Refund under section 75 for ticket purchases 15 February at 8:12AM in Consumer rights 15 replies 551 views

AtlasGalaxy

Hi, I hope someone can help!

Last year my friend purchased a ticket for 4 to enjoy an experience including a meal and drinks. Unfortunately the company has gone into administration, causing the event to be cancelled. We were told to contact our banks directly to claim a refund as the company would not have funds to refund because of the cancellation.

We were told by the bank that the bank were only liable for the personal loss of the card holder. As “a gesture of good will”, they said the cover would be extended to her spouse, but not to tickets for other people. Therefore we are only able to claim half of the money back under section 75.

I can’t see reference to this clause anywhere online or on any other forums… please can you offer some advice? Is this normal? 

MorningcoffeeIV

Under s75, that's correct.

A chargeback would have seen you get a full refund.

tightauldgit

That seems really weird. if person X buys 4 things at £X each and then they don't receive 4 things then surely their personal loss is £X * 4 for the 4 things regardless of who was actually going to use the items. 

Based on this logic then it would seem to exclude any gifts from being covered at all. Or if you buy two cakes only one would be covered because someone else is going to eat the other one. 

That surely can't be how things work? 

MorningcoffeeIV

That is surely how things work, as the debtor creditor supplier chain is broken.

It's all laid out in the s75 legislation.

HillStreetBlues

It's a ticket for 4 so shouldn't it be covered.

DullGreyGuy

There are a lot of urban myths about S75 which arent actually in any way true... unfortunately some banks and websites even try to claim they are true but its not what the legislation states.

There are some potential red flags to the case however:

Who was the "experience" purchased from? The restaurant or some middleman like Wowcher?
Who has actually gone bust, the restaurant or the middleman? (assuming one exists)

S75 does require a circular link between debtor (you), creditor (your bank) and the supplier (the restaurant) and cannot include other parties. It however does not preclude gifts and so if you as the debtor paid for 4 experiences it makes no difference if they were all for you and you were going to go 4 times, for you and your partner and you were going to go twice or 4 random people you've never met as long as the supplier was in contract with you to supply the service thats all that is required. 

If S75 has been broken by the insertion of a middleman then you'd have no S75 protection and any goodwill offered by the bank can be as wide or narrow as they want. 

The FOS is full of upheld complaints where banks have incorrectly said gifts arent covered when the contract is clearly to the debtor. 

km1500

yes, who did you purchase the tickets from ?

tightauldgit

MorningcoffeeIV said:

That is surely how things work, as the debtor creditor supplier chain is broken.

It's all laid out in the s75 legislation.

It isn't broken though, is it?

Person X paid for 4 things and didn't receive any of them. 

km1500

Maybe they didn't. Maybe they paid an intermediary (ticketing agent) to buy them.on their behalf
 
The intermediary did exactly as instructed - hence no S75 etc

Manxman_in_exile

tightauldgit said:

MorningcoffeeIV said:

That is surely how things work, as the debtor creditor supplier chain is broken.

It's all laid out in the s75 legislation.

It isn't broken though, is it?

Person X paid for 4 things and didn't receive any of them. 

That's what I initially thought - that the chain isn't broken.

Rather that an additional party (might?) have been added to the end of the chain, but the D-C-S relationship itself remains intact.

But then I read @DullGreyGuy's comment about s75 requirung "a circular link between" D, C and S, and I wondered if this circle might have been broken.

I'm not sure, but it does seem odd that if you buy a gift for someone that you would lose s75 protection.

(Haven't there been FOS decisions like this where one spouse has bought a car for the other one?)

tightauldgit

km1500 said:

Maybe they didn't. Maybe they paid an intermediary (ticketing agent) to buy them.on their behalf
 
The intermediary did exactly as instructed - hence no S75 etc

If the bank paid out on two tickets that doesnt seem to be the case though.