Ticketmaster refuse refund
Options
Comments
-
unholyangel wrote: »To the contrary, I don't think its as clear cut at all like boris or ticketmaster are suggesting.
They can't have a term allowing them discretion not to provide part of the contract as agreed - that goes beyond a merely technical change (which is allowed providing you adequately draw attention to it and don't bury it in T&C's). One of the elements required to have a legally binding contract is certainty - such a term conflicts with that principle.
If you still doubt what I'm saying, check out the CMA's Unfair Term Guidance and in particular what it says under the headings:
I've quoted the headings rather than paragraphs as theres just far too much to quote. Even just to quote the paragraphs that are most relevant would still result in at least 10 paragraphs being quoted. But I'll settle for this one:
Given how many headings it seems to conflict with, I'd say there is little (if any) doubt that the term would indeed be found to be unfair.
ETA: To highlight how absurd such a term is. What if you ordered a 3 piece suite from a retailer, they didn't send it out and then used a similar term to try and tell you that they weren't going to deliver it and instead you must collect it from their store - even if that involves considerable expense, time & inconvenience for you - and you're not entitled to a refund. Would you still think the term was fair?
Again your highlighted section relates to contractual terms.
What were the terms of the contract the OP agreed to?
https://www.ticketmaster.co.uk/legal/purchase.html
5. Delivery
5.4 We reserve the right to make tickets available for collection by you at the venue box office. We will notify you by telephone or email of the arrangements for collection (using the details provided by you at the time of ordering) if this becomes necessary. You may be required to provide your booking confirmation email and your photo ID to collect tickets.
again, this isn't ticketmaster being a pain, they sometimes don't receive the tickets from the venue until its too late to post, which they explain in their t&c, so its nothing like your sofa example.
The sofa company are only not delivering because they cant be bothered.
As you know the unfair terms rules always look at "good faith", is the term there to unfairly penalise the consumer, and are the terms fair.
In this case its very easy to argue that if the tickets are only available to ticketmaster a few days before the event, its generally in the consumers interest for the tickets NOT to be posted, but collected from the venue, making the term fair.0 -
martinsurrey wrote: »Again your highlighted section relates to contractual terms.
What were the terms of the contract the OP agreed to?
https://www.ticketmaster.co.uk/legal/purchase.html
5. Delivery
5.4 We reserve the right to make tickets available for collection by you at the venue box office. We will notify you by telephone or email of the arrangements for collection (using the details provided by you at the time of ordering) if this becomes necessary. You may be required to provide your booking confirmation email and your photo ID to collect tickets.
again, this isn't ticketmaster being a pain, they sometimes don't receive the tickets from the venue until its too late to post, which they explain in their t&c, so its nothing like your sofa example.
The sofa company are only not delivering because they cant be bothered.
As you know the unfair terms rules always look at "good faith", is the term there to unfairly penalise the consumer, and are the terms fair.
In this case its very easy to argue that if the tickets are only available to ticketmaster a few days before the event, its generally in the consumers interest for the tickets NOT to be posted, but collected from the venue, making the term fair.
I take it you haven't read the sections under the headings I highlighted?
Anyway, that term only requires booking email & photo ID, not the person themselves.
Plus ticketmaster print their own tickets (take it you've never bought any?). OP even told us:
.Ticketmaster responded saying the tickets hadn't been printed and would need to be collected at the box office
So it doesn't seem to be an issue with their supplier at all but I'd point out that a company can't disclaim liability for the failures of its third party providers.
It could potentially be a fair term if they had adequately highlighted it/brought it to the consumers attention - but you point blank cannot hide significantly detrimental terms like that in the small print and have them be binding on a consumer.
Although to actually have a good chance at being found a fair term, the consumer would have to be given the right to cancel without otherwise being worse off for entering the contract.
You don't seem to understand how severe terms are that not only exclude a providers liability for failing to perform any part of the contract but go even further by requiring the consumer to remain bound to their obligations.
Or terms that have the effect of restricting or removing rights that the consumer would otherwise have in law - never mind terms that restrict/remove rights while also placing potentially significant & costly burdens on the consumer due to a failure on their own part.
Plus the terms of the acceptance need to exactly match that of the offer. If one party offers "i'd like to exchange my £x for 2 tickets to be delivered in exchange for £x" you can't have acceptance as "I'll exchange 2 tickets for £x and may or may not exchange delivery for £x".You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
unholyangel wrote: »
Plus the terms of the acceptance need to exactly match that of the offer. If one party offers "i'd like to exchange my £x for 2 tickets to be delivered in exchange for £x" you can't have acceptance as "I'll exchange 2 tickets for £x and may or may not exchange delivery for £x".
you KEEP saying that but its NOT what was agreed
actually
one party said
"we offer you 2 tickets for £XX. We will attempt to deliver them to you, but if for practical reasons the tickets are not available until close to the event they will need to be collected from the venue, do you agree?"
and the OP agreed!unholyangel wrote: »Plus ticketmaster print their own tickets (take it you've never bought any?). OP even told us:
From final information passed to them by the venue. All ticketmaster sales are subject to final confirmation by the venue.unholyangel wrote: »Although to actually have a good chance at being found a fair term, the consumer would have to be given the right to cancel without otherwise being worse off for entering the contract.
that is for changes to contract terms, this is not a change in terms.
we could go around all day, but OP isn't going to win this one outside of court, and given that this hasnt been tested despite being a term for years on a massive site goes a long way...0 -
martinsurrey wrote: »you KEEP saying that but its NOT what was agreed
actually
one party said
"we offer you 2 tickets for £XX. We will attempt to deliver them to you, but if for practical reasons the tickets are not available until close to the event they will need to be collected from the venue, do you agree?"
and the OP agreed!
From final information passed to them by the venue. All ticketmaster sales are subject to final confirmation by the venue.
that is for changes to contract terms, this is not a change in terms.
we could go around all day, but OP isn't going to win this one outside of court, and given that this hasnt been tested despite being a term for years on a massive site goes a long way...
They didn't make the offer. Theirs was an invitation to treat.
Their terms even state:2.2 Your contract for purchase of an Item starts once we have confirmed your purchase and ends immediately after the completion of the event for which you have purchased the Item
Which is incompatible with them making the offer & the buyer accepting because acceptance is effective as soon its communicated - thats when the contract comes into existence. You don't have offer + acceptance + offerors acceptance of the acceptance.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
unholyangel wrote: »They didn't make the offer. Theirs was an invitation to treat.
Their terms even state:
Which is incompatible with them making the offer & the buyer accepting because acceptance is effective as soon its communicated - thats when the contract comes into existence. You don't have offer + acceptance + offerors acceptance of the acceptance.
You are arguing semantics, but not the core principle.
The accepted offer in the contract wasn't for delivery, it was for attempted delivery if possible or box office collection if not possible.
that was in the invitation to treat that the OP then offered by booking and paying (no doubt ticking "I agree to the terms and conditions"), and Ticketmaster accepted by accepting the order.
That was the contractual term.0 -
martinsurrey wrote: »You are arguing semantics, but not the core principle.
The accepted offer in the contract wasn't for delivery, it was for attempted delivery if possible or box office collection if not possible.
that was in the invitation to treat that the OP then offered by booking and paying (no doubt ticking "I agree to the terms and conditions"), and Ticketmaster accepted by accepting the order.
That was the contractual term.
Yes the offer included delivery - do you understand how contracts are formed and what the necessary elements are? Specifically around consideration and intention to create legal relations? You cannot have a contract with a term that allows you to fail to provide the consideration you agreed to provide because it conflicts with the required intent to be legally bound.
They were specifically paid separate consideration for the obligation of delivering so they need to provide it and if not, they are liable for the damages incurred, not the consumer.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
If photo ID is required it will have to be ID for the name on the ticket. If that is the cardholder then the cardholder will need to be present.
Note, Ticketmaster have said without my being present or my partner transferring the purchase, he will be refused entry No mention of picking up tickets but for entry to the event.
photo ID is required to prevent ticket touts selling on tickets.
