Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • ccalvo23
    • By ccalvo23 4th Oct 17, 2:28 PM
    • 4Posts
    • 0Thanks
    ccalvo23
    Ticketmaster refuse refund
    • #1
    • 4th Oct 17, 2:28 PM
    Ticketmaster refuse refund 4th Oct 17 at 2:28 PM
    Hi guys,

    Hope someone can help.

    A few weeks ago I purchased tickets on ticketmaster for an event that takes place this weekend. Although it was my credit card used they were purchased for my partner. I chose the option of standard post.

    With four working days left until the event the tickets had not arrived. I contacted ticketmaster to locate their whereabouts. Later that day AND AFTER NUMEROUS EMAILS and tweets Ticketmaster responded saying the tickets hadn't been printed and would need to be collected at the box office.

    Immediately I knew this would be an issue. I chose 'standard post' as although it was a more expensive option, under 'box office collection' it clearly stated 'letters of authorisation will not be accepted, cardholder must be present'.

    I informed ticketmaster that I specifically selected post as I will not be in town and need my credit card on my person at that time. They offered to transfer the purchase to my partners card. He doesn't have the required funds.

    Ticketmaster have said without my being present or my partner transferring the purchase, he will be refused entry and I will NOT BE REFUNDED. They refer to their terms and conditions: 'we reserve the right to make tickets available for collection by you at the box office'.

    Leaving aside their tardiness in not contacting me making me aware of the change. Surely this is altering the terms of the contract. I specified 'to be posted'. They have changed the terms, and thus I have the right to refuse those terms? Or am I bound by their unfair terms?

    Last edited by ccalvo23; 04-10-2017 at 2:35 PM.
Page 1
    • BorisThomson
    • By BorisThomson 4th Oct 17, 2:37 PM
    • 405 Posts
    • 632 Thanks
    BorisThomson
    • #2
    • 4th Oct 17, 2:37 PM
    • #2
    • 4th Oct 17, 2:37 PM
    Transfer the required funds to your partner's card.
    • ccalvo23
    • By ccalvo23 4th Oct 17, 2:42 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    ccalvo23
    • #3
    • 4th Oct 17, 2:42 PM
    • #3
    • 4th Oct 17, 2:42 PM
    Can't do it. Only have funds on credit card. That's like a cash transaction, very expensive.

    I'm more interested in my rights anyway. Plus why should I have to incur extra expense? Surely they've changed the terms?
    • BorisThomson
    • By BorisThomson 4th Oct 17, 2:45 PM
    • 405 Posts
    • 632 Thanks
    BorisThomson
    • #4
    • 4th Oct 17, 2:45 PM
    • #4
    • 4th Oct 17, 2:45 PM
    They reserve the right to issue tickets at the box office. You agreed to that when you purchased the tickets.

    The only refund you are entitled to is the cost of postage.

    (You might want to look a the Debtfree Wannabe board whilst you're here.)
    • ccalvo23
    • By ccalvo23 4th Oct 17, 2:57 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    ccalvo23
    • #5
    • 4th Oct 17, 2:57 PM
    • #5
    • 4th Oct 17, 2:57 PM
    They reserve the right to issue tickets at the box office. You agreed to that when you purchased the tickets.
    Originally posted by BorisThomson
    Even though I didn't explicitly agree? I'm sure its buried in their terms and conditons but doesn't it seem pointless to offer postage as an option then?

    This term may apply in ordinary circumstances sure. But when the event EXPLICITLY STATES 'Letters of authorisation not accepted for box office collection, cardholder must be present', doesn't this create extraordinary circumstances?

    Oh and thanks for the debt advice, but I'll be fine.
    Last edited by ccalvo23; 04-10-2017 at 3:09 PM.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 4th Oct 17, 4:58 PM
    • 11,420 Posts
    • 8,592 Thanks
    unholyangel
    • #6
    • 4th Oct 17, 4:58 PM
    • #6
    • 4th Oct 17, 4:58 PM
    They reserve the right to issue tickets at the box office. You agreed to that when you purchased the tickets.

    The only refund you are entitled to is the cost of postage.

    (You might want to look a the Debtfree Wannabe board whilst you're here.)
    Originally posted by BorisThomson
    They could also reserve the right to your first born child - however just because something is said doesn't make it legally enforceable.

    They can't have a clause that allows them to vary the terms of the contract once it has been agreed (at least not without the consumer consenting to the changes). Nor can they have a term which effectively acts as a exclusion clause to absolve them of liability for breach of contract. Even worse is an exclusion clause which has the effect of making the consumer liable for the breach of the company (which this one does). Especially when such a change is to the consumers detriment (ie increased cost, reduced benefit etc).


