SAGA Magazine lifetime subscription - compulsory shift to digital format

Ergates

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.

If that was the case, the poster in question wouldn't have described their action as a "monumental gamble".

born_again

So all these people that are taking this to court hoping to gain?
As it seems clear Saga will not reinstate the offer, & have a replacement offer in place for the same, just not on paper.
My guess would be if enough did, then they would simply withdraw the Lifetime offer on the basis, that the Lifetime of the product has been reached & simply pull the product altogether. Which might suit them even better in terms of saving money.

So how are these people make a quantifiable amount for their claim?

uffington

born_again said:

So all these people that are taking this to court hoping to gain?
As it seems clear Saga will not reinstate the offer, & have a replacement offer in place for the same, just not on paper.
My guess would be if enough did, then they would simply withdraw the Lifetime offer on the basis, that the Lifetime of the product has been reached & simply pull the product altogether. Which might suit them even better in terms of saving money.

So how are these people make a quantifiable amount for their claim?

I have a relative affected by this, and he was banging on yet again about it when I saw him this weekend. He's gone from a SAGA-lover to a SAGA-hater! He even asked me if it was worth seeing a solicitor.

I doubt anyone's successfully challenged the decision - at least not in the High Court or above, where decisions are published. That's not to say that there haven't been decisions in the County Court, though they'd probably have been picked up by local reporters.

It seems quite likely from recent posts and from other posts on social media though that there have been some 'informal' agreements between SAGA and aggrieved customers. If there have been such agreements, it's very likely that non disclosure agreements will have been used to protect SAGA against a flood of similar claims. 

There are two or three people posting here who seem determined for some bizarre reason not to accept this as a possibility, but they've been negative about the whole issue right from the outset and they're possibly trying to protect a vanishing investment in their SAGA shares!

Viewed more objectively, though, it does look to be a distinct possibility. We do know that SAGA have rejected most (all?) simple requests, but what we don't know is how they've been dealing with those who pursue the matter formally. The SAGA membership contains a sizeable number of quite well-off middle class professionals, including lawyers doubtless, and it's difficult to imagine that none of those have taken the matter further via the small claims procedures. It would be fairly easy to calculate a quantifiable amount. It's possible that all of those claims are heading for various County Courts - but it's equally possible, and I think more likely, that there have been settlements which can't be disclosed for legal reasons.

Nobody here knows of course - apart perhaps from anyone who's done a deal, and they won't be permitted to talk about it for fear of breaking the non disclosure agreement. 

So isn't this all a bit of an impasse? And a rather pointless discussion?

sheramber

uffington said:

born_again said:

So all these people that are taking this to court hoping to gain?
As it seems clear Saga will not reinstate the offer, & have a replacement offer in place for the same, just not on paper.
My guess would be if enough did, then they would simply withdraw the Lifetime offer on the basis, that the Lifetime of the product has been reached & simply pull the product altogether. Which might suit them even better in terms of saving money.

So how are these people make a quantifiable amount for their claim?

I have a relative affected by this, and he was banging on yet again about it when I saw him this weekend. He's gone from a SAGA-lover to a SAGA-hater! He even asked me if it was worth seeing a solicitor.

I doubt anyone's successfully challenged the decision - at least not in the High Court or above, where decisions are published. That's not to say that there haven't been decisions in the County Court, though they'd probably have been picked up by local reporters.

It seems quite likely from recent posts and from other posts on social media though that there have been some 'informal' agreements between SAGA and aggrieved customers. If there have been such agreements, it's very likely that non disclosure agreements will have been used to protect SAGA against a flood of similar claims. 

There are two or three people posting here who seem determined for some bizarre reason not to accept this as a possibility, but they've been negative about the whole issue right from the outset and they're possibly trying to protect a vanishing investment in their SAGA shares!

Viewed more objectively, though, it does look to be a distinct possibility. We do know that SAGA have rejected most (all?) simple requests, but what we don't know is how they've been dealing with those who pursue the matter formally. The SAGA membership contains a sizeable number of quite well-off middle class professionals, including lawyers doubtless, and it's difficult to imagine that none of those have taken the matter further via the small claims procedures. It would be fairly easy to calculate a quantifiable amount. It's possible that all of those claims are heading for various County Courts - but it's equally possible, and I think more likely, that there have been settlements which can't be disclosed for legal reasons.

Nobody here knows of course - apart perhaps from anyone who's done a deal, and they won't be permitted to talk about it for fear of breaking the non disclosure agreement. 

So isn't this all a bit of an impasse? And a rather pointless discussion?

