Park Christmas Savings Club - is it just a big rip-off?

[FatherJackHackettsUnderpantsHamper]

Now that Christmas 2023 is over, there are loads of adverts on TV for Park, which supposedly helps you to save to pay for Christmas 2024.

However, their main advertised 'benefit' is that you save a certain amount each month and then get it back in time for Christmas in vouchers.

No mention of them paying any interest on the money you're lending them for up to 12 months; and they also obviously massively limit the buying ability of all the money you save - so not only can you not buy any goods that are only available from places that don't accept the vouchers, but you also can't shop around if 'non-voucher' places have the same goods but at cheaper prices. And are the vouchers widely accepted, or are they just for buying from their own catalogue?

What is the actual point in this company? I get that many people - especially those on low incomes - really appreciate the structured discipline and find the regular commitment to saving helpful, but why does it have to be returned in vouchers? Why not just a 'save money, get your money paid back into your bank account/withdraw it in cash in December' scheme - even if they didn't pay any interest in order to pay for/make a profit for running the scheme?

Am I missing something here? What is the benefit of this? And are there now protections in place so that poor folk can't lose all of their savings in another Farepak-type scandal? Why do people bother with this - and effectively reduce the spending power of their limited Christmas budgets even further?

'It's an exploitative poverty trap for people who struggle to manage their money.'

I'm not poor nor do i struggle to manage my money ,i used Park for quite a few years so did my mother.
We saved for vouchers only such as M&S it was a manageable amount each month and was good to know it was building up without being able to dip into.
I buy throughout the year and save too and with the vouchers had christmas sorted.
Both myself and my mom stopped using them a couple of Christmas's ago as we now buy less gifts and give cash more so.
I never bought from their gift catalogue but can't fault the company regards my experience with saving for vouchers.

So would you just do without a fridge for a while, then? That's a genuine question.

As I said, I see the thinking if it stops you from spending here and there on takeaways, Starbucks, glossy magazines or similar - but would you really rather do without essentials like a fridge, in favour of the promise of more/better Christmas presents?

I wouldn't rather do without a fridge so I could have a better Xmas.

I would have to be skint at Xmas so that we could have a fridge!

I have some money in my savings. £190 to be exact, I've just mentioned it on the How Skint Are You thread!
I like to have some money that can't be used for emergencies, hence Park savings. It works for me.

I am not saying that this is the OP but some people really are being very sneery.

It doesnt work for you? fine, dont do it. But why look down on those that do?

I agree that ordering say a Playstation and paying for it over the year is a rip off as they are usually overpriced to start with, a bit like the Brighthouse scam. And the hampers, yes a total rip off but I dont know anyone who has ever done that. With the vouchers you get out exactly what you put in, in a format that suits you. And for people who might be tempted to "borrow" a bit out of their savings on a tight month, and then not put it back, its nice to know that Xmas is sorted and cant be dipped into. Not least because it means literally not one thought about it until shopping day. Just look at MN before Xmas 23, a lot of threads of people saying that they were worrying about how to pay for it, about COL and how it would mean that have had to really cut back. It caused a lot of sadness and stress.

And some people just are not good with money! "Why not just save in the bank" is fine if you are able to do that but some people really aren't, they lack the self control to not say "Oh sod it" on a bad day and splash out on something to cheer themselves up. I know because I am one of those people! But if they are self aware enough to know that they are not good with money management and use tools available to save themselves from themselves, then that is a good thing surely? It reduces the likelihood of using credit or payday loans or some such.

I really dont get the hate that some people are showing here.

It’s really offensive that everyone keeps saying ‘poor people’. I am not poor.

And lets face it, there is a definite implication that poor=stupid.

I am one but not the other.

I know that it's not only poor people who use Park (although are you suggesting that being poor is somehow shameful?); but which demographic do you honestly think it's mainly aimed at and are attracted by what it offers?

Do you really think all the MNers on 'mid 6-figure salaries' are rushing to sign up, to ensure that they can afford Christmas?

So what is your point?

People on lower incomes tend to use savings schemes....as they have done for centuries. FFS one of the biggest soap opera stories in the 80's was Arthur Fowler spending the Xmas club money in Eastenders! So what?

A company has been set up to make a profit from this.....again, so what?

No one is being ripped off, no one is complaining except those smug enough to not want it. Its no different from you Grandmother buying a 50p stamp to stick in her savings book at Co-op towards Xmas 50 years ago, which was arguably a hell of a lot more restrictive than buying a couple of hundreds quids worth of amazon vouchers.

The only person making the connection that poor is shameful is you btw. But to imply that poor equals stupid is fucking insulting.

Thanks, PyongyangKipperbang - absolutely, that was my thinking: something like Brighthouse. I used to hate walking past their shops in the shopping centres and knowing that they existed to exploit some of the poorest people in society.

I was angry at the company; most definitely not sneering at their customers. I personally don't think that their customers were stupid at all, as their headline items were things like sofas, washing machines and fridges: nothing that is at all unreasonable to aspire to owning in the UK.

Anybody can be stupid, regardless of their wealth; it's just that better-off people have a much bigger cushion and a lot further to fall before they really suffer.

YANBU. If people would benefit from the structure of putting it away every month and not having access to tempt them to spend it earlier then a regular saver would be a better idea. I use a 12 month regular saver November-October payments, then get the money in November on the anniversary of starting it. Last year I got £44.30 interest in cash not vouchers. This year has a better interest rate so it will be a bit more.