    However its worth the OP bearing in mind if the company aren't going to overnight the tickets, they may have to make the choice of going out of their way or not going at all as I imagine the time restraints may be an issue.

    OP have you tried contacting your card company and seeing if they can offer any assistance?


    ETA: I've actually just checked the wording of the clause and it says:
    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.
    So no mention of having to collect them in person, only that your booking confirmation & photo ID may be required to collect them. Seems ticketmaster can't even stick to their own terms, never mind sticking to statute!
    Last edited by unholyangel; 04-10-2017 at 6:04 PM.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • ccalvo23
    • By ccalvo23 4th Oct 17, 8:35 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    ccalvo23
    • #7
    • 4th Oct 17, 8:35 PM
    • #7
    • 4th Oct 17, 8:35 PM
    They can't have a clause that allows them to vary the terms of the contract once it has been agreed (at least not without the consumer consenting to the changes). Nor can they have a term which effectively acts as a exclusion clause to absolve them of liability for breach of contract.

    OP have you tried contacting your card company and seeing if they can offer any assistance?
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    Wow.Thanks very much. A very different and much more encouraging response than 'no, terms say no.'

    I was beginning to become quite disheartened that I was going to lose my money and my partner was not going to be able to attend the event.

    Ticketmaster continue to insist that I agreed to their terms that they can make tickets available for box office collection as and when they wish.

    I have sent in a complaint, but after back and forth they are not budging.

    As for the credit card company? What recourse could they offer?
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 4th Oct 17, 9:55 PM
    • 11,420 Posts
    • 8,592 Thanks
    unholyangel
    • #8
    • 4th Oct 17, 9:55 PM
    • #8
    • 4th Oct 17, 9:55 PM
    Specifically mention to them that their term is in breach of unfair term legislation and therefore unenforceable, they cannot use terms to restrict or remove your statutory rights (and attempting to do so may amount to a criminal offence), they cannot make you liable for their breach, they cannot have a contract that is binding on you yet allows them to make changes to what was agreed (so not binding on them), they cannot have a term which effectively allows them to be negligent with impunity, also the terms of the acceptance must exactly match that of the offer (so when you offered to pay x for x number of tickets to be delivered, they need to accept on that basis or there never was any contract between you - any variation in the terms amounts to a counter offer and not acceptance).

    Did you ask them why they require your physical presence at the box office when their terms only make mention of booking confirmation & photo ID?

    Did they comply with the consumer contract (information, cancellation & additional charges) regulations? These regulations require them to provide certain information in a durable medium (websites are not durable, email is but again, not if its a link to a website).

    As for your credit card company....section 75 would be preferable - it makes the card company jointly & severally liable (meaning you have the same rights against them as you do the retailer) but the tickets would need to be over 100 each.

    Alternatively, you should be able to do a chargeback for non-delivery (even if the tickets cost less than 100 each).
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • martinsurrey
    • By martinsurrey 5th Oct 17, 8:47 AM
    • 3,130 Posts
    • 3,821 Thanks
    martinsurrey
    • #9
    • 5th Oct 17, 8:47 AM
    • #9
    • 5th Oct 17, 8:47 AM
    Specifically mention to them that their term is in breach of unfair term legislation and therefore unenforceable, they cannot use terms to restrict or remove your statutory rights (and attempting to do so may amount to a criminal offence), they cannot make you liable for their breach, they cannot have a contract that is binding on you yet allows them to make changes to what was agreed (so not binding on them), they cannot have a term which effectively allows them to be negligent with impunity, also the terms of the acceptance must exactly match that of the offer (so when you offered to pay x for x number of tickets to be delivered, they need to accept on that basis or there never was any contract between you - any variation in the terms amounts to a counter offer and not acceptance).

    Did you ask them why they require your physical presence at the box office when their terms only make mention of booking confirmation & photo ID?

    Did they comply with the consumer contract (information, cancellation & additional charges) regulations? These regulations require them to provide certain information in a durable medium (websites are not durable, email is but again, not if its a link to a website).

    As for your credit card company....section 75 would be preferable - it makes the card company jointly & severally liable (meaning you have the same rights against them as you do the retailer) but the tickets would need to be over 100 each.

    Alternatively, you should be able to do a chargeback for non-delivery (even if the tickets cost less than 100 each).
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    Normally I agree with you unholy, but I don't think its as clear cut as you think.

