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

photome

Ergates said:

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.

I dont see it like that.
The OP has changed their mind, regardless of the date, therefore shouldnt expect a refund IMO

this isnt a consumer rights issue though, its a falling out of friends

Alderbank

photome said:

Ergates said:

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".

this isnt a consumer rights issue though, its a falling out of friends

I agree with you but to be fair to the OP his question was:

I'm angry about the situation as I feel it's 3 against 1, and even though Glastonbury are offering a full refund, I have lost my consumer rights. What can I do?

I suppose the short answer is that because he was not the purchaser of the tent rental he never had any consumer rights?

Manxman_in_exile

Ergates said:

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).
...

How do you make that up?  He agreed to go in 2020 and it has twice been cancelled and rolled over since then.  He didn't have a problem with that the first time and he's only got a problem with it now because he doesn't want to be friends with one of his ex-mates any more.  (     )  In other words he HAS changed his mind.

Ergates said:

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".

...This is now a separate question "Do you want to go to Glastonbury in 2022 with these people" ...

No.  The question is:  "Do you want (a) to go to Glastonbury with these people, or (b) to lose your money unless YOU can find an acceptable replacement to buy your place?"

Ergates said:

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".

...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.

If that had happened I'd support the OP 100%.  Unfortunately for him, that isn't what happened... 

JJC1956

Why would the 3 in the tent allow the OP to sell their share of the tent to a stranger? It’s not going to happen. If the 3 find someone to share the tent with them, they might, just might refund the OP, otherwise the OP needs to swallow the loss and get on with their life. 
Diana Ross is doing the Legends spot, maybe the OP should keep their ticket and find someone else to go to Glasto with.

Manxman_in_exile

JJC1956 said:

Why would the 3 in the tent allow the OP to sell their share of the tent to a stranger? It’s not going to happen. If the 3 find someone to share the tent with them, they might, just might refund the OP, otherwise the OP needs to swallow the loss and get on with their life. 
Diana Ross is doing the Legends spot, maybe the OP should keep their ticket and find someone else to go to Glasto with.

I certainly wouldn't allow him to do it!

That's why I 've said on two separate occasions:  "(Personally though, even with "former friends", I think I'd be far too embarrassed to even consider the possibility of causing them problems by letting them down and cancelling the whole thing.  If I couldn't find somebody who they were happy with to replace me - and I'd consider that to be primarily my responsibility although if the others  found a replacement for me it would be a bonus - then I'd either write the money off as a loss or just bite the bullet and go to the festival... )"

and

Manxman_in_exile said:

No.  The question is:  "Do you want (a) to go to Glastonbury with these people, or (b) to lose your money unless YOU can find an acceptable replacement to buy your place?"

jonesey1985

Ergates said:

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".

I disagree.

"Final confirmation" means "You need to tell us who is staying in this tent by this date." It does not mean "you can tell us and then do a switcharoo before this date."

I know English is hard sometimes, but this isn't all that hard.

Not like it matters much anyway, the OP didn't book so they have no rights against the organisers.

They could try their luck in court against their friends but I suspect they won't win and it'll be far more effort than it's worth anyway.