The SAGA membership contains a sizeable number of quite well-off middle class professionals, including lawyers doubtless,

Maybe these people are happy to receive the digital copy.

born_again

uffington said:

born_again said:

So all these people that are taking this to court hoping to gain?
As it seems clear Saga will not reinstate the offer, & have a replacement offer in place for the same, just not on paper.
My guess would be if enough did, then they would simply withdraw the Lifetime offer on the basis, that the Lifetime of the product has been reached & simply pull the product altogether. Which might suit them even better in terms of saving money.

So how are these people make a quantifiable amount for their claim?

I have a relative affected by this, and he was banging on yet again about it when I saw him this weekend. He's gone from a SAGA-lover to a SAGA-hater! He even asked me if it was worth seeing a solicitor.

I doubt anyone's successfully challenged the decision - at least not in the High Court or above, where decisions are published. That's not to say that there haven't been decisions in the County Court, though they'd probably have been picked up by local reporters.

It seems quite likely from recent posts and from other posts on social media though that there have been some 'informal' agreements between SAGA and aggrieved customers. If there have been such agreements, it's very likely that non disclosure agreements will have been used to protect SAGA against a flood of similar claims. 

There are two or three people posting here who seem determined for some bizarre reason not to accept this as a possibility, but they've been negative about the whole issue right from the outset and they're possibly trying to protect a vanishing investment in their SAGA shares!

Viewed more objectively, though, it does look to be a distinct possibility. We do know that SAGA have rejected most (all?) simple requests, but what we don't know is how they've been dealing with those who pursue the matter formally. The SAGA membership contains a sizeable number of quite well-off middle class professionals, including lawyers doubtless, and it's difficult to imagine that none of those have taken the matter further via the small claims procedures. It would be fairly easy to calculate a quantifiable amount. It's possible that all of those claims are heading for various County Courts - but it's equally possible, and I think more likely, that there have been settlements which can't be disclosed for legal reasons.

Nobody here knows of course - apart perhaps from anyone who's done a deal, and they won't be permitted to talk about it for fear of breaking the non disclosure agreement. 

So isn't this all a bit of an impasse? And a rather pointless discussion?

How are you going to come to a figure?

The idea of a NDA is a bit of a joke really, over such a small issue. The idea that Saga would spend that amount of money for a legal team to draw one up is 🤣Given the whole reason for the action is cost cutting.

& no I do not hold any shares, just a realist. 🤷‍♀️

RefluentBeans

The classic ‘you must work for/have a vested interest in the company’. 

The issue isn’t that people think the posters are wrong - it’s that the case isn’t a massive problem for the vast majority of customers. There’s a few vocally upset. There’s a bunch who will just accept the online version for convenience, there’s the minority who will cancel. In that minority are the posters here who are pearl clutching.

The facts, as I understand, are:
1. There are no formal terms and conditions. Or if there is, no one’s provided them on here.
2. ‘Perpetual’ contracts aren’t viewed favourably in the court. There needs to be exit clauses for both parties. 

3. The service is being provided, just through a different medium.
4. Even if there was a breach of contract, a court is unlikely to award specific performance. Instead they will award the damages. The damages could be calculated by the number of issues provided, divided by the number of issues that the average person will purchase multiplied by the cost of membership. This, for most, will be pennies. Is it worth it? 

The case isn’t a strong one. Sticking to your guns is admirable, but it costs money. A pensioner on pension credit, heading into winter, shouldn’t be wasting their limited income on such a long shot ‘showing them who’s boss’ type court action. If you’re a lawyer who wanted to fight it in your own time, sure go for it. But life is short, and the injustices in the world probably don’t put not getting your SAGA magazine forever as a high priority. 

user1977

RefluentBeans said:

 There’s a bunch who will just accept the online version for convenience, 

And probably many who will prefer an online version. My parents are 80ish and have been happily reading their papers etc on tablets for years.

Ergates

born_again said:

uffington said:

born_again said:

So all these people that are taking this to court hoping to gain?
As it seems clear Saga will not reinstate the offer, & have a replacement offer in place for the same, just not on paper.
My guess would be if enough did, then they would simply withdraw the Lifetime offer on the basis, that the Lifetime of the product has been reached & simply pull the product altogether. Which might suit them even better in terms of saving money.

So how are these people make a quantifiable amount for their claim?

I have a relative affected by this, and he was banging on yet again about it when I saw him this weekend. He's gone from a SAGA-lover to a SAGA-hater! He even asked me if it was worth seeing a solicitor.