    The terms of the postage option are that they will attempt to post the tickets but if they are not received in time for the event they must be collected.

    Ticketmaster did not guarantee postage would happen, so guaranteed postage is not a term of the contract.

    OP agreed, and paid for, Ticketmaster to attempt to post the tickets and agreed to collect them if this was not possible, which is what has happened.

    I dont see any breach of contract.
    • Keep pedalling
    • By Keep pedalling 5th Oct 17, 9:06 AM
    • 3,766 Posts
    • 4,028 Thanks
    Keep pedalling
    Can't do it. Only have funds on credit card. That's like a cash transaction, very expensive.

    I'm more interested in my rights anyway. Plus why should I have to incur extra expense? Surely they've changed the terms?
    Originally posted by ccalvo23
    Not as expensive as losing the whole amount.

    TM is giving you the chance to mitigate your losses, which you are refusing to do which will likely mean you will loose a sec 75 claim.

    You say tickets not ticket, so presumably at least one other person is going with your partner, can any of them use their card?
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 5th Oct 17, 5:20 PM
    • 11,420 Posts
    • 8,592 Thanks
    unholyangel
    Normally I agree with you unholy, but I don't think its as clear cut as you think.

    The terms of the postage option are that they will attempt to post the tickets but if they are not received in time for the event they must be collected.

    Ticketmaster did not guarantee postage would happen, so guaranteed postage is not a term of the contract.

    OP agreed, and paid for, Ticketmaster to attempt to post the tickets and agreed to collect them if this was not possible, which is what has happened.

    I dont see any breach of contract.
    Originally posted by martinsurrey
    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:
    Binding consumers where the trader defaults
    Trader’s right to vary terms generally
    Right to determine or change what is supplied
    Allowing the trader to impose unfair financial burdens
    Transferring inappropriate risks to consumers
    Exclusions and reservations of special rights
    Trader’s discretion in relation to obligations
    Exclusion and limitation clauses in general
    2(f) Exclusion of liability for delay
    2(g) Exclusion of liability for failure to perform contractual obligations (pay particular attention to paragraph 5.10.3)
    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:

    Part 1 of Schedule 2 states that the following may be unfair:
    (2) A term which has the object or effect of inappropriately excluding
    or limiting the legal rights of the consumer in relation to the trader
    or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or
    inadequate performance by the trader of any of the contractual
    obligations
    , including the option of offsetting a debt owed to the
    trader against any claim which the consumer may have against
    the trader.
    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?
    Last edited by unholyangel; 05-10-2017 at 5:23 PM.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • martinsurrey
    • By martinsurrey 6th Oct 17, 10:12 AM
    • 3,130 Posts
    • 3,821 Thanks
    martinsurrey
    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?
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    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.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 6th Oct 17, 2:57 PM
    • 11,420 Posts
    • 8,592 Thanks
    unholyangel
    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.
    Originally posted by martinsurrey
    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".
    Last edited by unholyangel; 06-10-2017 at 2:59 PM.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • martinsurrey
    • By martinsurrey 6th Oct 17, 3:16 PM
    • 3,130 Posts
    • 3,821 Thanks
    martinsurrey

    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".
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    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!

    Plus ticketmaster print their own tickets (take it you've never bought any?). OP even told us:
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    From final information passed to them by the venue. All ticketmaster sales are subject to final confirmation by the venue.

    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.
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    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...
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 6th Oct 17, 3:35 PM
    • 11,420 Posts
    • 8,592 Thanks
    unholyangel
    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...
    Originally posted by martinsurrey
    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.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • martinsurrey
    • By martinsurrey 6th Oct 17, 3:43 PM
    • 3,130 Posts
    • 3,821 Thanks
    martinsurrey
    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.
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    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.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 6th Oct 17, 6:39 PM
    • 11,420 Posts
    • 8,592 Thanks
    unholyangel
    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.
    Originally posted by martinsurrey
    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.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
    • sheramber
    • By sheramber 6th Oct 17, 8:22 PM
    • 3,760 Posts
    • 2,771 Thanks
    sheramber
    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.
    • stuartJo1989
    • By stuartJo1989 6th Oct 17, 8:26 PM
    • 143 Posts
    • 113 Thanks
    stuartJo1989
    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.
    Originally posted by unholyangel
    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.
    Last edited by stuartJo1989; 06-10-2017 at 8:35 PM.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 7th Oct 17, 12:38 PM
    • 11,420 Posts
    • 8,592 Thanks
    unholyangel
    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.
    Originally posted by stuartJo1989
    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.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

139Posts Today

2,288Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin