Just thinking about the recent demise of several high street shops and thought...isnt it funny how the law and courts protect and assist the multi million pound companies in the theft of their customers money? more proof, if any were needed that the courts (which are corporations btw) do little more than help separate the public from their money one way or another? why dont channel 4 get dominic littlewood to make a few phone calls? he seems to do quite well when dodgy builders promise one thing and deliver nothing.. Although it is 'legal' because the companies claim that they dont actually own any of the stock on their shelves (which doesnt ever seem to be substantiated), how can it be fair, moral or lawful (which im certain it isnt) that a customer can walk into a shop, hand over anything from £5-£100 for a gift card, with the senior management knowingly taking the money whilst aware of the impending liquidation of the company..their personal assets, shares, pensions etc remaining totally unaffected. Isnt this type of crime called fraud, or obtaining money by deception? isnt extracting someone from their money (which has now technically been spent on theoretical goods) and keeping it without honouring your contract otherwise known as theft?? yet, you do 35 in a 30 and the courts invite you to their place of business to decide how much money to steal from you.... This type of theft and corruption has got to stop and its time we started exercising our rights under common law..... As an aside, isnt it also curious how once a vehicle is registered with DVLA then it legally becomes the property of the government, and you are now in contract....wasnt it in 1937 when road tax was abolished to be replaced by vehicle excise duty...none of which goes to maintaining roads btw.... Anyway, just a few of my ramblings....one things for sure i would never buy a gift card or collect so called points under any circumstances, lest i become the victim of theft and fraud...the scum that run these rackets should have their financial interests distributed amongst the employees who have been made redundant thanks to their mismanagement and greed.
Wrong on almost every point Funky.:wink: When credit insurance is removed from a retailer their suppliers who typically extend 60 to 90 day payment terms will usually have a clause referred to as retention of title, in other words until the goods are paid for in full they belong to the supplier not the retailer. When you buy a gift card you are purchasing a service, if they have called in the administrator that means the former directors are no longer in control of the company so it is not they who are refusing to honour the service. They might still be working at the business, but they are not in control, the administrator is. Note they are not multi-million pound companies at this point, they are in debt and do not have enough cash flowing into the business to meet the debts or cash flowing out of the business. So if you have a debt for a service once promised you have to get in line behind the secured creditors, usually the banks and the largest individual creditor if they are secured in their debt. The directors are also usually employees of the company, they might have preferential terms, but they are still employees.
Courts are like umpires or referees, Funky - they decide disputed matters brought to them by applying the law. The outcome of every case (like every football match) is not to somebody's liking, but it doesn't get us far to blame the ref. I agree with you about store vouchers though. Ordinary money is by definition 100% liquid - you can spend it anywhere on anything, and it is backed by the Bank of England. When you hand over money to a store in return for a voucher, liquidity is sharply reduced. The voucher is just a promise, and can be spent only in certain places on certain things. The store essentially takes a deposit from you, leaving you as a creditor. You as the voucher holder are entirely at the mercy of the store. Why on earth would anybody buy vouchers? Search me! Deposit-takers like banks, building societies, etc are generally regulated and there are schemes for protecting depositors in the event of insolvency. So I think the real question is: Why on earth are stores allowed to take deposits in their voucher schemes without being regulated and without guarantees? Perhaps that was your point, was it?
i dare say that all above is correct..although entirely unfair on the poor bugger who has just had £70 stolen from him..doesnt stop them from pursuing shoplifters who are caught nicking somebody elses property whilst in their care though does it? i dare say theres some convenient ruling on that one too..
