I want to cancel a group booking, but my group doesn't want to

Ergates

JGB1955 said:

Ergates said:

I'd agree with that if the OP was wanting to cancel the same year the tickets were booked.  But that was 2 years ago and the event has been cancelled and rearranged twice now.  The world has moved on, people should understand that the circumstances now are not the same as they were when the tickets were purchased.

But why should the other 3 suffer because one person has 'changed their mind'?

This isn't someone just being fickle and changing their mind on a whim 2 days later, or backing out at the last minute.  2 years have passed, and a lot of things have happened in that time.   People have moved on with their lives, people's circumstances have changed immeasurably, and there are a lot of very good reasons why someone might not want to go and stand in a field rammed in with thousands of other strangers.

Also - there is "suffer" in the sense of "might not get a prebooked tent" and there is suffer in the sense of "being £250 out of pocket".  Which one seems the most unfair to inflict on another person?   The ex-friends are, essentially, expecting the OP to subsidise their accommodation.

jonesey1985

Ergates said:

JGB1955 said:

Ergates said:

I'd agree with that if the OP was wanting to cancel the same year the tickets were booked.  But that was 2 years ago and the event has been cancelled and rearranged twice now.  The world has moved on, people should understand that the circumstances now are not the same as they were when the tickets were purchased.

But why should the other 3 suffer because one person has 'changed their mind'?

This isn't someone just being fickle and changing their mind on a whim 2 days later, or backing out at the last minute.  2 years have passed, and a lot of things have happened in that time.   People have moved on with their lives, people's circumstances have changed immeasurably, and there are a lot of very good reasons why someone might not want to go and stand in a field rammed in with thousands of other strangers.

Also - there is "suffer" in the sense of "might not get a prebooked tent" and there is suffer in the sense of "being £250 out of pocket".  Which one seems the most unfair to inflict on another person?   The ex-friends are, essentially, expecting the OP to subsidise their accommodation.

I'm sure there are but the OP doesn't seem to have an issue being stood in a field with a bunch of strangers, they appear to have fallen out with their mates.

Most people did not fall out with their mates during COVID (arguably the opposite is true) so it's hardly a common experience.

The OP ultimately is at the mercy of their now ex-friend, who appears to have no intention of reimbursing them, as they will be out of pocket if they do.

I don't see a judge agreeing that the friend should foot the bill rather than the OP unless they're also Judge Judy and their judgement is irrelevant because they foot the bill for the judgements anyway.

TELLIT01

Ergates said:

TELLIT01 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

TELLIT01 said:

adbacus said:

IvanOpinion said:

I would approach it a different way.  Tell your ex-friends that they are free to find someone else to take your place and give you your money back (or at least a significant portion of it - say £200).  If they have not done that by the time of the festival then tell them you will be going. 

Whether or not you go is up to you, but at least they can't offer one of their other friends the space without you getting a refund of some sort.

This is actually really good. I haven't had a clear mind on the issue, and this actually makes a lot of sense.

That does look like a good way to apply pressure on them, and really about the only pressure they can apply.  As they didn't make the booking they can't sell on 1/4 of the booking.

Didn't they?  I agree the OP originally said that they (the OP) had "secured" the tickets, but then the OP said:

adbacus said:

TELLIT01 said:

Ergates said:

Your ex-friends *should* either agree to cancel or pay you your share, and the way they're behaving is selfish.

What we don't know is why the OP is no longer friends with the people he/she was to go with.  If the OP is at fault for the breakdown in the relationship the others may be using this as an opportunity for payback.

It also shows the importance of having formalised arrangements, even between friends, for what will happen if one or more members of the group booking can't go or no longer wish to go.

I appreciate that; unfortunately the person who made the booking has behaved towards me in such a way, I feel uncomfortable around them, insecure and I don't trust them anymore.

...

So not only is the OP generally unreliable, but they can't get the facts straight... 

Well spotted Manxman.  I had missed the fact that initially the OP had made the booking, and then it changed to one of the others.

Except Alderman has explained above how the bookings work:  The OP booked their own entry ticket, one of the others booked the tent.   It is the tent that is in dispute, not the entry ticket as that is within the OP's remit to cancel.

So the cost of the tent was £1000!  That's insane.

Ergates

TELLIT01 said:

Ergates said:

TELLIT01 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

TELLIT01 said:

adbacus said:

IvanOpinion said:

I would approach it a different way.  Tell your ex-friends that they are free to find someone else to take your place and give you your money back (or at least a significant portion of it - say £200).  If they have not done that by the time of the festival then tell them you will be going. 

Whether or not you go is up to you, but at least they can't offer one of their other friends the space without you getting a refund of some sort.

This is actually really good. I haven't had a clear mind on the issue, and this actually makes a lot of sense.

That does look like a good way to apply pressure on them, and really about the only pressure they can apply.  As they didn't make the booking they can't sell on 1/4 of the booking.

Didn't they?  I agree the OP originally said that they (the OP) had "secured" the tickets, but then the OP said:

adbacus said:

TELLIT01 said:

Ergates said:

Your ex-friends *should* either agree to cancel or pay you your share, and the way they're behaving is selfish.

What we don't know is why the OP is no longer friends with the people he/she was to go with.  If the OP is at fault for the breakdown in the relationship the others may be using this as an opportunity for payback.

