"Great Magazines" not...

[tenpenceshort]

markmullen said:

You'd consider an action under UCTA (which realistically is your only option when they come back and say their terms are fair) against a publisher who almost certainly has a far bigger and better funded legal department than you have at your disposal for the sake of a £50 car cover?

No, because life is too short.

However, presuming that something is impossible to claim against because the other side has more/better lawyers at their disposal is a pretty worthless principle. For example, here we have been given two sets of conflicting terms. Do you think the vast legal department has carefully and competently drafted both sets of terms? It doesn't look like it's gone too far past the marketing department to me.

In any case, it looks irrelevant, as the offer to refund is there.

[TV8]

Someone new has written to me and the intransigence has softened. Still wide of the mark but progress nevertheless.

Someone asked how I would calculate value. The advert for the said car cover is a couple of pages before the subscription offer. Match make and model of car to get size and add postage. £42.45 delivered in my case.

[Red Devil]

That was me. What I was getting at was how the magazine publisher arrived at the equivalent value of its alternative offer. Have they attempted to justify it? You obviously don't think it measures up to the figure you have quoted.

[singlecoil]

markmullen said:

You'd consider an action under UCTA (which realistically is your only option when they come back and say their terms are fair) against a publisher who almost certainly has a far bigger and better funded legal department than you have at your disposal for the sake of a £50 car cover?

Can't speak for the OP, but I certainly would. I don't allow anyone to cheat me. In any case, it looks like a straightforward small claims action to me, so the massed ranks of lawyers that so impress you are irrelevant.

[JustinP1]

singlecoil said:

markmullen said:

You'd consider an action under UCTA (which realistically is your only option when they come back and say their terms are fair) against a publisher who almost certainly has a far bigger and better funded legal department than you have at your disposal for the sake of a £50 car cover?

Can't speak for the OP, but I certainly would. I don't allow anyone to cheat me. In any case, it looks like a straightforward small claims action to me, so the massed ranks of lawyers that so impress you are irrelevant.

Yes.

In fact, from experience, the larger the company and the smaller the claim, the more likely they are to capitulate.

I've successfully filed papers on a high street bank who wrongfully claimed I defaulted and put it on my credit record and a national telecoms company who spent two months failing to refund me monies.

On both occasions I had been given the run-around and on the first been told by customer relations that on no account would they remove the default.

On both occasions, within a couple of days of the papers arriving at head office, the legal department contacted me to capitulate and pay my court costs. If you have the skills to put together a claim, the companies know it will cost them more to defend the claim than do as you ask.


I think tenpence is on the right track with the UTCCRs - I did think the same, but didn't post. However, the unfair term I thought of was the fact that the terms effectively state there is a certain amount of the item, and when this unstated, arbitrary amount has gone, then the customer is bound to accept something they don't want.

That said, the instances I've taken action above it was for a sum ten times the amount in question, and was a calculated investment of time as I'd already burnt three or four hours and two months chasing the monkeys, and filing the papers actually saved me time...!

I wouldn't litigate over this. And I wouldn't think the magazine would want to either.

[tenpenceshort]

JustinP1 said:

I think tenpence is on the right track with the UTCCRs - I did think the same, but didn't post. However, the unfair term I thought of was the fact that the terms effectively state there is a certain amount of the item, and when this unstated, arbitrary amount has gone, then the customer is bound to accept something they don't want.

My take on it, was that there is not enough certainty for the consumer when he agrees the contract, that the seller will have to perform. The first term posted by the OP allows the seller to provide a different gift for any reason (without having to justify to the buyer the reason for non-performance or explain how he may avoid missing out). If the term says, alternatively, 'get in quick, there are a limited number of this particular gift, first come first served', after which there is no gift (and a potential refund) or a different, equally valuable gift, I think this gives acceptable certainty.

[XCP]

I have no idea how much the OP earns, nor do I want to. But if his hourly rate multiplied by the time he has spent and is likely to spend over this is more than 45 quid, I would say 'take the spanners'

[can't remember]

Off topic but Classic Cars has really gone down the toilet. Try and get a refund on the poor quality of the magazine as a whole.

[downthepub]

Likewise, I'd rather buy the car cover and not bother with Classic Cars. Shame, back in the day, CC was pretty well much the magazine of choice.

[Stuck In A Lift]

OP, did you take out the subscription via Direct Debit? You MAY be protected by the DD guarantee- ask your bank.