There have been reports of people being denied entry to an event after buying a ticket form a reseller site.0 -
unholyangel wrote: »Yes the offer included delivery - do you understand how contracts are formed and what the necessary elements are? Specifically around consideration and intention to create legal relations? You cannot have a contract with a term that allows you to fail to provide the consideration you agreed to provide because it conflicts with the required intent to be legally bound.
They were specifically paid separate consideration for the obligation of delivering so they need to provide it and if not, they are liable for the damages incurred, not the consumer.
The damages presumably being reimbursement of the postage costs paid?
I just personally can't get my head around the fact that the contract was created between OP and ticketmaster (TM) and that TM are more than willing to hand over the tickets to the person who is in contract with them. Seems perfectly fair to me.... (except for extra postage costs which NEED to be reimbursed). I can't see a breach there! Also, the postage element seems extremely unimportant here because it is entirely reasonable for TM to assume that the card holder was going to attend the concert! They were sending out the tickets to their address for goodness sake! Not posting the tickets would almost never be a dealbreaker for the consumer, this is just a very uncommon case of where it is...
Plus, can you actually gift concert tickets to other people? I am reminded of ticket touts and recent terror attacks; it may be wise if ticket offices were ensuring that the tickets are intended for the CONTRACT HOLDER (as in this case), not least because it creates a nice little audit trail to follow if needs be...
TM have also offered to transfer ownership, again creating a sort of paper trail so that they know who purchased the tickets and who is (likely) attending. This isn't unreasonable and it is by virtue of OP being unable to pass money over (they paid for the tickets in the first place and won't be double charged...) that the situation hasn't been resolved.
Hey ho, some people like doing things the hard way.... Relying on people like you (who, I must say, is extremely clued up on consumer law but I fear could be slightly more academic than practical) to find ways out of the contract instead of just reading it in the first place/admitting their misjudgement and planning around it.0 -
stuartJo1989 wrote: »The damages presumably being reimbursement of the postage costs paid?
I just personally can't get my head around the fact that the contract was created between OP and ticketmaster (TM) and that TM are more than willing to hand over the tickets to the person who is in contract with them. Seems perfectly fair to me.... (except for extra postage costs which NEED to be reimbursed). I can't see a breach there! Also, the postage element seems extremely unimportant here because it is entirely reasonable for TM to assume that the card holder was going to attend the concert! They were sending out the tickets to their address for goodness sake! Not posting the tickets would almost never be a dealbreaker for the consumer, this is just a very uncommon case of where it is...
Plus, can you actually gift concert tickets to other people? I am reminded of ticket touts and recent terror attacks; it may be wise if ticket offices were ensuring that the tickets are intended for the CONTRACT HOLDER (as in this case), not least because it creates a nice little audit trail to follow if needs be...
TM have also offered to transfer ownership, again creating a sort of paper trail so that they know who purchased the tickets and who is (likely) attending. This isn't unreasonable and it is by virtue of OP being unable to pass money over (they paid for the tickets in the first place and won't be double charged...) that the situation hasn't been resolved.
Hey ho, some people like doing things the hard way.... Relying on people like you (who, I must say, is extremely clued up on consumer law but I fear could be slightly more academic than practical) to find ways out of the contract instead of just reading it in the first place/admitting their misjudgement and planning around it.
No, as I said above, damages would be assessed on the basis of putting the OP back into the position they would have been in had the contract been performed correctly. If that is not possible, then they will look to put them back into the position they would have been in had they not entered the contract.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
I realise this is a little after the fact since the event was to take place last weekend however, oddly enough I had a similar issue, bought tickets as a gift for someone and they didn't arrive - normally not an issue as I can just go pick them up and then give them the tickets but this time I was abroad during the event.
The event itself was for Impractical Jokers in the Manchester Arena, now ticketmaster had suggested the letter of authentication and told me to search for their template online, the template page lists the arenas that will accept it and Manchester was not on there.
I told ticketmaster about this and they emailed the promoter directly who then confirmed they would in fact accept the letter and send me email confirmation. Obviously this makes no mention to your rights e.t.c I'll leave that to the people above but for anyone else who may come across this in the future, it is worth just giving them a call and seeing if there is anything they can do they do seem quite good at trying to get you into the event rather than just saying "Oh well sorry better luck next time".0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards