Been predicted for a while but looks likely tomorrow http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4096aee-5e82-11e2-a771-00144feab49a.html#axzz2Hz53czjx More imminent store closures and job losses.
30 days protection would probably be an acceptable compromise to all parties.
That would protect customers from the Christmas peak voucher sales period into the most likely period that retailers seem to go bust. It would give directors a legal way of still being able to sell the vouchers without being accused of fraudulent trading. And the major creditors still get a reasonable chance of getting more of their money back if the company can trade a little longer without an administration scare frightening customers away at the drop of a hat.
In my experience most young people cash their vouchers in pretty quickly.
There was also the feeling that although the sales of them were still made until the eleventh hour so as not to announce to the world an imminent company collapse, and that technically it is fraudulent trading as the directors knew they would not be honoured.
The practise is rife but not just with fairly low value vouchers, in the past it has been alleged that Airlines have taken deposits right up until the 11th hour and I am aware personally of one major furniture chain who continued taken orders with deposit up until the administration announcement.
I have often stated that the administration laws in this country mount to the point of a joke on quite a number of issues.
The problem is as stated by the person in the link who took action upon himself in regards to 'paid for vouchers'. People tend to get convinced that there is nothing they can do, except perhaps break the law, by stealing things them self (taking goods without accepted payment).
Over the past few years, there have been a number of increased incidents regarding not honouring vouchers, credit notes, tokens, promises and that included once well known high street traders, doing exactly the same thing.
The other point to consider, is that some of these companies (big or small) are very deep in debt, and the director's may well know this. Yet they will still make and take decisions that may benefit them self, and not the customer. And the law allows them to do this.
If HMV do cease to trade completely, because a buyer cannot be supposedly found, who will pick up the previous wage bill, or even the settlement of any redundancy payments, I suppose that will fall on the taxpayer. I appreciate that some companies pay an awful lot of tax, but others seem to get away with paying very little, compared to the profits that can and are being made in some form or manner?.
We have given vouchers in the past, as somehow, irrationally in some ways , they seemed more personal than a cheque. We gave vouchers for Threshers to a wine lover, but we lost out and sent a cheque instead when they went bust. We did, cautiously, send Waterstones vouchers to a book lover this last Christmas.In view of Jessops, Threshers,HMV I think we will adopt the cheque route in future, even if it seems less personal in some ways.
All I know is that I definitely won't be buying anything from any HMV store until they allow me to use my remaining credit.
That's a couple of my Xmas presents gone.
You're quite right about your reasoning of a specific voucher being more personal, it also ensures that that is what is bought.
When I was a young 'un, if I was given a book token, I obviously bought a book with it, when other aunties gave me a ten bob note to buy books, I spent it in the sweet shop!
And likewise with adults, a cheque paid into an adult's account can very easily end up paying the gas bill or worse still, paying off the credit card balance of the present you received from the same person!
Accepting vouchers from tomorrow http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21118711
I don't know what HMV vouchers have to do with our local Cooperative store, unless they use to sell them. But a notice went up in the store yesterday, giving telephone contact details for the redemption of the vouchers.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.