I doubt anyone's successfully challenged the decision - at least not in the High Court or above, where decisions are published. That's not to say that there haven't been decisions in the County Court, though they'd probably have been picked up by local reporters.

It seems quite likely from recent posts and from other posts on social media though that there have been some 'informal' agreements between SAGA and aggrieved customers. If there have been such agreements, it's very likely that non disclosure agreements will have been used to protect SAGA against a flood of similar claims. 

There are two or three people posting here who seem determined for some bizarre reason not to accept this as a possibility, but they've been negative about the whole issue right from the outset and they're possibly trying to protect a vanishing investment in their SAGA shares!

Viewed more objectively, though, it does look to be a distinct possibility. We do know that SAGA have rejected most (all?) simple requests, but what we don't know is how they've been dealing with those who pursue the matter formally. The SAGA membership contains a sizeable number of quite well-off middle class professionals, including lawyers doubtless, and it's difficult to imagine that none of those have taken the matter further via the small claims procedures. It would be fairly easy to calculate a quantifiable amount. It's possible that all of those claims are heading for various County Courts - but it's equally possible, and I think more likely, that there have been settlements which can't be disclosed for legal reasons.

Nobody here knows of course - apart perhaps from anyone who's done a deal, and they won't be permitted to talk about it for fear of breaking the non disclosure agreement. 

So isn't this all a bit of an impasse? And a rather pointless discussion?

How are you going to come to a figure?

The idea of a NDA is a bit of a joke really, over such a small issue. The idea that Saga would spend that amount of money for a legal team to draw one up is 🤣Given the whole reason for the action is cost cutting.

& no I do not hold any shares, just a realist. 🤷‍♀️

Moreso that *everyone* who has reached such an agreement has stuck to the NDA.  As if SAGA would be able to identify you and track you down from an anonymous forum post.  They're not GCHQ.

uffington

born_again said:

uffington said:

born_again said:

So all these people that are taking this to court hoping to gain?
As it seems clear Saga will not reinstate the offer, & have a replacement offer in place for the same, just not on paper.
My guess would be if enough did, then they would simply withdraw the Lifetime offer on the basis, that the Lifetime of the product has been reached & simply pull the product altogether. Which might suit them even better in terms of saving money.

So how are these people make a quantifiable amount for their claim?

I have a relative affected by this, and he was banging on yet again about it when I saw him this weekend. He's gone from a SAGA-lover to a SAGA-hater! He even asked me if it was worth seeing a solicitor.

I doubt anyone's successfully challenged the decision - at least not in the High Court or above, where decisions are published. That's not to say that there haven't been decisions in the County Court, though they'd probably have been picked up by local reporters.

It seems quite likely from recent posts and from other posts on social media though that there have been some 'informal' agreements between SAGA and aggrieved customers. If there have been such agreements, it's very likely that non disclosure agreements will have been used to protect SAGA against a flood of similar claims. 

There are two or three people posting here who seem determined for some bizarre reason not to accept this as a possibility, but they've been negative about the whole issue right from the outset and they're possibly trying to protect a vanishing investment in their SAGA shares!

Viewed more objectively, though, it does look to be a distinct possibility. We do know that SAGA have rejected most (all?) simple requests, but what we don't know is how they've been dealing with those who pursue the matter formally. The SAGA membership contains a sizeable number of quite well-off middle class professionals, including lawyers doubtless, and it's difficult to imagine that none of those have taken the matter further via the small claims procedures. It would be fairly easy to calculate a quantifiable amount. It's possible that all of those claims are heading for various County Courts - but it's equally possible, and I think more likely, that there have been settlements which can't be disclosed for legal reasons.

Nobody here knows of course - apart perhaps from anyone who's done a deal, and they won't be permitted to talk about it for fear of breaking the non disclosure agreement. 

So isn't this all a bit of an impasse? And a rather pointless discussion?

How are you going to come to a figure?

The idea of a NDA is a bit of a joke really, over such a small issue. The idea that Saga would spend that amount of money for a legal team to draw one up is 🤣Given the whole reason for the action is cost cutting.

& no I do not hold any shares, just a realist. 🤷‍♀️

Saga obviously don't see it as a small issue, otherwise they'd have left things alone instead of stirring up what became a bit of a hornets' nest. The figure used will vary according to circumstances - such as life expectancy and amount paid for the life membership. Not difficult to put a few figures together - particularly if Saga are settling as they appear to be. 

And NDAs? Saga has its own legal department already and any competent lawyer can draw up a NDA inside half an hour! Far cheaper than potentially opening the floodgates to identikit claims.