SAGA Magazine lifetime subscription - compulsory shift to digital format

Aylesbury_Duck

eskbanker said:

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 They're used in pre-court settlements in which the parties agree terms, but also agree that those terms are not to be published.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

They said they were going to, back in June last year, and that if necessary, they'd escalate to the County Court, so presumably the answer to the first question is yes. 

The fact they "hope [Madir33 will] be able to share the outcome here in due course" suggests the answer to your third question is no.  If multiple successful complainants must remain silent under the threat of not receiving their magazines, why would a new succesful complainant be granted freedom to tell everyone about it? It could blow the whole grand scheme wide open.

Doc_N

eskbanker said:

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 said:

eskbanker said:

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

They said they were going to, back in June last year, and that if necessary, they'd escalate to the County Court, so presumably the answer to the first question is yes. 

The fact they "hope [Madir33 will] be able to share the outcome here in due course" suggests the answer to your third question is no.  If multiple successful complainants must remain silent under the threat of not receiving their magazines, why would a new succesful complainant be granted freedom to tell everyone about it? It could blow the whole grand scheme wide open.

Sorry to disappoint, but you'll have to complete your own yes/no survey. My main point is, though, that neither you not I have any idea what's been going on between Saga and the many disappointed life members who saw the matter as a straightforward contractual breach.

Some will have been happy to accept the change, some will have grumbled and done nothing, and some will have taken the matter up with Saga but no further. Others may have commenced formal proceedings, but so far as I know there have been no decided cases, or at least none that have received publicity. Of that last subset, I think it's highly likely that some will have reached agreements with Saga to provide what was contractually agreed when the original purchase was made. There may have been NDAs, which would have killed any discussion online or elsewhere, and, importantly for Saga, any publicity.

Most of this is a matter of conjecture - I'm afraid you'll have to reach your own conclusions. 

https://youtu.be/Oz8RjPAD2Jk

lincroft1710

Anyone offering any odds that within 5 years there will be mo hardcopy SAGA magazines?

Doc_N

lincroft1710 said:

Anyone offering any odds that within 5 years there will be mo hardcopy SAGA magazines?

Or indeed that Saga itself will have collapsed under its debt pile.

Aylesbury_Duck

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

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 said:

eskbanker said:

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

They said they were going to, back in June last year, and that if necessary, they'd escalate to the County Court, so presumably the answer to the first question is yes. 

The fact they "hope [Madir33 will] be able to share the outcome here in due course" suggests the answer to your third question is no.  If multiple successful complainants must remain silent under the threat of not receiving their magazines, why would a new succesful complainant be granted freedom to tell everyone about it? It could blow the whole grand scheme wide open.

 I'm afraid you'll have to reach your own conclusions. 

I have, which is why I'm interested to hear if there's any reason I've reached the wrong one.

It would be disappointing to learn that all those who were so angered by Saga they were going to take legal action to shame them publicly and force them to back down, would then meekly accept their own continued supply of physical magazines on the condition that they remain silent about it to prevent others benefitting from their apparently principled stance.

born_again

lincroft1710 said:

Anyone offering any odds that within 5 years there will be mo hardcopy SAGA magazines?

TBH. That would have been the best way they could have dealt with this.

With a simple, this product has reached the end of it's lifetime 🤷‍♀️

Time that "Lifetime" unless actually defined in the T/C was deeded by the ASA as mis advertising.

Doc_N

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

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 said:

eskbanker said:

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

They said they were going to, back in June last year, and that if necessary, they'd escalate to the County Court, so presumably the answer to the first question is yes. 

The fact they "hope [Madir33 will] be able to share the outcome here in due course" suggests the answer to your third question is no.  If multiple successful complainants must remain silent under the threat of not receiving their magazines, why would a new succesful complainant be granted freedom to tell everyone about it? It could blow the whole grand scheme wide open.

 I'm afraid you'll have to reach your own conclusions. 

I have, which is why I'm interested to hear if there's any reason I've reached the wrong one.

