Am I entitled to refund for anxiety program / service, company saying no

sunni

Maybe she should ask for access to the course again to see if she gets any replies?

eskbanker

sunni said:

Maybe she should ask for access to the course again to see if she gets any replies?

Well, yes - seeking to obtain a partial refund for something no longer being available is an entirely different argument from objecting to the outcome of using the service, so if she's only gone after them on the latter basis so far then taking the former tack would be needed ahead of any legal action.

lincroft1710

She did have "lifetime access", access for the lifetime of the course!

sunni

lincroft1710 said:

She did have "lifetime access", access for the lifetime of the course!

She can't access the course now 

born_again

sunni said:

Thanks everyone. She said it was 3-4 years ago & man said was lifetime access but now says she can't access it. It wasn't counselling with him just help on how to follow it. She had to attend private counselling elsewhere.
Was so expensive & now doesn't seem to be available so wasn't really lifetime access!

Hate "Lifetime" as there is nothing to determine exactly what the definition is in consumer rights. Could be the time she was paying, could be till they give up providing service, life of person taking up the service or any other reason someone would like to think up  🤷‍♀️

DullGreyGuy

sunni said:

lincroft1710 said:

She did have "lifetime access", access for the lifetime of the course!

She can't access the course now 

It was meant as a bit of a tongue in cheek comment but it brings up a valid point and one thats been discussed more than once before... who's lifetime? The course creator? The buyers? The company that was selling it? The life of the course itself (ie when they stop running it then it dies)? Or something else? In a previous case on here the T&Cs defined the "lifetime" as being 10 years unless the customer died before then. 

As you may recall we've had similar public discussion on other wooly language like the "once in a generation" referendum on Scottish independence 

sunni

Sorry meant the link to the course isn't valid but the man is active on YouTube, Facebook & Instragram! She didn't receive any T&C's  

eskbanker

Just to be clear, was the course sold by an individual or a company?  Assuming the latter, what does Companies House show about its status as an ongoing solvent entity?

sunni

eskbanker said:

Just to be clear, was the course sold by an individual or a company?  Assuming the latter, what does Companies House show about its status as an ongoing solvent entity?

He claimed he had another company which is dissolved  but was selling it as an individual and he is still active on social media 

eskbanker

sunni said:

eskbanker said:

Just to be clear, was the course sold by an individual or a company?  Assuming the latter, what does Companies House show about its status as an ongoing solvent entity?

He claimed he had another company which is dissolved  but was selling it as an individual and he is still active on social media 

That might make recovery of money a bit more likely if he's not savvy enough to ring-fence his assets (if any) within readily-dissolved companies - does she know his address, etc, if she decides it's worth going legal with a letter before action?  Or has she tried approaching him on his social media channels - the presence of a visibly unhappy customer on his pages may help him see sense....