SAGA Magazine lifetime subscription - compulsory shift to digital format

mr_stripey

I really don't see there being some big public outcry about this (as some people are suggesting)

The vast majority of people simply won't care. And even those who do care a bit will probably be persuaded by SAGA PR that it is more environmentally friendly to supply the digital version. No one is going to bothered about a handful of pensioners getting uptight because they can't read their magazine which they paid for decades ago and have been receiving "free" ever since.

km1500

Luckily, a public outcry is not a precondition for going to court and asking for redress for a broken contract.

Doc_N

km1500 said:

Luckily, a public outcry is not a precondition for going to court and asking for redress for a broken contract.

Exactly. 

And that’s the point at which Saga’s keenness to break contracts with its customers when it suits it becomes very much in the public domain. At present it’s just bubbling under the surface.

logic33

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.

My parents paid the premiums on other products with Saga because of the assumption that when it came to a claim they would be treated fairly by a reputable company. 

This is not about a handful of older people not getting a magazine it is about a promise being broken and it calls into question all their products.

Judging by a lot of reviews on Trustpilot all goes well until you have to make a claim.

Doc_N

mr_stripey said:

No one is going to bothered about a handful of pensioners getting uptight because they can't read their magazine which they paid for decades ago and have been receiving "free" ever since.

Or, put another way, quite an affluent, forward thinking and intelligent, possibly rather well connected group, who had the foresight, and the finance, to make a wise future investment which they expected to be honoured. 

And getting extremely annoyed that the magazines which they’ve already paid for are now being withheld by an untrustworthy company which thinks it can get away with it. 

But determined that it won’t, because it’s more than worth the very small outlay to take it to court, with the attendant publicity for a company that can’t keep its word.

GingerTim

logic33 said:

My parents paid the premiums on other products with Saga because of the assumption that when it came to a claim they would be treated fairly by a reputable company. 

This is not about a handful of older people not getting a magazine it is about a promise being broken and it calls into question all their products.

Judging by a lot of reviews on Trustpilot all goes well until you have to make a claim.

To be fair, you will see similar complaints in reviews of any insurance provider.

eskbanker

Doc_N said:
it’s more than worth the very small outlay to take it to court, with the attendant publicity for a company that can’t keep its word.

Seems to me that some MCOL claims scattered around the country at various times are somewhat unlikely to receive the media circus coverage that Prince Harry's case gets - no doubt anyone succeeding with such a claim won't be slow to mention it on here and Trustpilot, etc, but not sure that it's a given that this would really constitute 'attendant publicity'?

Doc_N

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:
it’s more than worth the very small outlay to take it to court, with the attendant publicity for a company that can’t keep its word.

Seems to me that some MCOL claims scattered around the country at various times are somewhat unlikely to receive the media circus coverage that Prince Harry's case gets - no doubt anyone succeeding with such a claim won't be slow to mention it on here and Trustpilot, etc, but not sure that it's a given that this would really constitute 'attendant publicity'?

Who knows? I'd hazard a guess that there are some very popular newspapers and websites that would be very interested in running stories about a very well known financial and travel company unilaterally deciding to break longstanding contracts.

And then getting taken to court by pensioners! Win or lose, that's not a good look for a finance and travel company. 

eskbanker

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:
it’s more than worth the very small outlay to take it to court, with the attendant publicity for a company that can’t keep its word.

Seems to me that some MCOL claims scattered around the country at various times are somewhat unlikely to receive the media circus coverage that Prince Harry's case gets - no doubt anyone succeeding with such a claim won't be slow to mention it on here and Trustpilot, etc, but not sure that it's a given that this would really constitute 'attendant publicity'?

Who knows? I'd hazard a guess that there are some very popular newspapers and websites that would be very interested in running stories about a very well known financial and travel company unilaterally deciding to break longstanding contracts.

And then getting taken to court by pensioners! Win or lose, that's not a good look for a finance and travel company. 

Yes, I get that successful claims could feed into an ongoing campaign of lobbying friendly journos like the Mail guy, but was just highlighting that in themselves MCOL claims are inherently low-profile, so it's not as if there'd be triumphant photocalls on the steps of the Old Bailey or anything like that, i.e. 'taking them to court' makes it sound rather more dramatic than pursuing an essentially mundane administrative task!

lincroft1710

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:
it’s more than worth the very small outlay to take it to court, with the attendant publicity for a company that can’t keep its word.

Seems to me that some MCOL claims scattered around the country at various times are somewhat unlikely to receive the media circus coverage that Prince Harry's case gets - no doubt anyone succeeding with such a claim won't be slow to mention it on here and Trustpilot, etc, but not sure that it's a given that this would really constitute 'attendant publicity'?

Who knows? I'd hazard a guess that there are some very popular newspapers and websites that would be very interested in running stories about a very well known financial and travel company unilaterally deciding to break longstanding contracts.

And then getting taken to court by pensioners! Win or lose, that's not a good look for a finance and travel company. 

It has yet to be decided in court that this has actually happened