Concert tickets
Martin Milan
My friend's wife has tried to buy some tickets to a Madonna concert in
Manchester through www.krystalsboxoffice.co.uk, for which she paid
£150
each for two tickets - ie a total of £300.
Since the time of the transaction, the concert has been cancelled, so
she's approached Krystals for a refund. Their response is that they are
only prepared to refund the face value of the tickets (£45), as per
their terms and conditions. They seem to be under the (mistaken)
impression that she has signed the terms and conditions - where as in
truth, the only time she has read them was when they included them in
their response to try and support their case.
Now, to be fair to Krystals, and having expicitly searched for it,
their
terms and conditions are available on their website, via a link of the
main page. They are not however, from what I can see, presented during
the process of making an order - certainly not before you've already
submitted your credit card details - which is the point I came away
from
the attempt...
My proposition is that as my friend and his wife have never received
any
tickets, have not Krystals failed to provide the service they
contracted
for, and therefore should return the full £300?
Your thoughts please?
(Don't bother saying my friend's wife is stupid. We already know.)
Martin
A.Lee
> My friend's wife has tried to buy some tickets ..... total of £300.
>
> Since the time of the transaction, the concert has been cancelled, so
> she's approached Krystals for a refund. Their response is that they are
> only prepared to refund the face value of the tickets (£45), as per
> their terms and conditions.
> any tickets, have not Krystals failed to provide the service they
> contracted for, and therefore should return the full £300?
If she hasnt received anything for the money, then surely the Credit
Card Company will do a chargeback for you?
That would be my first call.
If paying by Debit card then you may be stuffed, apart from
threatening/taking Court action against them if they still refuse to
refund fully.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
Joe Lee
"Martin Milan" <martin....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154175443.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi,
Your thoughts please?
Martin
========================================
Get the CC provider to do a chargeback.
joe Lee
rob...@invalid.invalid
wrote:
Even if this condition is in their T&Cs and you had read them, IMHO
this may well be deemed "unfair" in court and thus void.
Robert
Robert
Yoda
"Joe Lee" <invalid@noaddress> wrote in message
news:44cb8793$0$15041$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Martin Milan" <martin....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1154175443.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> My friend's wife has tried to buy some tickets to a Madonna concert in
> Manchester through www.krystalsboxoffice.co.uk, for which she paid
> £150
> each for two tickets - ie a total of £300.
I thought ticket touting like this was made illegal a few years ago, or does this only
apply to
things like FA Cup Finals and the like?
Nick
"Yoda" <egre...@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:to-dnYoakNjRilHZ...@eclipse.net.uk...
See http://www.urban75.org/football/after4.html
"Under the 1994 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, now extended by the
1999 Football (Offences and Disorder) Act, the buyer is not liable to
prosecution. But any fan selling or offering to sell, without authority, a
ticket for a "designated football match" in any public place faces a fine of
up to £5,000. "
I think that this is described as a "public order" issue because doing so
restricts the ability of football clubs and the authorities to ensure that
opposing football fans are not sat together.
There is some discussion about touting at this Music industry conference.
http://www.musictank.co.uk/events_future_live.htm
This relates to the States but Tom Waits refused to accept tickets bought
on-line http://www.nme.com/news/tom-waits/23670.
"Tickets bought online will not be accepted
Tom Waits is attempting to stamp out the touts.
Punters who have bought tickets for his up coming US shows through online
auction sites will not be allowed into the gigs.
All eight dates of his tour, his first in the US for seven years, sold out
immediately, leading to many tickets being sold on online and through ticket
brokers. However, all these tickets are assumed to be fraudulent and many
may be counterfeit.
Waits along with the venues, management, label and promoters are attempting
to stop ticket touting and get the face value tickets to his fans.
Tickets for the singer/songwriter's shows must be obtained from the venue on
the night of the performance. Only the original buyer will be allowed to
pick up the ticket and show a valid photo ID as well as the credit card
information used to buy the ticket, Paste reports."
Nick Landau
Stuart A. Bronstein
> "Yoda" <egre...@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote
>> "Joe Lee" <invalid@noaddress> wrote
>>>
>>> My friend's wife has tried to buy some tickets to a Madonna
>>> concert in Manchester through www.krystalsboxoffice.co.uk, for
>>> which she paid £150 each for two tickets - ie a total of £300.
>>
>> I thought ticket touting like this was made illegal a few years
>> ago, or does this only apply to things like FA Cup Finals and the
>> like?
