JEFF PRESTRIDGE: Magazine row is harming Saga’s reputation… for life

Saga, that lovely organisation set up 72 years ago by Londoner Sidney De Haan to meet the needs of the over-50s, is showing its dark side.

In recent days, it has told one of its longstanding customers, Graeme Forsyth, that it is no longer prepared to communicate with him. This is because of his refusal to accept the company’s decision to stop providing hard copies of its monthly Saga magazine to those who bought lifetime subscriptions in the 1990s and the early 2000s – on the understanding lifetime meant until death.

Saga says it is not viable for the company to continue posting the magazine to lifetime subscribers unless they start paying an annual fee. But they can receive a free digital version (the latest contains an entertaining interview with Sigourney Weaver). It also says the ‘vast majority’ of customers have been understanding about its decision and have readily accepted it.

But not Graeme, nor for that matter many other MoS readers who have written in to complain about the decision since I first raised the issue in these pages at the beginning of June.

John Marrs, from Bangor in North Wales, is among the latest, saying he does not possess any of the ‘modern things’ [mobile phone, computer] necessary to access a digital version.

Although he says an annual subscription of just under £30 would not break the bank, he thought that when he paid his £75 lifetime subscription 25 years ago, he had paid for life. He feels a little cheated.

It’s exactly how Graeme, from near Manningtree in Essex, feels. He has launched a petition asking Saga to honour its promise to provide hard copies for life (a creditable 1,001 signatories so far). Despite breaking ten ribs falling down the stairs at home, Graeme has managed to send a barrage of correspondence to Saga’s chief executive telling him to make a reputational volte-face. It hasn’t worked.

Last week, Saga wrote to him stating: ‘You and your wife took out a lifetime subscription to Saga magazine and by changing from a print to a digital version we continue to fulfil our subscription obligation. We therefore do not consider it necessary to engage in any further correspondence with you on this matter.’

Bolshy. I’m not sure the likes of John Marrs – and many other lifetime subscribers who are digitally excluded – would agree with Saga’s view that it continues to ‘fulfil’ its obligations.

For the life of me, I don’t know why Saga has dug its heels in on this issue.

If I were boss Euan Sutherland, I would back down and honour the original deal customers signed up to. Saga’s intransigence on this issue will cost it more in reputational damage than any savings it makes from denying customers a hard copy of the magazine they love and paid for years ago.

One final point on Saga. Numerous readers have contacted me in recent weeks, incredulous at the increases Saga is demanding for renewing three-year, fixed-price insurance policies.

Yvette Van Lierde drives a 12-year-old Toyota, has a no-claims bonus stretching back the same length of time, and does no more than 3,000 miles a year. For the past three years, she has paid an annual premium of £322. Now, to renew for another three years, Saga wants £776 a year – two and a half times more.

‘No convictions, no accidents, no speeding tickets,’ she says. ‘Maybe the fact that I am now 75 contributes to the price increase.’ Another reader, Derek Brown, from Rushenden in Kent, has been told his three-year, fixed price home insurance with Saga will renew at an annual price of £558 – compared with £254 previously.

‘What really got up my nose,’ he says, ‘is that Saga enclosed a leaflet with the renewal notice explaining what a good deal it was.’

Insurance premiums are currently shooting through the roof – 26 per cent a year for homes (Pearson Ham) and 34 per cent for cars (Consumer Intelligence). But for some Saga customers, they are heading for the stratosphere.

Even the Royals can’t keep this bank branch open for business

Over the next few days, several Barclays branches will be shutting their doors for good – deemed by the bank to be surplus to requirement.

Among them is the branch in my home town of Wokingham which will close at midday on Friday and open no more. It will leave the town with one fewer external cash machine and follows in the footsteps of both Santander and NatWest which have scarpered the high street since I lived there.

Shutting up shop: Barclays is closing several several of its branches, including the one in Windsor (pictured)

Also closing – a few days afterwards – is the Barclays branch in nearby Windsor. Unlike its Wokingham counterpart, which is rather battered and bruised, the Windsor branch is housed in a magnificent four-storey Victorian building.

Located close to the entrance to Windsor Castle, it often forms part of the backdrop to special Royal occasions – and is walked past daily by thousands of visitors to the town.

Seemingly, not enough of them pop in to use the bank’s services. What a shame. Another stab in the heart of face-to-face banking.

Sit tight if you are caught up in car loan legal case

It was good to see our story a week ago on car finance mis-selling get followed up by rival newspapers. As we said at the time, if the legal action launched against the country’s three biggest car finance companies – Lloyds, Santander and MotoNovo – is successful, it could trigger payouts of up to £1 billion, shared across a million motorists.

The action stems from motorists being overcharged for car loans between 2015 and 2021 – a result of car dealers selling finance at premium interest rates in return for higher commission from the lenders. The practice – discretionary commission – was banned in 2021 to protect consumers. 

Those who were disadvantaged by this unfair practice need do nothing but wait. The case will be brought before the Competition Appeals Tribunal via an ‘opt-out’ action, which means all eligible borrowers will be included.

For the time being, MotoNovo (part of Aldermore Bank) and Santander are remaining shtum about the action, brought by consumer advocate Doug Taylor (ex Which?) and litigation specialist Scott+Scott. 

As for Lloyds, its response was baffling. It said: ‘We are committed to ensuring customers have clear and transparent information so they can make informed decisions about the products they choose. 

Following the FCA’s motor finance market review, new rules were set out for the industry in 2021, which we have implemented. We continue to comply with regulatory requirements that apply in relation to the payment of commission and the disclosure of commission to customers.’

Fine, but this has nothing to do with what Lloyds was up to in the car loan market between 2015 and 2021. Those who believe they could benefit if the claim is successful can follow progress by registering at carfinancingclaim.com.

Premium Bond rates rise again

I am pleased to see that the prize rate for Premium Bonds is rising again from next September, this time from four to 4.65 per cent.

Although ardent reader Edward Browne responded to the rate rise by thanking me for cajoling the boss of National Savings & Investments into this kindly action (Edward loves Premium Bonds), he is mistaken. 

While I have indeed called on numerous occasions for Dax Harkins (NS&I chief executive) to push up the prize rate – especially after an increase in base rate – and he has responded by doing so, I didn’t make such a call seven days ago.

So, dear Edward, thank Mr Harkins this time, not Mr Prestridge.