SAGA Magazine lifetime subscription - compulsory shift to digital format

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82033892#Comment_82033892

It's academic now as far as the recent judgment is concerned but it seems likely from the article that, regardless of the existence or otherwise of an actual signed Ts & Cs document, those letters quoted earlier in the thread were aligned with the 2002 one presented to the court, given the judge's comment that "I don’t think the word ‘receive’ necessarily means for the terms of this contract ‘put into Mr Ahmed’s hands’. As long as he can access that magazine via a different method, it seems that is tantamount to him receiving the magazine", i.e. nobody disputes that there was a promise that the lifetime subscribers would "receive" monthly "issues"/"copies" but since the actual format of these wasn't expressly defined, there was a need for legal interpretation.

If the 2002 Saga letter didn't mention anything about formats (by which time this may have been more relevant than previously) then it seems unlikely to me that they'd have felt the need to specify anything prior to that, especially given that, as I recall, nobody on this thread was able to produce anything to that effect. Obviously if anyone is able to find a clearly documented commitment that the issues/copies would be in hard copy form then that would be a different scenario (and one which could have saved Mr Ahmed a great deal of money and grief if this had emerged sooner).

user1977

I'm still bemused that people think there is any significant value in a magazine which is largely puff pieces designed to flog other Saga-branded products/services.

Aylesbury_Duck

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82036061#Comment_82036061

What we were repeatedly told was that this was about not letting Saga get away with this because then what's to stop them reneging on commitments they make to insurance customers and holiday customers. Never mind that those other products are subject to specific regulations that would make that unlikely.

I admire a principled stance, but once the poster declared he was spending all his savings and taking a significant financial gamble, it was never the right thing for that particular person to take on, and he was advised by several of us on the forum (and by at least one by private message) to drop it. Others egged him on.

Renfrewman

We were also told that this would cause damage to Saga's business. Strange then how their share price has gone up from £1.50 to £5.90 in the last 12 months.

outtatune

I'm absolutely bemused.

I thought this was an interesting 'could go either way in MCOL' case, and that a few people might well be tempted to pony up £35 - £115 for court fees (depending on their perceived value of the print magazines) as a punt.

But £20k?

How can anyone spend that amount of money on legal fees for this? Even if he was daft enough to spend good money on a barrister's opinion, for a pretty basic aspect of consumer contract law - the difficulties in this case revolve around the facts of the T&Cs and some possible legal definitions of words like 'receive' - it shouldn't cost more than about £1200 + VAT. Where has the rest of the money gone?

Doc_N

Interesting that Saga were prepared to shell out £750 (with a NDA) to stop this going to court - an offer doubtless taken up by others following a similar route. And an offer perhaps still available to others still considering going formal, but with better evidence or earlier purchase dates.

This was never a case worth involving lawyers, very obviously, and could have been argued without the vast majority of that £19,000+ cost. The case was worth a punt, but only on a self-representation basis.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82036729#Comment_82036729

While it remains true that the Ahmed decision doesn't form legal precedent, I imagine that it will have emboldened Saga and given them more confidence in their position, so I suspect that settlement offers will be less forthcoming in future and they'll simply refer any remaining complainants to the fact that the matter has now been tested in court, where the judgment was in their favour, i.e. why would Saga feel the need to try to dissuade punters from going to court if they feel that their position has already been vindicated there?

Having said that, I don't know if any of the £19K was for Saga's legal costs rather than Ahmed's?

In terms of better evidence, I haven't gone back through the whole thread but don't recall any mention of anyone locating such evidence, beyond the letters you cited (which fail to specify magazine delivery format), although accept that it's theoretically possible that someone somewhere has something better and it just hasn't been shared yet…

Doc_N

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82036814#Comment_82036814

We only have the Times report to go by (and it's a news article, rather than a Times Law Report) but the wording suggests ("…he took Saga to the small claims court, spending his £19,080 nest egg on legal fees".) that the £19k related to his own fees - amazing though that is. There's no suggestion that Saga was awarded any costs, and it would be unlikely to amount to much in a small claims case anyway.

Saga won't like the publicity they're already getting from this case, but they'd be even more worried about someone somehow getting it beyond the County Court. I say somehow, because you'd have to be somewhat unbalanced to take a financial risk of that order!

Renfrewman

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82036729#Comment_82036729

So how did your case go?

user1977

no suggestion that Saga was awarded any costs

Is it not more likely that they would, if they can show that they had made a much better offer to settle way earlier in the process?