SAGA Magazine lifetime subscription - compulsory shift to digital format

Doc_N

Alderbank said:

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.

Thanks - ironic!!!

Aylesbury_Duck

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.

I'm intrigued by the legal arguments and genuinely don't know how it will turn out.  My guess is that SAGA will compromise somehow at some point.

And I agree with you on the reputational point.  The figures quoted earlier suggest a relatively modest number of people are affected by this, and people may get themselves wound up about SAGA insurance, cruises, etc. but that'll soon fizzle out when they're after a deal and the price is right.  Look at Ryanair.  Their flights are packed with people who at some point have sworn never to use them again because they were charged for a bag or to print a ticket.  All noise and limited action.

I'd have thought that a compromise like a substantial reduction on the annual subscription is likely to be offered.  That might play well in court, too.

Alderbank

Doc_N said:

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.

Doc_N said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Doc_N said:

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.

As if by magic, there was an article very critical of SAGA's decision to stop lifetime print copies, in last week's This is Money publication dated 3 June, widely read by SAGA's readership:

What a sorry Saga: Now it seems even the over-50s magazine is biased against the old, says JEFF PRESTRIDGE, as it goes back on a fantastic lifetime deal

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-12155203/JEFF-PRESTRIDGE-sorry-Saga-biased-against-old.html

Is it coincidence how SAGA's share price has changed since that article was published?


 

Doc_N

Alderbank said:

Doc_N said:

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.

Doc_N said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Doc_N said:

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.

As if by magic, there was an article very critical of SAGA's decision to stop lifetime print copies, in last week's This is Money publication dated 3 June, widely read by SAGA's readership:

What a sorry Saga: Now it seems even the over-50s magazine is biased against the old, says JEFF PRESTRIDGE, as it goes back on a fantastic lifetime deal

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-12155203/JEFF-PRESTRIDGE-sorry-Saga-biased-against-old.html

Is it coincidence how SAGA's share price has changed since that article was published?


 

The comments from readers make interesting reading too. Stories like this are acting as a lightning rod for all the other complaints people have about the way Saga treats its main customer base. This is precisely the sort of thing that brought Ratners jewellers down a few years back, when Gerald Ratner overestimated himself and underestimated his customers.

Saga is playing with fire here, and the fire is spreading.

Aylesbury_Duck

I read that.  The nonsense about people's "rights" to pay in cash and be served by a human being made me chuckle.  Suggests the author is a tad on the dramatic side and doesn't really know his stuff.

Only 58 comments, too.  Not exactly the mass exposure people were hoping for.  I wonder why comments are now closed?

diinozzo

Alderbank said:

Doc_N said:

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.

Doc_N said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Doc_N said:

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.

As if by magic, there was an article very critical of SAGA's decision to stop lifetime print copies, in last week's This is Money publication dated 3 June, widely read by SAGA's readership:

What a sorry Saga: Now it seems even the over-50s magazine is biased against the old, says JEFF PRESTRIDGE, as it goes back on a fantastic lifetime deal

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-12155203/JEFF-PRESTRIDGE-sorry-Saga-biased-against-old.html

Is it coincidence how SAGA's share price has changed since that article was published?


 

Share price down less than half a pence in a month...I don't see Saga panicking about that.

born_again

If you look at the date this thread started. Then look at the above chart. The shares are worth more now, than pre notification. So much for public opinion hitting home 🤣

A few unhappy punters are never going to stop them doing this to save money. The big investors only look at the bottom line, so will carry on supporting them..

logic33

Aylesbury_Duck 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.

I'm intrigued by the legal arguments and genuinely don't know how it will turn out.  My guess is that SAGA will compromise somehow at some point.

And I agree with you on the reputational point.  The figures quoted earlier suggest a relatively modest number of people are affected by this, and people may get themselves wound up about SAGA insurance, cruises, etc. but that'll soon fizzle out when they're after a deal and the price is right.  Look at Ryanair.  Their flights are packed with people who at some point have sworn never to use them again because they were charged for a bag or to print a ticket.  All noise and limited action.

I'd have thought that a compromise like a substantial reduction on the annual subscription is likely to be offered.  That might play well in court, too.

Yes, but Ryanair is still cheap! 

My parents paid, in my opinion, over the odds for many years for insurance, holidays, etc., because they rated Saga's reputation in dealing fairly with older people.

I can only assume others and their extended families did too.

born_again

logic33 said:

My parents paid, in my opinion, over the odds for many years for insurance, holidays, etc., because they rated Saga's reputation in dealing fairly with older people.

I can only assume others and their extended families did too.

Sadly more fool them.
Father was with them years ago & like MSE savvy people did a compare for insurance.
Dropped them straight away.

older & wiser quote seems to not be true in many cases 😶‍🌫️

Aylesbury_Duck

logic33 said:

Aylesbury_Duck 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.

I'm intrigued by the legal arguments and genuinely don't know how it will turn out.  My guess is that SAGA will compromise somehow at some point.

And I agree with you on the reputational point.  The figures quoted earlier suggest a relatively modest number of people are affected by this, and people may get themselves wound up about SAGA insurance, cruises, etc. but that'll soon fizzle out when they're after a deal and the price is right.  Look at Ryanair.  Their flights are packed with people who at some point have sworn never to use them again because they were charged for a bag or to print a ticket.  All noise and limited action.

I'd have thought that a compromise like a substantial reduction on the annual subscription is likely to be offered.  That might play well in court, too.

Yes, but Ryanair is still cheap! 

My parents paid, in my opinion, over the odds for many years for insurance, holidays, etc., because they rated Saga's reputation in dealing fairly with older people.

I can only assume others and their extended families did too.

That was my point.  Principles go out of the window when the price is right. 

I'm afraid I'm rather cynical.  People of your parents' generation are literally a dying breed.  SAGA would be foolish to base their business model on them.  More and more people in the next age groups down are digitally-enabled and less likely to succumb to the inertia effect of staying with an insurer as the default option.  

Lots of comment on here about how terrible this move will be for their reputation, how fires are spreading, how it will ruin their business, etc.  Perhaps SAGA looked at the business and concluded that catering for the very oldest in their customer base is a road to ruin?  What should they do if that's the case?  Run the business to an orderly close as the last of their older customers die, or change approach, modernise and capitalise on those coming behind them?  I can see why they're doing the latter.