It also shows the importance of having formalised arrangements, even between friends, for what will happen if one or more members of the group booking can't go or no longer wish to go.

I appreciate that; unfortunately the person who made the booking has behaved towards me in such a way, I feel uncomfortable around them, insecure and I don't trust them anymore.

...

So not only is the OP generally unreliable, but they can't get the facts straight... 

Well spotted Manxman.  I had missed the fact that initially the OP had made the booking, and then it changed to one of the others.

Except Alderman has explained above how the bookings work:  The OP booked their own entry ticket, one of the others booked the tent.   It is the tent that is in dispute, not the entry ticket as that is within the OP's remit to cancel.

So the cost of the tent was £1000!  That's insane.

A 6 person "scout tent" is £950, a 6 person "tipi" is £1150
Worthy view accommodation options | Glastonbury Festival (glastonburyfestivals.co.uk)
Tipis | Glastonbury Festival (glastonburyfestivals.co.uk)

It does sound expensive, but divided between 6 people slightly less so (in this case divided between 4)

Ergates

Just to add more do this - T&Cs for the pre-booked tents:

2. Names of all accommodation residents must be supplied when booking, with final confirmation due no later than one week prior to the Festival. Everyone staying in the accommodation will need to present their tickets to receive their Festival wristbands.

You don't need to confirm the exact people staying in the tents until 1 week before the festival.   This means that the ex-Friends don't need to cancel the booking at all, they can just change the names of who will be staying (the only thing that can't be changed is the "leader" who made the booking) in the tent.

This means that the only reason they're not returning the OPs money is because they want to keep it, not because they don't want to lose their tent.  They're just not willing to part with an extra £80 each to "buy him out".

cx6

The four of them booked a tent - now one does not want to go

If the remaining three find a replacement then I would expect the OP to be refunded their share

If they don't find a replacement, and the tent is occupied only by the remaining three, then the OP cannot expect a refund.

Ergates

cx6 said:

The four of them booked a tent - now one does not want to go

If the remaining three find a replacement then I would expect the OP to be refunded their share

If they don't find a replacement, and the tent is occupied only by the remaining three, then the OP cannot expect a refund.

The four of them booked a tent for an event in 2020.  That event was cancelled.   The event organisers are now offering people who had booked onto the 2020 event the option of migrating their tickets to a new (i.e. seperate) event in 2022 or to get a refund.

Three of the party want to make use of this offer to transfer the booking, one of them does not.   Why should the 1 subsidise the accommodation of the other 3 just because they agreed to go to a *different* event?  This isn't the OP backing out of an event, this is a different event, one that the OP never agreed to attend.  The OP just wants their money refunded for the event that was cancelled.  Is that an unreasonable thing to want?

Alderbank

TELLIT01 said: So the cost of the tent was £1000!  That's insane.

 I agree - I think buying a tent for £1000 is insane. This is for five nights rental in a (sometimes) muddy field, bring your own sleeping bag.

The entry tickets include full use of camping facilities. OP says the guys are not too bothered about the costs, but if they were MSE they would cancel the pre-erected tent and buy their own from Amazon, etc. for about £100. They could then sleep who they like in it.

Of course, they would have the faff and inconvenience of tightening their own guy ropes 

Manxman_in_exile

Ergates said:

cx6 said:

The four of them booked a tent - now one does not want to go

If the remaining three find a replacement then I would expect the OP to be refunded their share

If they don't find a replacement, and the tent is occupied only by the remaining three, then the OP cannot expect a refund.

...Three of the party want to make use of this offer to transfer the booking, one of them does not.   Why should the 1 subsidise the accommodation of the other 3 just because they agreed to go to a *different* event?...

Because the OP is the only one of the four to have changed their mind.  Why should the other three subsidise the OP's change of mind?

The OP needs to find someone to buy their place.  If the other three "mates" can find someone to buy it, then that's a welcome bonus for the OP - but the primary responsibility to find a paying replacement is his, not his "mates".

Ergates

Manxman_in_exile said:

Ergates said:

cx6 said:

The four of them booked a tent - now one does not want to go

If the remaining three find a replacement then I would expect the OP to be refunded their share

If they don't find a replacement, and the tent is occupied only by the remaining three, then the OP cannot expect a refund.

...Three of the party want to make use of this offer to transfer the booking, one of them does not.   Why should the 1 subsidise the accommodation of the other 3 just because they agreed to go to a *different* event?...

Because the OP is the only one of the four to have changed their mind.  Why should the other three subsidise the OP's change of mind?

The OP needs to find someone to buy their place.  If the other three "mates" can find someone to buy it, then that's a welcome bonus for the OP - but the primary responsibility to find a paying replacement is his, not his "mates".

The OP hasn't "changed their mind", this is a separate event on a different date (2 years later).  The event they agreed to go to was cancelled and didn't happen.   The tent they paid towards was never needed nor used (nor even erected).

This is now a separate question "Do you want to go to Glastonbury in 2022 with these people" - this not a continuation of the original arrangement, this is a new arrangement - one the OP does not want to enter in to.

If it was the event organiser that was digging their heels and and refusing to offer refunds, there is no way on earth anybody would be supporting them in that.