i wouldnt agree with all of your points there Pete...many cases come to court because the unknowingly public have unwittingly entered into a contract with a corporation under a civil, not criminal matter. these courts also act illegally as many of their rules are not adhered to, cases often settled prior to any hearing, unfair fines imposed etc etc... the Bill of Rights 1689 says that "promises and grants of fines and forfeitures of particular persons prior to conviction is void and illegal", yet most corporations threaten fines, bailiffs (who generally have no legal jurisdiction although present themselves to the contrary), prison sentences etc etc, even before establishing identity..take TV licensing for instance, threatening vacuous fines without evidence and in many cases addressing letters to the 'occupier'..this alone makes them both illegal and unlawful.. councils also hire courtrooms for the day in which to introduce the public to their place of business and arrange removing them from their money..these 'courts' have no basis in LAW and rather act under statutes and acts..very different.. by unwittingly consenting (ie giving your name and DOB), you are entering into a contract..it is at this point that a statute or act is given the force of law.. statutes and act require consent. the only act that im aware that doesnt and is non repealable is teh Bill of Rights as this is a declaration of basic human rights and freedoms..it is also the basis upon which civil and criminal law is written.. to anyone..buy yourself a copy of legal dictionary (Blacks is considered one of the finest), and read the legalise definitions...we are speaking english, but the words have very very different meanings..it is upon this duplicity that almost everyone who has committed no crime (injury, harm of loss to another human being) is fined and punished..because so few of us understand any of our rights (particulary the police who are as unaware as anyone else), crimes are committed every day by the authorities to innocent people...cars stolen and crushed, parking fines, bogus tv licences to BBC Worldwide, a private company listed at companies house and worth in excess £3.5 in overseas sales alone) etc etc.... courts are certainly not umpires, that is a fallacy..certainly when acting under acts and statutes... a police constable and a police officer are different legal entities too....any officer in any corporation (most police forces are corporations listed under a 'trading name': see companies house or similar for clarification) is to recover or control the flow of revenue within the corporation...therefore, a police officer is doing a very different job from his other duty as a constable (in which he has to work under his sworn oath). the thing is, they dont get taught the law at hendon, and most know nothing or very little of law, acts, legislation or statutes.
what sort of courts are these? If they act under Statutes which are Law then of course they have a basis in law Stautes are made by Parliament. You consent to the introduction of the statute every five years by voting. If you don't vote don't complain. And can you explain why you think a Police Constable and a Police Officer are different
OK rambling response:- These are not convenient rulings they are how the system works, it's not perfect, but we have a system. I appreciate it's not always fair and some people will play any system to their own best benefit. Any insolvency practitioner is supposed to represent the best interests of the creditors, in my experience that comes secondary to lining their own pockets. Some retailers are unscrupulous in how they fund their venture, in case of insolvency they buy the business using a trust or fund that has 'secured creditor' status, if the retailer goes bust the trust or fund gets paid back first, guess who owns the trust or fund? Guess who is first in line to buy the assets from the insolvency practitioner with the money they have just been paid? Your points:- If it's a gift voucher then the £70 (nice gift!) is really being lost by the giver of the gift, rather than the recipient. Would you have them just let the shoplifter steal the goods regardless of who legally owns them? The retailer will be invoiced for the stolen goods regardless, so it is in their interest not to let them be stolen, quite apart from the moral obligation not to encourage theft. Back to rambling:- Retailers of clothing will typically lose about 2% to 3% % of their turnover in theft. Quite a good bit of that will be their own staff, so whilst you are blaming the directors, opportunistic staff do help themselves and good retailers employ systems and staff to try and reduce this as much as possible. If your average High Street retailer turns over £100M you can see that a £3M loss is worth employing someone at say £50K plus a car to limit this to say £1M. Before you cry over the Multi-Million retailers lot, just be aware that their rent bill on that size turnover would likely be £15M-£20M (greedy landlords you see) with another £7M-£10M (greedy local authorities you see) in business rates, the staff will cost them about £9M-£10M. Utilities and other operating costs are likely to be £5M-£10M, distribution, warehousing, offices, management etc Oh and then you'll have to pay for the stock that you don't retain the title to until you do pay for it. So why is the High Street crocked just now? Well partly the retailers aren't moving online quickly enough and are tied into long leases they can no longer afford as their customers move to online, a typical lease used to be 25 years. Landlords and local authorities aren't adjusting the costs downwards at all or quickly enough to match the decline in High Street sales. They still charge for parking and try to disuade potential customers from visiting the High Street by all kinds of obstacles. Oh and Theo Paphitis is right when he says that Mary Portas doesn't have a clue what she's talking about and is simply PR'ing her Yellow Door agency to Whitehall, Mr Cameron should have asked a retailer, not a window dresser. Until the costs of bricks more closely matches the cost of clicks you will continue to see High Street names going bust and Online retailers thriving. And now I'm off to the pub for a quick one!