It would be disappointing to learn that all those who were so angered by Saga they were going to take legal action to shame them publicly and force them to back down, would then meekly accept their own continued supply of physical magazines on the condition that they remain silent about it to prevent others benefitting from their apparently principled stance.

I have no idea what conclusions you’ve reached - they’re of no great interest to me. But perhaps the ‘meek’ were taking the approach you recommended to Madir33 and settling on the basis that they’d achieved all their aims without putting their financial security at risk.

We’ll just have to guess, won’t we? 

lincroft1710

born_again said:

lincroft1710 said:

Anyone offering any odds that within 5 years there will be mo hardcopy SAGA magazines?

TBH. That would have been the best way they could have dealt with this.

With a simple, this product has reached the end of it's lifetime 🤷‍♀️

Time that "Lifetime" unless actually defined in the T/C was deeded by the ASA as mis advertising.

Some of these "lifetime memberships" backfire on the organisation. When I was still at school, over 55 years ago, the Old Boys Club was appealing to the more senior lifetime members to consider making a donation or take out an annual subscription as the cost of sending them the school magazine had exceeded what they had paid for the lifetime membership!

Aylesbury_Duck

Doc_N said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

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 said:

eskbanker said:

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

They said they were going to, back in June last year, and that if necessary, they'd escalate to the County Court, so presumably the answer to the first question is yes. 

The fact they "hope [Madir33 will] be able to share the outcome here in due course" suggests the answer to your third question is no.  If multiple successful complainants must remain silent under the threat of not receiving their magazines, why would a new succesful complainant be granted freedom to tell everyone about it? It could blow the whole grand scheme wide open.

 I'm afraid you'll have to reach your own conclusions. 

I have, which is why I'm interested to hear if there's any reason I've reached the wrong one.

It would be disappointing to learn that all those who were so angered by Saga they were going to take legal action to shame them publicly and force them to back down, would then meekly accept their own continued supply of physical magazines on the condition that they remain silent about it to prevent others benefitting from their apparently principled stance.

We’ll just have to guess, won’t we? 

Yes, ambiguity is a very convenient outcome for those who were confidently predicting this was going to end in disaster for Saga over a year ago.  And of course, "secret deals" that might have been done prevent other lifetime subscribers getting advice on how they might obtain what they paid for.  Only you know the outcome of your own legal action, but you're not prepared to share it here.  All in it together, eh?  What a principled stance.

Doc_N

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Doc_N said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

Doc_N said:

eskbanker said:

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 said:

eskbanker said:

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

They said they were going to, back in June last year, and that if necessary, they'd escalate to the County Court, so presumably the answer to the first question is yes. 

The fact they "hope [Madir33 will] be able to share the outcome here in due course" suggests the answer to your third question is no.  If multiple successful complainants must remain silent under the threat of not receiving their magazines, why would a new succesful complainant be granted freedom to tell everyone about it? It could blow the whole grand scheme wide open.

 I'm afraid you'll have to reach your own conclusions. 

I have, which is why I'm interested to hear if there's any reason I've reached the wrong one.

It would be disappointing to learn that all those who were so angered by Saga they were going to take legal action to shame them publicly and force them to back down, would then meekly accept their own continued supply of physical magazines on the condition that they remain silent about it to prevent others benefitting from their apparently principled stance.

We’ll just have to guess, won’t we? 

Yes, ambiguity is a very convenient outcome for those who were confidently predicting this was going to end in disaster for Saga over a year ago.  And of course, "secret deals" that might have been done prevent other lifetime subscribers getting advice on how they might obtain what they paid for.  Only you know the outcome of your own legal action, but you're not prepared to share it here.  All in it together, eh?  What a principled stance.

There’s an awful lot of conjecture there. Neither you nor I know what’s been going on behind the scenes, but I would correct you on one point - NDAs prevent nobody from taking their own advice, or indeed their own actions. Best you confine yourself to facts - always the best legal approach.