Consumer Rights re. Event Tickets

OlliesDad

Luckily the small claims court work on the basis of balance of probabilities. The fact the OP would be going to court should be enough to put the balance in their favour in terms of whether they actually attended.

It is usually pretty much impossible to prove that something didn't happen.

JReacher1

ThumbRemote wrote: »

How do you expect the OP to prove they didn't go then? It's not the OPs fault if the racecourse uses a stupid system.

In this case OP will take racecourse to court. OP will state they didn't attend the event. Racecourse could defend the claim by showing OP did attend, but are unable to do so. This is a problem with the racecourses defence, not the OPs claim.

The OP will never go to court. They are looking for a legal argument they can use in any refund request. They may get lucky (and I hope they are) but basically they are hoping that the racecourse caves and refunds just to make them go away (which they may do).

If it goes to court.

The racecourse can prove they sold a ticket to the races to the OP.
They can also prove that the race event took place. They can also prove that they provided a partial refund as one aspect of the event was cancelled (Which is actually very generous). The Op's case is that they decided not to go.

The OP would need to prove that they didn't go or sell the ticket. They should have taken the ticket back as soon as the concert was cancelled.

On a side note by your argument I got a kebab tonight from a takeaway. I got a receipt for the transaction (expenses). I ate the kebab. It sounds like I can take them to court and unless they can prove I was given the kebab I will win my case? I've eaten the evidence. So I can now sue them?

amus

IMO whether I went or not (from what I remember they do scan the tickets as you go in) is irrelevant, the fact is they were unable to deliver on the event advertised. In terms of sales of goods surely the requirement for something to be 'as described' would be applicable here?

JReacher1

amus wrote: »

IMO whether I went or not (from what I remember they do scan the tickets as you go in) is irrelevant, the fact is they were unable to deliver on the event advertised. In terms of sales of goods surely the requirement for something to be 'as described' would be applicable here?

As described gets used a lot on here and I don't think everyone really understands its meaning.

I do hope you get the refund but I'm not convinced if you go to court you'll win.

I would suggest you send one of those letters before actions people seem to mention a lot and just hope that they refund you for convenience. Companies often back down in the face of legal threats. I think that's your best approach.

The worry is that it's a racing night with music at a very famous race course. It's a bit surprising that someone would pay for such an event when they have no interest in the horse racing. I've done these music events before and it's literally an hour of some idiot (Olly Mears I saw). It's not like a proper gig you only get a very reduced set.

Good luck though, make sure to let us know how you get on :-)

OlliesDad

I disagree that the would lose in court. The Supply of Goods and Service act says that it should be 'as described'. Clearly this is not the case.

It was a major change from the advertised event.. a full refund should be given.

JReacher1

OlliesDad wrote: »

I disagree that the would lose in court. The Supply of Goods and Service act says that it should be 'as described'. Clearly this is not the case.

It was a major change from the advertised event.. a full refund should be given.

If you read the Terms and conditions which the OP is expected to have read before agreeing to the contract you will see that this situation is quite clearly described and the consequences are explained.

Before people say "unfair term" I don't see how it can be when the cancelled part is refunded?

Obviously I realise nobody reads these but they are available and would only strengthen Haydocks case if it goes to court.

If you want to read yourself it's appendix 3

http://www.haydock-park.co.uk/sites/default/files/Terms%20and%20Conditions%20of%20Entry%20September%202012.pdf

OlliesDad

JReacher1 wrote: »

If you read the Terms and conditions which the OP is expected to have read before agreeing to the contract you will see that this situation is quite clearly described and the consequences are explained.

Before people say "unfair term" I don't see how it can be when the cancelled part is refunded?

Obviously I realise nobody reads these but they are available and would only strengthen Haydocks case if it goes to court.

If you want to read yourself it's appendix 3

http://www.haydock-park.co.uk/sites/default/files/Terms%20and%20Conditions%20of%20Entry%20September%202012.pdf

Hmm.. certainly muddies the waters for the OP. For anybody else, it is Annex 3 on the T's and C's that they seem to be envoking.

I would certainly question whether they could be enforce under the UCTA as they seem to be saying that they are under no obligation to offer a refund for a material change to the service.

Term 17 of the UCTA reads:

"(b)in respect of a contractual obligation, to render no performance, or to render a performance substantially different from that which the consumer or customer reasonably expected from the contract;"

This would seem to apply here.

JReacher1

OlliesDad wrote: »

Hmm.. certainly muddies the waters for the OP. For anybody else, it is Annex 3 on the T's and C's that they seem to be envoking.

I would certainly question whether they could be enforce under the UCTA as they seem to be saying that they are under no obligation to offer a refund for a material change to the service.

Well exactly whether or not it can be enforced is debatable but they actually have the money so technically have enforced it. The OP could take legal action to try and get the money refunded but despite what everyone is saying on this thread I am not sure it's as clear cut as they think.

My approach would be

1) letter before action stating not as described
2) if they don't cave then just give it up.

I would not like to pay to take this to court for what I can only assume is not a massive amount of money?

JReacher1

OlliesDad wrote: »

Hmm.. certainly muddies the waters for the OP. For anybody else, it is Annex 3 on the T's and C's that they seem to be envoking.

I would certainly question whether they could be enforce under the UCTA as they seem to be saying that they are under no obligation to offer a refund for a material change to the service.

Term 17 of the UCTA reads:

"(b)in respect of a contractual obligation, to render no performance, or to render a performance substantially different from that which the consumer or customer reasonably expected from the contract;"

This would seem to apply here.

It's a race night at a race course which happened! The music part was not the main event. It was an extra which was refunded!

It's a weak pun but you're flogging a dead horse

OlliesDad

JReacher1 wrote: »

It's a race night at a race course which happened! The music part was not the main event. It was an extra which was refunded!

It's a weak pun but you're flogging a dead horse

I was thinking of ways to fit that pun in...

I think that at huge pop star at the climax of the "Haydork Park Music Nights" is not just a race night.

I guess the only way it could be settled would be in court, but I dount it would get that far.