the purchaser of the gift voucher has had their money stolen. irrespective of who made the purchase or who tried to redeem the voucher the simple fact is, money was taken in the knowledge that the voucher was worthless...taking money deception is fraud. Its theft. they have paid for goods that will never be honoured. I pulled the £70 figure out after watching the news when a customer was turned away with vouchers to that value and left with....the vouchers. As regards shoplifting, this is theft and wrong, on that we can agree. I go one step further and say that the retailer, legal owner of the stock and the so called law are all complicit in the theft of monies from their customers. The management of these companies would have know early enough in the day that the company was in financial trouble and either should have withdrawn vouchers from sale (funny how HMV didnt just before christmas), or returned the money that they were knowingly taking from customers, aware that they would probably not be honoured. The person nicking a CD will face more harsh treatment and penalities than the directors or employees who have knowingly entered into fraud/obtaining money by deception..Not a few quid, but millions. As an aside to all this hypocrasy, isnt it funny how Mary Portas, self styled Mary 'Queen of Shops' who has campaigned for the survival of the high street opened her latest designer outlet within a House of Fraser department store...anyone who takes any notice of what any of these people ever say is going to be deceived.
How could they know the future beyond Christmas? Retailers spend fortunes trying to estimate the next few week's trade, from weather forecasting to analytical software. December and January can account for 50% of a retailer's annual turnover and profits. If after 1 month they are not going to hit their forecasts do you suggest they stop trading or believe that January will be better? Only after the first 2 week's of January will they get a good grip of where they are. The legal owner of the stock's customer is the retailer, not the end consumer. If you sell a bike to someone, do you have any responsibility to the person they sell it to next? Of course not. Why then are they complicit in theft of monies? If I make widgets and sell them to you, who you sell them to is up to you and I cannot legally interfere with that, it's against the law! I think I've answered this above, (up to 50% of profits for the year in just 8 weeks!) but just re-read your own comments, 'probably not be honoured' not 'definitely not be honoured' so we are discussing someone's opinion, not fact, who's to say your opinion is a better judgement than the director of a retailer? You could stop selling vouchers only to find that Christmas is better than you thought, you made enough money to continue trading, but not enough to save Sadie, Ben and Alan's jobs all of whom you have to sack, if only you'd sold those vouchers for another 3 weeks, you could have kept those guys employed! I think you might be in line for a deserved kicking from Sadie, Ben & Alan for being a shit businessman and costing them their jobs, never mind a roof over their children's heads? They haven't entered into fraud though Funky if they believed the business had a chance of survival. If this is blatantly done you go down for a very long time indeed, much longer than for the theft of a CD (does anyone sell these anymore?) check here:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hinchliffe I don't follow your argument? Are you suggesting that she hasn't opened on the High Street by opening inside a department store? That's a rather interesting and simplistic view of the High Street. House of Fraser stores exist on the High Street too, you do realise that the High Street might be called Acacia Road or Drivel Drive? I think you should stand for parliament, Question Time would be a more colourful place with your contributions.:biggrin:
companies may well forecast future turnover and profits, with all the risks and rewards that may bring, however, i dont accept that a) these companies are totally unaware of their financial circumstances: ergo, they have a good idea of future projections and if they may well fall into admistration...if they suspect that Christmas for instance is their last gasp, then they shouldnt sell vouchers..to do so is dishonourable and morally dishonest. if a supplier is the legal owner of stock the end customer should not be able to purchase vouchers that stand little chance of being honoured through the third party. if the business is so reliant on the sale of vouchers alone to help it scrape through a tough period then i doubt if an additional 3 weeks will make any difference. sadie, ben and alan may well be on the dole queue but as long as the CEO walks away onto his next contract, everyones happy right? Proving fraud for these companies is not financially beneficial to those except the customer..the consumer who is usually the least thought of. My remark concerning mary queen of shops was to highlight the fact that she spouts a lot of crap about rejuvinating the high street with boutique stores and such like, and then immediately opens a concession within a house of fraser dept store on a retail park...the very act the shes espouses to be so abhorrent.
