Alton Towers Promo - Mobile Vs Pc Browser

Les79

Fair enough, I wish you all the best. Maybe your CC company will help, or maybe Alton Towers will dispute it. Who knows.. We certainly can't call that one.

Final thoughts from me though:

1. How did you know that the offer was relevant to you? People don't put £220 down without establishing whether or not the tickets they receive cover their party. In that respect, maybe you did initially visit a part of the website which had the Ts and Cs clearly on display? You may just have "selective memory" (ie you didn't read everything, only the part which confirmed that it suited your needs in terms of how many people) perhaps?

2. You pay £220 for an item without scoping out the Ts and Cs? Seems a bit reckless to me...

Anyways, good luck.

k3lvc

uktivo wrote: »

Unfortunately, not every person is perfect. I agree I made a mistake not seeing these restrictions, but that's exactly my point. Something I would normally see, in fact, if I'd used a pc or used the drop down menu option on the mobile browser instead of clicking the advertising banner.. These restrictions would have been made clear to me.. As I didn't, I believe I've not had the restrictions clearly shown to me prior to purchase.

Quoted for posterity - hopefully the credit card company see this and see it in the same way everyone else has. The T&C's are clear and available for those that choose to see them - you chose not to and are now clutching at straws to get a refund :mad: - this is bad consumer practise

uktivo

Fair enough, I wish you all the best. Maybe your CC company will help, or maybe Alton Towers will dispute it. Who knows.. We certainly can't call that one.

Final thoughts from me though:

1. How did you know that the offer was relevant to you? People don't put £220 down without establishing whether or not the tickets they receive cover their party. In that respect, maybe you did initially visit a part of the website which had the Ts and Cs clearly on display? You may just have "selective memory" (ie you didn't read everything, only the part which confirmed that it suited your needs in terms of how many people) perhaps?

2. You pay £220 for an item without scoping out the Ts and Cs? Seems a bit reckless to me...

I really don't understand your question. It may come as a surprise but £220 isn't a lot of cash to me, that doesn't mean its not a lot of cash to someone else that my read my story. Saying I have a "selective memory" sounds more like you are calling me a lair. That's an awful thing to say to someone who's only intension was to share a story.

uktivo

Blimey what a thread this has turned out to be.

I think I will just move on and stop monitoring.

Les79

uktivo wrote: »

I really don't understand your question. It may come as a surprise but £220 isn't a lot of cash to me, that doesn't mean its not a lot of cash to someone else that my read my story. Saying I have a "selective memory" sounds more like you are calling me a lair. That's an awful thing to say to someone who's only intension was to share a story.

Oh I'm not calling you a liar! Far from it! I have no doubt that what you state actually happened and/or that was your interpretation (may have been a bit twisted though)!

I am not calling you anything per se, but if you insist on believing that I am then please go with the words "potentially dozy". Reasoning provided above.

Listen, I'm just some internet random so just take it on the chin like! Your CC company will deal with it for you now and you'll have to wait to see if either they decline it or Alton Towers dispute it. If neither party declines it then happy days, you win! If either party has any brains then they'll be asking similar questions to what I, or other posters, have said and it actually benefits you to know what possible challenges lie ahead (you're welcome, even though you spat your dummy out).

Either way, good luck.

MothballsWallet

k3lvc wrote: »

Quoted for posterity - hopefully the credit card company see this and see it in the same way everyone else has. The T&C's are clear and available for those that choose to see them - you chose not to and are now clutching at straws to get a refund :mad: - this is bad consumer practise

I'd much rather credit card companies were doing their jobs and not scouring the internet for posts.

It's bad enough that Hasbro-owned companies pull this crap.

Les79

MothballsWallet wrote: »

I'd much rather credit card companies were doing their jobs and not scouring the internet for posts.

It's bad enough that Hasbro-owned companies pull this crap.

Why is it bad?

There's a possibility that OP isn't entitled to a refund here, and if that's the case then theoretically the CC company shouldn't be paying a single penny.

It is only by virtue that OP makes a half-decent argument (even if it can be picked apart) and no party is likely to dispute such a small amount that it will go through.

I would be very surprised if CC companies DIDN'T trawl the internet for posts, but they probably have bigger fish to fry....

One last point as well, according to MSE,the section "Should the bill or the item cost over £100?" is a bit interesting here.... OP may have purchased 4x £55 tickets and NOT 1x £220 item. So maybe OP isn't entitled to a section 75 refund.... Yet another reason for the company to expend resources to check OP's claim.

MothballsWallet

Les79 wrote: »

Why is it bad?

There's a possibility that OP isn't entitled to a refund here, and if that's the case then theoretically the CC company shouldn't be paying a single penny.

It is only by virtue that OP makes a half-decent argument (even if it can be picked apart) and no party is likely to dispute such a small amount that it will go through.

I would be very surprised if CC companies DIDN'T trawl the internet for posts, but they probably have bigger fish to fry....

One last point as well, according to MSE,the section "Should the bill or the item cost over £100?" is a bit interesting here.... OP may have purchased 4x £55 tickets and NOT 1x £220 item. So maybe OP isn't entitled to a section 75 refund.... Yet another reason for the company to expend resources to check OP's claim.

In which case, they need to use other means to gather evidence - not trawl forums and social media like Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro do (albeit it they misuse the "evidence" they get that way).

Les79

MothballsWallet wrote: »

In which case, they need to use other means to gather evidence - not trawl forums and social media like Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro do (albeit it they misuse the "evidence" they get that way).

Fair enough, I had to google it but I assume you're referring to some funny business with a certain user around November 2017? Getting a lifetime ban from MTG with flimsy evidence (I've seen one of his videos and it does look flimsy).

That's different to what CC companies do. MTG make money from having MORE people involved in the game, so they don't always have a motivation to ban controversial people. In contrast, CC companies make money from letting LESS false section 75 claims from going through.

So one company has a distinct motivation towards maybe trawling through the internet for conflicting information, whereas the other likely only does it ad-hoc (or to stitch someone up).