SAGA Magazine lifetime subscription - compulsory shift to digital format

Aylesbury_Duck

Doc_N said:

Ergates said:

Mandir33 said:

My lifetime subscription was cancelled in May 2023 and since then no magazines. Senior management (endorsed by the CEO himself) issued deliberately misleading statements to the effect that my subscription had NOT been cancelled (because of the digital option) so I appointed solicitor who, earlier this week, served a writ on Saga for BREACH OF CONTRACT.  I cannot disclose details but can inform you all that if I've eventually successful, the legal system permits victims to sue Saga as a GROUP rather than as individuals.  I've also arranged media coverage.  I'm a 75 year old on Pension Credit in social housing incidentally with no material assets so financially speaking, this initiative comprises a monumental gamble but I believe in justice and realize that you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. 

You've gambled your future financial stability (which already sounded tenuous at best) over a magazine subscription?

You may be jumping to some conclusions there, without knowledge of all the facts.

What other facts do you think might change the poster's own summary of their financial position?

Defending a principle is usually commendable and to be applauded, but in Mandir33's position, it's reckless.  You said it yourself: "I wish you the very best of luck".  A pensioner on pension credit, in social housing with no material assets shouldn't be trying their luck to obtain printed magazines. No decent person on a money-saving forum would recommend it, and nor should they commend it.

From memory there were some who said they could comfortably afford to buy the printed magazines but wouldn't do so out of principle.  I'd rather some of those put their money where their mouths were.

GingerTim

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Doc_N said:

Ergates said:

Mandir33 said:

My lifetime subscription was cancelled in May 2023 and since then no magazines. Senior management (endorsed by the CEO himself) issued deliberately misleading statements to the effect that my subscription had NOT been cancelled (because of the digital option) so I appointed solicitor who, earlier this week, served a writ on Saga for BREACH OF CONTRACT.  I cannot disclose details but can inform you all that if I've eventually successful, the legal system permits victims to sue Saga as a GROUP rather than as individuals.  I've also arranged media coverage.  I'm a 75 year old on Pension Credit in social housing incidentally with no material assets so financially speaking, this initiative comprises a monumental gamble but I believe in justice and realize that you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. 

You've gambled your future financial stability (which already sounded tenuous at best) over a magazine subscription?

You may be jumping to some conclusions there, without knowledge of all the facts.

What other facts do you think might change the poster's own summary of their financial position?

Defending a principle is usually commendable and to be applauded, but in Mandir33's position, it's reckless.  You said it yourself: "I wish you the very best of luck".  A pensioner on pension credit, in social housing with no material assets shouldn't be trying their luck to obtain printed magazines. No decent person on a money-saving forum would recommend it, and nor should they commend it.

From memory there were some who said they could comfortably afford to buy the printed magazines but wouldn't do so out of principle.  I'd rather some of those put their money where their mouths were.

They won't.

RefluentBeans

GingerTim said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Doc_N said:

Ergates said:

Mandir33 said:

My lifetime subscription was cancelled in May 2023 and since then no magazines. Senior management (endorsed by the CEO himself) issued deliberately misleading statements to the effect that my subscription had NOT been cancelled (because of the digital option) so I appointed solicitor who, earlier this week, served a writ on Saga for BREACH OF CONTRACT.  I cannot disclose details but can inform you all that if I've eventually successful, the legal system permits victims to sue Saga as a GROUP rather than as individuals.  I've also arranged media coverage.  I'm a 75 year old on Pension Credit in social housing incidentally with no material assets so financially speaking, this initiative comprises a monumental gamble but I believe in justice and realize that you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. 

You've gambled your future financial stability (which already sounded tenuous at best) over a magazine subscription?

You may be jumping to some conclusions there, without knowledge of all the facts.

What other facts do you think might change the poster's own summary of their financial position?

Defending a principle is usually commendable and to be applauded, but in Mandir33's position, it's reckless.  You said it yourself: "I wish you the very best of luck".  A pensioner on pension credit, in social housing with no material assets shouldn't be trying their luck to obtain printed magazines. No decent person on a money-saving forum would recommend it, and nor should they commend it.

From memory there were some who said they could comfortably afford to buy the printed magazines but wouldn't do so out of principle.  I'd rather some of those put their money where their mouths were.

They won't.

Almost because it’s pearl clutching. 

I really hope the poster is just trying to be a troll, because if you’re struggling for cash, you shouldn’t be wasting it on a lawsuit that, at best, has a 50/50 chance of winning.

Doc_N

It’s perfectly possible to pursue Saga through the courts without using lawyers, and at quite small cost - or indeed with the help of a pro bono solicitor.

There may indeed be ongoing or settled cases, complete with non-disclosure agreements.

eskbanker

Doc_N said:

It’s perfectly possible to pursue Saga through the courts without using lawyers, and at quite small cost - or indeed with the help of a pro bono solicitor.

There may indeed be ongoing or settled cases, complete with non-disclosure agreements.