If you enter administration that means the directors hand over control, it does not mean the business ceases, or stops accepting vouchers. It does mean an administrator starts making those decisions. That's quite different to insolvency and if a new buyer is found or an investor who feels the business can be turned around then those vouchers will be honoured. You are taking a simplistic argument and trying to apply it to complex situations across many different retailers and situations, I realise you are specifically relating to HMV, but you can't legislate for an individual case. So just how many suppliers do you think a retailer has? Which ones will have retention of title clauses, which ones will have been paid for their stock and which ones are concessions and the stock will never belong to the retailer. Would you care to say how the voucher can or cannot be redeemed and which of these items you're happy to accept it against? The voucher will apply to the shop, but not all of the stock in the shop will have the same ownership. No business will solely be reliant just on vouchers, but why single those out, what if they offer another service where you pay in advance? The positive cash flow from vouchers, a high percentage of which are not immediately if ever redeemed can be the difference between trading or not. Your comment 'I doubt if an additional 3 weeks will make any difference' has just ignored my previous attempt to explain that 3 weeks sales at Christmas is like 7 or 8 weeks sales at another time of year to your cash flow. Profit is not the reason a business goes into administration, cash flow is. Fraud will be prosecuted by the CPS, they are the arbiter. In most insolvencies the biggest losers are the suppliers who do not have insurance or who don't retain title, in a recent High Street insolvency many suppliers lost over £1M each and the owners of the business who were secured creditors, were paid out, promptly bought the profitable bits of the business back and continued to trade. The other creditors were burned for Millions. The other losers were the staff who lost their jobs, they are not likely to find another quickly. I'm no Mary fan, but all of her concessions in House of Fraser stores are in High Street locations, bar Westfield shopping centre which is in reality the shopping mall for west central London, Oxford Street being the High Street. Her other HoF locations in Glasgow, Guildford and Manchester are all High Street, none of those locations are retail parks. I realise you might not know much about retail and what constitutes a retail park and a High St. location, so I'm genuinely trying to help here.
Actually he is 100% right on one point If they sell a gift card knowing that they are likely to go into administration and are unlikely to be able to honor it that is a clear case of fraud ie accepting monety by deception Unfortunately proving this is difficult as the employees rarely know the true state of the companies finances, but the directors should know and should not have the companies accepting money for gift vouchers knowing full well that the company is probably in no state to honor them in the forseeable future Best advice is do not ever buy gift cards
With respect to HMV, voucher trading was merely suspended for a few days whilst the administrators weighed up the situation. At that time, claims for the voucher value could be made directly to the administrators for refund. Its not as if the money was lost permanently, though obviously people still feel badly done to. The flip side of this is we should perhaps have a little sympathy for the frontline staff, who while their jobs were/are hanging in the balance, had to deal with the general public swearing and spitting at them etc when the initial voucher suspension was announced. My wife has been part of HMV for 13 years and couldn't believe the public animosity on a personal level in store. Her branch normally runs a reasonable size security team for theft prevention. This team had to be bolstered with a handful of doormen to deal with the physical threats.
If I may take the liberty of repeating myself, the problem would be solved if companies selling gift vouchers were treated as deposit-takers, and were subject to the same rules as other deposit taking institutions re guarantees. Then no-one would have to fear losing their money. As it is, buying gift vouchers seems to be folly.