[markmullen]

singlecoil said:

markmullen said:

You'd consider an action under UCTA (which realistically is your only option when they come back and say their terms are fair) against a publisher who almost certainly has a far bigger and better funded legal department than you have at your disposal for the sake of a £50 car cover?

Can't speak for the OP, but I certainly would. I don't allow anyone to cheat me. In any case, it looks like a straightforward small claims action to me, so the massed ranks of lawyers that so impress you are irrelevant.

If you think that is going to be straightforward and a quick in and out, here's my £42 you're deluded.

[singlecoil]

markmullen said:

singlecoil said:

markmullen said:

You'd consider an action under UCTA (which realistically is your only option when they come back and say their terms are fair) against a publisher who almost certainly has a far bigger and better funded legal department than you have at your disposal for the sake of a £50 car cover?

Can't speak for the OP, but I certainly would. I don't allow anyone to cheat me. In any case, it looks like a straightforward small claims action to me, so the massed ranks of lawyers that so impress you are irrelevant.

If you think that is going to be straightforward and a quick in and out, here's my £42 you're deluded.

If you think that they would contest it, and send lawyers to the OP's local county court to do so, then you are the one who is deluded (to put it mildly).

[TV8]

XCP said:

I have no idea how much the OP earns, nor do I want to. But if his hourly rate multiplied by the time he has spent and is likely to spend over this is more than 45 quid, I would say 'take the spanners'

I do ok, but it is the principle of things to me, not the money.

[markmullen]

singlecoil said:

If you think that they would contest it, and send lawyers to the OP's local county court to do so, then you are the one who is deluded (to put it mildly).

And you think an action, for a £42 free gift is not deluded?

[singlecoil]

markmullen said:

singlecoil said:

If you think that they would contest it, and send lawyers to the OP's local county court to do so, then you are the one who is deluded (to put it mildly).

And you think an action, for a £42 free gift is not deluded?

If you had read the thread you would know that he didn't get the free gift that was offered. If you choose to let people who have cheated you get away with it that's entirely your choice, but calling other people deluded for choosing not to let people get away with it is in itself deluded.

[markmullen]

singlecoil said:

markmullen said:

singlecoil said:

If you think that they would contest it, and send lawyers to the OP's local county court to do so, then you are the one who is deluded (to put it mildly).

And you think an action, for a £42 free gift is not deluded?

If you had read the thread you would know that he didn't get the free gift that was offered. If you choose to let people who have cheated you get away with it that's entirely your choice, but calling other people deluded for choosing not to let people get away with it is in itself deluded.

Fair enough, if your time is so worthless to you as to waste it on a pointless task like this then best of luck to you.

[singlecoil]

markmullen said:

Fair enough, if your time is so worthless to you as to waste it on a pointless task like this then best of luck to you.

You are confused. First of all, I'm not the OP and it's not my time that is at stake. Secondly, principles matter to some more than others, I gather that to you principles in matters of this sort hold little value, fair enough, but other may well feel differently, and it's up to them to decide how far they want to take things when they feel a matter of principle is at stake.

So what you see as a pointless task others might well see as a worthwhile exercise. I personally would see watching a football match as being a pointless task, but I wouldn't dream of criticising somebody else for spending their Saturday afternoon on the terraces of their local club.

Edited by singlecoil on Thursday 3rd July 15:03

[TV8]

So, I thought I was making progress but I suspect false hopes. I sent them a scan of the original advert after someone with a very silly name became involved again and, not for the first time, quoted company policy. This, I fear, put a resolution further away.

[Red Devil]

Thy can quote 'policy' until they run out of breath. The ony thing that is relevant is the wording of the T&Cs. On that score it seems (I say that because I can't read the what it says on the scanned page) that there are two conflicting sets. If the only one brought to your notice was in the magazine, I think you may be entitled to rely on that rather than the other which they have trotted out subsequently. I may be wrong though. The only way to find out is to test it in court.

Whether it is worth it to you to devote time and money to pursue this on a point of principle only you can decide. It is not for me, or anyone else on here for that matter, to try and tell you what you should do. If you do go ahead the only opinion that will count in the final analysis is that of the judge.

[TV8]

Red Devil said:

Which size cover did you choose? You claim the alternative is not of equivalent or greater value. What is its value and how has it been calculated?

The same car covers are for sale a couple of pages before this advert. I cant remember the exact figures, but it my figures are based on car make/style ie this size car costs this much.