>
>
> Punters who have bought tickets for his up coming US shows through
> online auction sites will not be allowed into the gigs.
>
> All eight dates of his tour, his first in the US for seven years,
> sold out immediately, leading to many tickets being sold on online
> and through ticket brokers. However, all these tickets are assumed
> to be fraudulent and many may be counterfeit.
At least in California what we call "scalping" is legal as long as
the tickets are not re-sold on the premises of the event. It's big
business, which is probably one of the reasons his tickets all sold
out so quickly.
Stu
"nightjar" <nightjar@
"Martin Milan" <martin....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154175443.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> My friend's wife has tried to buy some tickets to a Madonna concert in
> Manchester through www.krystalsboxoffice.co.uk, for which she paid
> Ł150
> each for two tickets - ie a total of Ł300.
>
> Since the time of the transaction, the concert has been cancelled, so
> she's approached Krystals for a refund. Their response is that they are
> only prepared to refund the face value of the tickets (Ł45), as per
> their terms and conditions. They seem to be under the (mistaken)
> impression that she has signed the terms and conditions - where as in
> truth, the only time she has read them was when they included them in
> their response to try and support their case.
>
> Now, to be fair to Krystals, and having expicitly searched for it,
> their
> terms and conditions are available on their website, via a link of the
> main page. They are not however, from what I can see, presented during
> the process of making an order - certainly not before you've already
> submitted your credit card details - which is the point I came away
> from
> the attempt...
According to the DTI guidance on web sales, it is sufficient for the terms
and conditions to be made available in a durable form that is available to
the purchaser; A condition that can be satisfied by publishing them on a web
site. There is no requirement for the buyer specifically to be informed of
the terms and conditions before making the purchase. Krystal are quite
within their rights to refund only the price of the tickets. The balance is
a booking fee (albeit an exorbitant one) and your friend's wife made a
booking with them; a service that they provided, even if the concert was
subsequently cancelled.
Colin Bignell
Alan Frame
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 17:10:03 +0100, "Joe Lee" <invalid@noaddress>
> wrote:
> >"Martin Milan" <martin....@gmail.com> wrote
> >My friend's wife has tried to buy some tickets to a Madonna concert in
> >Manchester through www.krystalsboxoffice.co.uk, for which she paid
> >£150
> >each for two tickets - ie a total of £300.
> >
> >Since the time of the transaction, the concert has been cancelled, so
> >she's approached Krystals for a refund. Their response is that they are
> >only prepared to refund the face value of the tickets (£45), as per
> >their terms and conditions.
[]
> Even if this condition is in their T&Cs and you had read them, IMHO
> this may well be deemed "unfair" in court and thus void.
I guess all the first-year law students are on holiday:
Krell v. Henry (1903)
http://www3.uninsubria.it/uninsubria/allegati/pagine/1438/priv_comp2.pdf
(Yes, a chargeback on on the credit card would be my first course of
action )
HTH, Alan
--
99 Ducati 748BP, 95 Ducati 600SS, 81 Guzzi Monza, 74 MV Agusta 350
"Ride to Work, Work to Ride" SI# 7.067 DoD#1930 PGP Key 0xBDED56C5
Stuart A. Bronstein
> According to the DTI guidance on web sales, it is sufficient for
> the terms and conditions to be made available in a durable form
> that is available to the purchaser; A condition that can be
> satisfied by publishing them on a web site. There is no
> requirement for the buyer specifically to be informed of the terms
> and conditions before making the purchase. Krystal are quite
> within their rights to refund only the price of the tickets. The
> balance is a booking fee (albeit an exorbitant one) and your
> friend's wife made a booking with them; a service that they
> provided, even if the concert was subsequently cancelled.
So let's say you to go a shop and buy a computer. You get it home and
it turns out to be defective. It would be ok (if the shop had this
condition on its website) that it only return half the purchase price,
because that is their cost and the rest is a service charge?
Stu
Joe Lee
"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9810B07B194E9s...@130.133.1.4...
The T&C's are hilarious !
Refunds: "If your first choice of tickets is not available,
KRYSTALSBOXOFFICE.CO.UK reserves the right to upgrade or downgrade ( partial
refund ) the order to the next available category..."
Conditions of Sale: "2. No money refunded or tickets exchanged in the event
of the show being cancelled, in which case only the face value can be
refunded."
"3.. All tickets sold at booking fee, however, in some cases tickets are
available for sold out events. Subsequently we usually have to pay premiums
which will be reflected in the price."
Joe Lee
> Stu
"nightjar" <nightjar@
"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9810B07B194E9s...@130.133.1.4...
If you do not already understand the fundamental differences between buying
a consumer durable over the counter and using the internet to employ a third
party to purchase a price marked ticket on your behalf, you won't understand
any explanation I can offer.
Colin Bignell
Alex Heney
There IS no explanation that makes their action acceptable.
You buy the tickets through them, they are responsible for providing
the service you bought.
In just the same way as a travel agent/package tour operator is
responsible for the quality of the third party flights and
accommodation.
And they can put whatever T&C they like up, but cannot escape their
statutory obligations under SOGA by doing so.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Does killing time damage eternity?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Stuart A. Bronstein
>> So let's say you to go a shop and buy a computer. You get it
>> home and it turns out to be defective. It would be ok (if the
>> shop had this condition on its website) that it only return half
>> the purchase price, because that is their cost and the rest is a
>> service charge?
>
> If you do not already understand the fundamental differences
> between buying a consumer durable over the counter and using the
> internet to employ a third party to purchase a price marked ticket
> on your behalf, you won't understand any explanation I can offer.
Does that mean that you can't explain the difference between buying a
consumer durable over the counter and using the internet to employ a
third party to purchase a price market ticket on your behalf?
Albert Einstein once said, "If you can't explain something simply, you
don't understand it well."
Stu
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
OK, here's an explanation by way of analogy:
There are lots of shops in my city which sell the local delicacy,
oatcakes. Very few of them sell via any means other than over the
counter. Quite a lot of ex-pats miss their oatcakes and want to buy
them by mail order. If I set up a service whereby I will purchase
oatckakes on their behalf and send them by post, we have the basis for
a deal - the ex-pats get their oatcakes, the shop gets the added sales
and I get what I charge for providing the purchasing/posting service.
For this to work, I have to charge a price to the customer which is
greater than the face value of the oatcake - a purchasing and handling
fee, so to speak. And this service is caried out by me, irrespective
of the quality of the oatcake. If I send out a batch that turn out to
be duff, and the customer wants his money back, I will only refund the
price of the oatcakes (as I, in turn, will go and bend the
shopkeeper's ear about it and demand a refund myself for the price I
paid him). The processing fee can't be refunded, because that service
has been provided whether or not the oatcakes are worth eating. I am,
in neffect, being employed by the customer to purchase oatcakes on his
behalf, and I have carried out that task correctly even if the oatcake
supplier lets me down.
....
In the context of theatre and concert tickets, most promoters and
venues don't have the facility to sell over the Internet to lots of
distant customers - they usually only have the ability to sell tickets
over the counter (and sometimes by means of telesales). So there
exists a market for third-party organisations to buy tickets from the
promoter on the behalf of distant customers who are unable (or
unwilling) to queue at the box office. If the agency purchases tickets
on behalf o the cudtomer, then that service of purchasing tickets has
been carried out irrespective of whether or not the tickets themselves
are usable. If the event is cancelled, the agency will be refunded by
the promotor/venue and can in turn refund the purchasse price of the
tickets to the customer. But the processing service has already been
carried out, and can't be reversed, so that part of the cost is
non-returnable.
....
Having said that, any company which charges £105 processing fee for a
ticket with a face value of £45 (ie, a total cost of £150) is taking
the piss. They may well have Ts&Cs that are legally enforceable, but
I'd have no compunction about taking whatever steps are necessary to
force them to make a larger refund. In this particular case, I also
think it's arguable that the inflated cost cannot possibly be
accounted for solely by a processing fee, and that therefore at least
some of the additional cost must relate to a markup on the ticket
price itself. And this is refundable, as it's a cost of the goods
rather than the service provided to supply them. I'd be inclined to
try stuff like writing to Watchdog and other consumer publications -
the agency may well decide that the cost of a refund is less than the
cost of the bad publicity.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.MineOfUseless.info - everything you never needed to know!
"nightjar" <nightjar@
> "\"nightjar\"
>
>>> So let's say you to go a shop and buy a computer. You get it
>>> home and it turns out to be defective. It would be ok (if the
>>> shop had this condition on its website) that it only return half
>>> the purchase price, because that is their cost and the rest is a
>>> service charge?