I think losing £44 and getting vouchers instead of money is a bad financial decision and a really bad offer. It's not a huge loss but I see no benefit in the scheme.

The only person making the connection that poor is shameful is you btw. But to imply that poor equals stupid is fucking insulting.

Where have I said, or even implied, that being poor equals stupid? As I have already clearly said, I fully agree with you that to say that 'poor equals stupid' is insulting.

How else would you interpret this - part of the post that I was responding to - other than suggesting that it is shameful to be poor?

"It’s really offensive that everyone keeps saying ‘poor people’. I am not poor."

Can't believe how stuck up your replies are!

Whom was that addressed to?

Do you mean me, or some of the replies to my OP?

For the record, I'm not well-off at all, but thankfully not (any more) on the breadline. Some folk seem to have taken offence at my concern for less well-off people potentially being exploited and ripped off - although, as I have already said, I wasn't aware that you could get your money back in vouchers that can be used very widely, and I adjusted my feelings somewhat in light of this.

But you didnt say "less well off" or even "people on lower incomes" you said "poor".

Others have been as equally derisive by saying "poor" in such a way as to imply lack of capacity or critical thinking.

I am, to use your own choice of word, poor. I feel no shame over this. The only people who should feel shame over people in the UK living in poverty are the employers who pay less than a living wage, successive governments who pay sick and disability pay/benefits at below sustenance level (if they are paid at all and only after appeals) and those same governments who realised that its costs them less to pay people like me £73 a week to be full time carers to their loved ones rather than provide care through social or medical services.

No one made the poverty/shame connection before you did. Which says more about you than us.

Incidentally.....it's Who, not whom

I absolutely love it! We go and do the Christmas food shop with the vouchers and we can sling in whatever we want in the trolley as it’s technically paid for already!

This year I added in vouchers for the kids we buy for as I knew with a newborn in the house we wouldn’t have much time to actually go shopping!!

OK, I take your point - and I apologise for any misunderstanding of my intentions.

I didn't know that 'poor' was considered such a loaded word to some. When I was on the breadline, as far as I was concerned, I was poor - and miserable - and somebody looking for a euphemism to try to make me feel less so wouldn't really have made any difference at all to me.

I completely agree with you that the only shame should be held by the wealthy people - individuals, companies, governments - deliberately exploiting those with very little money by ripping off, underpaying, undervaluing and treating other people as less than human in an attempt to profit themselves (be it financially, politically or otherwise). That was my purpose for starting the thread: because I suspected that Park may be seeking to do the same, although others have clarified the situation and I have conceded that it is not the terrible deal that I feared it might be.

I cannot speak for other posters' pov or choice of words; I am not them, nor do I know them.

I only responded to the, as you call it, poverty/shame connection when I asked PP to clarify their statement that I found shocking. The statement was, as I have quoted before:

"It’s really offensive that everyone keeps saying ‘poor people’. I am not poor."

I asked you before, and you didn't answer me; neither did the PP whom I asked for that clarification. In the absence of the latter, how else would you interpret somebody saying "It's offensive that you say X [with the possible implication that X might include them], I am not X" ?

PP could easily have said 'surprising' or 'misinformed' when 'poor' people were being referred to in connection with this - not that I personally did suggest that only less well-off people would choose to take part in something that would look to be aimed at and of most interest to people who are not wealthy - but instead they chose 'offensive'.

Incidentally.....it's Who, not whom

Technically, it should have been 'to whom was that addressed', but I didn't put that as I had seemingly already been called stuck-up!

Nevertheless, the word 'to' - albeit maybe not in the best syntactical position - requires 'whom', not 'who' in this context. You can always tell whether you should use 'who' or 'whom' by answering the question being asked and swapping who/whom for 'he' or 'him' and it will be obvious - with the two words ending in 'm' correlating:

Who was that addressed to?
It was addressed to he.

Whom was that addressed to?
It was addressed to him.

Or, to put it another way, would you write 'to whom it may concern' or 'to who it may concern'?

Two points.

Firstly, I take that you didnt actually imply that poor=stupid, others did that. For that I apologise for taking my annoyance out on you!

Secondly, I dont know if that particular poster thinks that being poor is shameful but, I am poor and I am not ashamed. I am poor because Covid killed my career and now I am a full time carer to my parent and it pays the princely sum of £73 a week. Less than a professional full time carer for a person with my parent's issues earns in a day........

But back to your original point, I use Park because, high or low earnings, I am shit with money. The more I have the more I spend, so I have used it to save for Xmas for years, I just saved more when I was earning more. It didnt cost me anything, in fact I would say that it has saved me because I would spend my savings and then have to pay for Xmas on top, whereas with the vouchers I couldnt spend them until I had them.

And I was just being a dick for the fun of it! Can you tell I dont like being called stupid?!

And yes I was also thinking "To Whom...." but, didnt want to push the point too far!

For some people, it's the best idea. All well and good saying just save it yourself, but not everyone can, does. If the money is held by a company, you can't just spend it on an emergency, so for some people enforced saving is best. Of course the company makes money, but I don't think they are taking advantage of people and the vouchers can be used with enough places that they work well for some folk

Or, to put it another way, would you write 'to whom it may concern' or 'to who it may concern

Neither.

For the attention of Whomsoever it should concern.

This