.

As to publicity, we'll have to see, won't we?  Even County Court cases get a lot of publicity in papers like the Express and Mail (with very much a Saga readership) when it's on consumer issues.  And word spreads fast when it comes to a company like Saga breaking its agreements.

powerful_Rogue

Doc_N said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Doc_N said:

logic33 said:

Alderbank said:

user1977 said:

I'm intrigued by those so appalled and disgusted by Saga, but also apparently desperate to continue to read their publication?

I'm also intrigued by those unable to read digital text or unable to receive it in their homes but who can both read and reply on MSE Forum.

Incidentally, I am contributing to this discussion purely on my mother's behalf and assume several others are doing the same. Although she is upset by Saga reneging on their promise to supply her with the magazine she would still like to receive it as she used to read and discuss it with my father who died 3 years. It is my contention that she shouldn't have to pay again for this. 
 
An update on Trustpilot after another post by someone discussed with Saga move to digital lifetime subscription in case anyone one this forum would also like to consider this action.

"Final update 7 June claim lodged for 10 years future subs + costs [cost of claim £35] via small claims court on line. Saga immediately requested 14 days extension so D Day is now 10 July. Seems they are rattled & inundated by volume of small claims actions!"

I'll be taking the same route - £35 extremely well spent.  £50 takes the maximum claim up to £500, and £70 to £1000 if something like an iPad forms part of the claim, which it might.  There's also the cost of an internet connection to bear in mind.

I'd very much anticipate that a County Court judge will find against Saga on this, with any possible doubt being decided in favour of the claimant as it's a consumer contract.

I'd also anticipate, though, that Saga will be absolutely horrified at the prospect of the appalling publicity arising from an adverse decision once it hits the media.

A small amount of money very well spent.  Win/win either way - the satisfaction of the adverse publicity for a company prepared to break its contracts with elderly people like this would more than make up for the very small cost.

You won't be able to claim the cost of a tablet and/or internet connection.

Based on what i've read on this thread and with no-one being able to produce the T&C's, then I believe it would be a win for SAGA if all they have said is you will get 12 copies of the magazine each year.

I don't think any publicity would have the detrimental effect on SAGA you believe that it would.

In your opinion.

Many claimants have the original documentation from Saga, including the letters of confirmation. There were, as I recall, no T&Cs - just an offer of life membership (including the free magazines), an acceptance, and confirmation of the contract formed.  If there are any specific terms, which I very much doubt, it's for Saga to produce them - and so far they haven't, which tends to confirm the view that there aren't any.

As to publicity, we'll have to see, won't we?  Even County Court cases get a lot of publicity in papers like the Express and Mail (with very much a Saga readership) when it's on consumer issues.  And word spreads fast when it comes to a company like Saga breaking its agreements.

In which case you're relying on confirmations sent from SAGA stating they will deliver you 12 issues of the magazine each year. Which they will be doing, so no breach of contract.
So what will you be relying on in court to show SAGA has broken it's agreement?

Doc_N

powerful_Rogue said:

Doc_N said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Doc_N said:

logic33 said:

Alderbank said:

user1977 said:

I'm intrigued by those so appalled and disgusted by Saga, but also apparently desperate to continue to read their publication?

I'm also intrigued by those unable to read digital text or unable to receive it in their homes but who can both read and reply on MSE Forum.

Incidentally, I am contributing to this discussion purely on my mother's behalf and assume several others are doing the same. Although she is upset by Saga reneging on their promise to supply her with the magazine she would still like to receive it as she used to read and discuss it with my father who died 3 years. It is my contention that she shouldn't have to pay again for this. 
 
An update on Trustpilot after another post by someone discussed with Saga move to digital lifetime subscription in case anyone one this forum would also like to consider this action.

"Final update 7 June claim lodged for 10 years future subs + costs [cost of claim £35] via small claims court on line. Saga immediately requested 14 days extension so D Day is now 10 July. Seems they are rattled & inundated by volume of small claims actions!"

I'll be taking the same route - £35 extremely well spent.  £50 takes the maximum claim up to £500, and £70 to £1000 if something like an iPad forms part of the claim, which it might.  There's also the cost of an internet connection to bear in mind.

I'd very much anticipate that a County Court judge will find against Saga on this, with any possible doubt being decided in favour of the claimant as it's a consumer contract.

I'd also anticipate, though, that Saga will be absolutely horrified at the prospect of the appalling publicity arising from an adverse decision once it hits the media.