My recollection is that in this thread's previous life last year, there were several punters (you may have been one?) who were going to launch court claims via the likes of MCOL, but I don't remember any outcomes being shared - I've never used MCOL myself but wasn't aware that NDAs could be part of settlements there, and would be surprised if someone accepted an out of court settlement on that basis, given the desire for public shaming!

powerful_Rogue

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:

It’s perfectly possible to pursue Saga through the courts without using lawyers, and at quite small cost - or indeed with the help of a pro bono solicitor.

There may indeed be ongoing or settled cases, complete with non-disclosure agreements.

My recollection is that in this thread's previous life last year, there were several punters (you may have been one?) who were going to launch court claims via the likes of MCOL, but I don't remember any outcomes being shared - I've never used MCOL myself but wasn't aware that NDAs could be part of settlements there, and would be surprised if someone accepted an out of court settlement on that basis, given the desire for public shaming!

Exactly my thinking. The vocal from last year went very quiet.

Doc_N

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:

It’s perfectly possible to pursue Saga through the courts without using lawyers, and at quite small cost - or indeed with the help of a pro bono solicitor.

There may indeed be ongoing or settled cases, complete with non-disclosure agreements.

My recollection is that in this thread's previous life last year, there were several punters (you may have been one?) who were going to launch court claims via the likes of MCOL, but I don't remember any outcomes being shared - I've never used MCOL myself but wasn't aware that NDAs could be part of settlements there, and would be surprised if someone accepted an out of court settlement on that basis, given the desire for public shaming!

NDAs are no part of formal settlements in court. They're used in pre-court settlements in which the parties agree terms, but also agree that those terms are not to be published.

It's entirely possible that individual settlements have been made between aggrieved purchasers of life memberships and Saga under which the purchaser regains the benefit of the contract in return for agreeing not to disclose the settlement.  It's a classic win/win situation - the complainant gets exactly what he wanted, and Saga is able to restrict the costs arising to a very small number of cases because disclosure in forums such as this is prevented. It would be a very foolish individual who chose to ignore the NDA just for a bit of 'glory' here or anywhere else.

Doc_N

powerful_Rogue said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:

It’s perfectly possible to pursue Saga through the courts without using lawyers, and at quite small cost - or indeed with the help of a pro bono solicitor.

There may indeed be ongoing or settled cases, complete with non-disclosure agreements.

My recollection is that in this thread's previous life last year, there were several punters (you may have been one?) who were going to launch court claims via the likes of MCOL, but I don't remember any outcomes being shared - I've never used MCOL myself but wasn't aware that NDAs could be part of settlements there, and would be surprised if someone accepted an out of court settlement on that basis, given the desire for public shaming!

Exactly my thinking. The vocal from last year went very quiet.

Perhaps they had very good (and legally compelling) reasons for their silence.

eskbanker

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:

It’s perfectly possible to pursue Saga through the courts without using lawyers, and at quite small cost - or indeed with the help of a pro bono solicitor.

There may indeed be ongoing or settled cases, complete with non-disclosure agreements.

My recollection is that in this thread's previous life last year, there were several punters (you may have been one?) who were going to launch court claims via the likes of MCOL, but I don't remember any outcomes being shared - I've never used MCOL myself but wasn't aware that NDAs could be part of settlements there, and would be surprised if someone accepted an out of court settlement on that basis, given the desire for public shaming!

NDAs are no part of formal settlements in court. They're used in pre-court settlements in which the parties agree terms, but also agree that those terms are not to be published.

It's entirely possible that individual settlements have been made between aggrieved purchasers of life memberships and Saga under which the purchaser regains the benefit of the contract in return for agreeing not to disclose the settlement.  It's a classic win/win situation - the complainant gets exactly what he wanted, and Saga is able to restrict the costs arising to a very small number of cases because disclosure in forums such as this is prevented. It would be a very foolish individual who chose to ignore the NDA just for a bit of 'glory' here or anywhere else.

OK then, keeping it sufficiently vague:

1. Did you take SAGA to court? Yes/no
2. If so, was the matter resolved to your satisfaction? Yes/no
3. Do you have any reason to believe that multiple claimants have reached resolution and that all are prevented from posting on here about it? Yes/no

Aylesbury_Duck

Doc_N said:

powerful_Rogue said:

eskbanker said:

Doc_N said:

It’s perfectly possible to pursue Saga through the courts without using lawyers, and at quite small cost - or indeed with the help of a pro bono solicitor.

There may indeed be ongoing or settled cases, complete with non-disclosure agreements.

My recollection is that in this thread's previous life last year, there were several punters (you may have been one?) who were going to launch court claims via the likes of MCOL, but I don't remember any outcomes being shared - I've never used MCOL myself but wasn't aware that NDAs could be part of settlements there, and would be surprised if someone accepted an out of court settlement on that basis, given the desire for public shaming!

Exactly my thinking. The vocal from last year went very quiet.

Perhaps they had very good (and legally compelling) reasons for their silence.

Perhaps.  And I suspect we wouldn't know them, they went to another school.  Or something like that.