>>
>> If you do not already understand the fundamental differences
>> between buying a consumer durable over the counter and using the
>> internet to employ a third party to purchase a price marked ticket
>> on your behalf, you won't understand any explanation I can offer.
>
> Does that mean that you can't explain the difference between buying a
> consumer durable over the counter and using the internet to employ a
> third party to purchase a price market ticket on your behalf?
If it makes it easier for you to understand, view the tickets as your
computer and the booking agency as a carrier you have employed to bring that
computer from the retailer to your house. Would you expect the carrier to
refund the cost of carriage if the computer turned out not to work because a
chip was faulty?
Colin Bignell
TimB
Invite them to demonstrate where on their website they specify that the
face value of the tickets you bought are £45 - as far as I can see
they don't specify this, and the descriptions indicate that the price
shown is the price you are paying for the ticket, plus £8 P&P.
As others have said, approach your credit card company, and if they
aren't helpful, begin proceedings against both your CC and the ticket
company. Your CC will refund before it goes any further.
Jonathan Bryce
> In the context of theatre and concert tickets, most promoters and
> venues don't have the facility to sell over the Internet to lots of
> distant customers - they usually only have the ability to sell tickets
> over the counter (and sometimes by means of telesales). So there
> exists a market for third-party organisations to buy tickets from the
> promoter on the behalf of distant customers who are unable (or
> unwilling) to queue at the box office. If the agency purchases tickets
> on behalf o the cudtomer, then that service of purchasing tickets has
> been carried out irrespective of whether or not the tickets themselves
> are usable. If the event is cancelled, the agency will be refunded by
> the promotor/venue and can in turn refund the purchasse price of the
> tickets to the customer. But the processing service has already been
> carried out, and can't be reversed, so that part of the cost is
> non-returnable.
Amazon provide me with the service of purchasing books from publishers and
posting them to me.
If they sent me a faulty book, I would expect a full refund, not just a
refund of the amount they paid to the publisher, and I would get a full
refund.
Can you explain what the difference in your mail order oatcake business is?
a...@b.invalid
> greater than the face value of the oatcake - a purchasing and handling
> fee, so to speak. And this service is caried out by me, irrespective
> of the quality of the oatcake. If I send out a batch that turn out to
> be duff, and the customer wants his money back, I will only refund the
> price of the oatcakes (as I, in turn, will go and bend the
> shopkeeper's ear about it and demand a refund myself for the price I
> paid him). The processing fee can't be refunded, because that service
> has been provided whether or not the oatcakes are worth eating. I am,
> in neffect, being employed by the customer to purchase oatcakes on his
> behalf, and I have carried out that task correctly even if the oatcake
> supplier lets me down.
Following this train of logic, presumably the retailer then refuses to
refund you his markup because he is only providing a service by making
the goods available locally to purchase? After all he's carried out his
part of the bargain whether or not the oatcakes are worth eating.
Alex Heney
It isn't the same at all.
You haven't bought the tickets from the concert organisers, and
contracted with the "agency" to deliver them.
You have bought them from the "agency".
The fact they bought them from the organisers is of no more concern to
you than the fact your corner shop buys their goods from the local
wholesaler.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Why doesn't the Bat Computer ever crash?
Alex Heney
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:20:09 +0100, Stuart A. Bronstein put finger to
>keyboard and typed:
<snip>
>
>OK, here's an explanation by way of analogy:
>
>There are lots of shops in my city which sell the local delicacy,
>oatcakes. Very few of them sell via any means other than over the
>counter. Quite a lot of ex-pats miss their oatcakes and want to buy
>them by mail order. If I set up a service whereby I will purchase
>oatckakes on their behalf and send them by post, we have the basis for
>a deal - the ex-pats get their oatcakes, the shop gets the added sales
>and I get what I charge for providing the purchasing/posting service.
>
>For this to work, I have to charge a price to the customer which is
>greater than the face value of the oatcake - a purchasing and handling
>fee, so to speak. And this service is caried out by me, irrespective
>of the quality of the oatcake. If I send out a batch that turn out to
>be duff, and the customer wants his money back, I will only refund the
>price of the oatcakes (as I, in turn, will go and bend the
>shopkeeper's ear about it and demand a refund myself for the price I
>paid him). The processing fee can't be refunded, because that service
>has been provided whether or not the oatcakes are worth eating. I am,
>in neffect, being employed by the customer to purchase oatcakes on his
>behalf, and I have carried out that task correctly even if the oatcake
>supplier lets me down.