A small amount of money very well spent.  Win/win either way - the satisfaction of the adverse publicity for a company prepared to break its contracts with elderly people like this would more than make up for the very small cost.

You won't be able to claim the cost of a tablet and/or internet connection.

Based on what i've read on this thread and with no-one being able to produce the T&C's, then I believe it would be a win for SAGA if all they have said is you will get 12 copies of the magazine each year.

I don't think any publicity would have the detrimental effect on SAGA you believe that it would.

In your opinion.

Many claimants have the original documentation from Saga, including the letters of confirmation. There were, as I recall, no T&Cs - just an offer of life membership (including the free magazines), an acceptance, and confirmation of the contract formed.  If there are any specific terms, which I very much doubt, it's for Saga to produce them - and so far they haven't, which tends to confirm the view that there aren't any.

As to publicity, we'll have to see, won't we?  Even County Court cases get a lot of publicity in papers like the Express and Mail (with very much a Saga readership) when it's on consumer issues.  And word spreads fast when it comes to a company like Saga breaking its agreements.

In which case you're relying on confirmations sent from SAGA stating they will deliver you 12 issues of the magazine each year. Which they will be doing, so no breach of contract.
So what will you be relying on in court to show SAGA has broken it's agreement?

Thanks for your observations.  I'll be saving my detailed arguments on the various points and definitions for the County Court in the unlikely event that it goes to a full hearing. 

Alderbank

Doc_N said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Doc_N said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Doc_N said:

logic33 said:

Alderbank said:

user1977 said:

I'm intrigued by those so appalled and disgusted by Saga, but also apparently desperate to continue to read their publication?

I'm also intrigued by those unable to read digital text or unable to receive it in their homes but who can both read and reply on MSE Forum.

Incidentally, I am contributing to this discussion purely on my mother's behalf and assume several others are doing the same. Although she is upset by Saga reneging on their promise to supply her with the magazine she would still like to receive it as she used to read and discuss it with my father who died 3 years. It is my contention that she shouldn't have to pay again for this. 
 
An update on Trustpilot after another post by someone discussed with Saga move to digital lifetime subscription in case anyone one this forum would also like to consider this action.

"Final update 7 June claim lodged for 10 years future subs + costs [cost of claim £35] via small claims court on line. Saga immediately requested 14 days extension so D Day is now 10 July. Seems they are rattled & inundated by volume of small claims actions!"

I'll be taking the same route - £35 extremely well spent.  £50 takes the maximum claim up to £500, and £70 to £1000 if something like an iPad forms part of the claim, which it might.  There's also the cost of an internet connection to bear in mind.

I'd very much anticipate that a County Court judge will find against Saga on this, with any possible doubt being decided in favour of the claimant as it's a consumer contract.

I'd also anticipate, though, that Saga will be absolutely horrified at the prospect of the appalling publicity arising from an adverse decision once it hits the media.

A small amount of money very well spent.  Win/win either way - the satisfaction of the adverse publicity for a company prepared to break its contracts with elderly people like this would more than make up for the very small cost.

You won't be able to claim the cost of a tablet and/or internet connection.

Based on what i've read on this thread and with no-one being able to produce the T&C's, then I believe it would be a win for SAGA if all they have said is you will get 12 copies of the magazine each year.

I don't think any publicity would have the detrimental effect on SAGA you believe that it would.

In your opinion.

Many claimants have the original documentation from Saga, including the letters of confirmation. There were, as I recall, no T&Cs - just an offer of life membership (including the free magazines), an acceptance, and confirmation of the contract formed.  If there are any specific terms, which I very much doubt, it's for Saga to produce them - and so far they haven't, which tends to confirm the view that there aren't any.

As to publicity, we'll have to see, won't we?  Even County Court cases get a lot of publicity in papers like the Express and Mail (with very much a Saga readership) when it's on consumer issues.  And word spreads fast when it comes to a company like Saga breaking its agreements.

In which case you're relying on confirmations sent from SAGA stating they will deliver you 12 issues of the magazine each year. Which they will be doing, so no breach of contract.
So what will you be relying on in court to show SAGA has broken it's agreement?

Thanks for your observations.  I'll be saving my detailed arguments on the various points and definitions for the County Court in the unlikely event that it goes to a full hearing. 

@Doc_N, if you thumb through your back copies of SAGA magazine you might find this article of use:

How to use the small claims court by Chris Torney (11 February 2015), 
A simple guide to using the small claims court and mediation services for claims of less than £10,000.