Q&A: The Farepak hamper collapse

[the_leander]

The collapse of Christmas hamper firm Farepak has cost thousands of families their annual savings.

There have been pledges of help and an inquiry into what went wrong, though it now looks unlikely that any of the savers will get their money back.

[Catherine Edmunds]

I have never understood why people pay a sum all through the year to firms like Farepak, when they could pay the same sum into a building society savings account and get a bit of interest. I have also never understood why the poorest people think they must spend so much money on presents -- upgrading their eight year old daughter's plasma telly, and that sort of thing.

There was a piece in the Northern Echo the other week by Sharon Griffiths, advising on budgeting for Christmas. After all the usual advice about avoiding store cards and finding the cheapest rate credit cards, she ended with one piece of advice that she admitted would be unpopular, but was the best: spend less. It's like telling fat people to eat less. Unpopular, but really, it's the only way.

When, a few years ago, all those Lloyds 'names' lost all that money, we were happy to laugh at them. Rich people losing money seem to be fair game. It's much more difficult to laugh at the Farepak customers, and I'm not about to do it. Unlike the names, they weren't gambling. Their money should have been safe. But still... there were much safer ways to save for Christmas. They could have been buying small presents through the year. They could realise that actually you don't need to stock up with food or get a hamper because the supermarkets are only going to be closed for a day or two, and you don't actually have to eat more at Christmas than any other time. A bloated gut does not equate with happiness.

Did the bank behave badly? No, I don't think so. They're a business, not a charity. Did Farepak behave badly, continuing to accept payments? Again, they're a business, and that's what businesses in a capitalist society have to do in an attempt to cut their losses when they're in trouble.

We choose the society we live in. We can't really complain when companies try their best to survive at the expense of the 'little people', because that's what capitalism's all about. Market forces. Thatcher might be gone, but unfortunately her legacy lingers.

[the_leander]

The basic reason why is simple - if you put it into a bank account or similar, there is always the temptation of "well, I'm a bit short this week so I'll borrow from the fund and pay back later". If you've lived right on or below the poverty line for as long as I have, it'd make a lot more sense I guess. Yes there are better ways, but this way garunteed that the money would go toward christmas, well, supposedly.

Did Farepak behave badly, continuing to accept payments? Again, they're a business, and that's what businesses in a capitalist society have to do in an attempt to cut their losses when they're in trouble.

I'd have to disagree here, Farepak had a responsibility to it's customers, it failed them by saying nothing. Essentially, if they had not been bought out, they would actually probably still be here.

One thing I was surprised at - Sainsburys and Tescos putting in so much cash to help out - yes it's good PR and business for them, but at the same time, it's also something they didn't have to do.

[spacecadet]

Did I hear Sir Paul McCartney saying something about this on the news last night?

Now we've got a bandwaggon, let's get Jamie Oliver to do a new series called "Christmas Lunches".

[Louis P. Burns aka Lugh]

I'd rather it was Keith Floyd. He used to crack me up in every episode...

With reference to Farepak; Read their small print and see if they have any disclaimers that protect them in cases like this.

[the_leander]

They may well have disclaimers about this that and the other, but even if they are indeed liable (they are), chances are people won't see a penny of their cash back since there isn't any due to the company's debts.

[spacecadet]

The law for limited liability in this case is that the company may not be pursued beyond it's own assets unless it can be proved that they continued to accept moneys for unsupplied goods after they were certain that the company was unviable.

I learnt this the hard way when I was wiped out by a business owing me as much money as my house was worth. The sod who did it to me took the software which I wrote which by agreement he retained the copy too and started up another company down the road in his wifes name a few days later. At the end of all the court battles I received just over £375 instead of the "house" that I was owed. <----- hence nervous breakdown, loss of house, near loss of marriage and the taking up of writing bad poetry.

[Louis P. Burns aka Lugh]

People like that never have any real luck Dave. PM his details to me if you want and I'll have some fun scaring the crap outta him.

Plagerists have it coming to them every time. They're a feckin' disease mate...

[spacecadet]

My hatred consumed me and turned me into someone I did not recognise. I have finally managed to put it to one side and revenge is a mask I will not wear again. I am me and I am free.

It's gone.

As one of the greatest philosiphers of the age said, "That which we survive makes us stronger." That was either Ghandi or the narrator on "Conan the Barbarian", can't remember which.









(besides - I told his wife about him ****ing his P.A.)

[Louis P. Burns aka Lugh]

My hatred consumed me and turned me into someone I did not recognise. I have finally managed to put it to one side and revenge is a mask I will not wear again. I am me and I am free.

It's gone.

Fair play to you then Dave. Some of us choose a more direct path towards people who mess with us. Either way, it all ends the same and they are revealed. I'm not sure if investigating and handing findings over to relevent authorities (which is how I deal with these kinds of people) is revenge though. I see it more as an obligation to prevent further people being exploited or hurt. Still, each to their own, innit?

As one of the greatest philosiphers of the age said, "That which we survive makes us stronger." That was either Ghandi or the narrator on "Conan the Barbarian", can't remember which.

Didn't Ghandi endorse lying down, casting no stones and being killed if needs be, until all 'enemies' get tired? Something like that. He was nutted by some freak with a gun. I wonder how it all turned out for him. He never got back to us...

(besides - I told his wife about him ****ing his P.A.)

Well played mate - On With The Revelation / Revolution ...

[spacecadet]

You have to remember what you are trying to achieve when extracting revenge as it is an ugly thing to be slave to. A scorched earth policy is fine if it's 1812. And you're Russian. And the French are coming. But it's a shite way to live your life in the 21st century.

[Louis P. Burns aka Lugh]

You have to remember what you are trying to achieve when extracting revenge as it is an ugly thing to be slave to. A scorched earth policy is fine if it's 1812. And you're Russian. And the French are coming. But it's a shite way to live your life in the 21st century.

Hi Dave ...

I think we've allowed this thread of Alan's to become something other than he may have planned for it. It is for this reason that I have opened up another thread that aims to explore all aspects of percieved revenge. To get to it, please click here.

Apologies to Alan for stalling this thread...