But if they were to take you to court under SOGA, you would find
yourself liable for the whole cost, as you would class as the retailer
in a consumer transaction.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If I can't fix it, it's probably dead.
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
Amazon is the retailer; they buy from the wholesaler and resell to the
public. In my oatcake business, the oatcake shop is the retailer, I am
providing an ordering service.
If you want the latest Harry Potter book, you can't walk into the
publisher's offices and buy a copy - you have to get it from a
retailer. If you want an oatcake, you can walk into any shop here and
buy one. In my case, I'm providing a service (walking into the shop on
your behalf) so that you don't have to, rather than selling you a
product.
However, you have touched on the point which may well make a
significant difference to the OP's case. If the middleman adds a
markup onto the price of the goods before reselling them, then they
are a retailer in their own right and the price paid by the customer
is fully refundable if the goods are either not supplied or not fit
for purpose. If the goods are sold at face value plus a separate
charge for handling, then the handling charge can be non-refundable
(which is often the case with mail order suppliers that charge
separately for P&P - they are not legally obliged to refund the P&P if
the customer decides to return the goods). If the ticket agency used
by the OP did not make a clear distinction between the face value of
the tickets and the handling fee, then they have avery good case to
argue that at least some, if not a large proportion, of the difference
between face value and priced charged is markup rather than a handling
fee, and therefore refundable. If the deal was advertised as "Tickets
for £150 each" rather than "Tickets at £45 each plus a handling charge
of £105 per ticket", then I think they have a good case to argue for a
much larger refund.
Mark
--
Visit: http://www.CorporateContact.info - phone and email contacts for Amazon, Paypal, eBay and lots of other hard-to-contact organisations
Nick
"Mark Goodge" <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:p0vtc2t68sb1d2v5t...@news.markshouse.net...
As I read it they never ever received any tickets. They paid the money and
the concert was cancelled before they were sent the tickets - therefore the
company couldn't even claim that they had spent that money on the delivery
of the ticket.
Of course, the fact is that the company having put this extraordinary mark
up on these tickets they can't get the money back from the promoter.
It has occurred to me it could mean that an agency (not this particular
one!) could put tickets on sale without having actually having any tickets
(on a wing and a prayer) and then when they can't get hold of them they also
only offer to pay back the face value of the ticket.
Nick
Martin Milan
> There IS no explanation that makes their action acceptable.
>
> You buy the tickets through them, they are responsible for providing
> the service you bought.
>
> In just the same way as a travel agent/package tour operator is
> responsible for the quality of the third party flights and
> accommodation.
>
> And they can put whatever T&C they like up, but cannot escape their
> statutory obligations under SOGA by doing so.
> --
> Alex Heney, Global Villager
Cheers Alex - this is about what I thought. I think a key aspect to
this is that my friend hasn't actually received any tickets anyway...
Martin.
Martin Milan
> If it makes it easier for you to understand, view the tickets as your
> computer and the booking agency as a carrier you have employed to bring that
> computer from the retailer to your house. Would you expect the carrier to
> refund the cost of carriage if the computer turned out not to work because a
> chip was faulty?
That's not really an analogy though - but if you want to let it run a
while, there's been no sign of a computer anyway... (No tickets were
ever supplied)
Martin Milan
> If she hasnt received anything for the money, then surely the Credit
> Card Company will do a chargeback for you?
> That would be my first call.
> If paying by Debit card then you may be stuffed, apart from
> threatening/taking Court action against them if they still refuse to
> refund fully.
> Alan.
He's spoken with the CC company - their dispute people are apparently
going to be in touch in the next couple of days...
Martin
Palindr☻me
I'm sorry if this is an idiotic suggestion but:
Don't these agencies often buy tickets at well over face value, in order
to have them to sell for even more?
So, is it not possible that they may have had to pay, say 100GBP for
tickets with a face value of 45GBP, to sell on at 150GBP?
If they need more tickets, in order to meet say an order for 20 tickets,
they could perhaps have to pay 200GBP, for the last two?
(As you can probably tell, I have never used such an agency, so am
merely guessing how they may work.)
But I could see under such circumstances how it could be difficult to
refund what some people had paid, if what the agency had paid was so
variable and, in some cases, actually cause them a loss.
--
Sue
Nick
"TimB" <stok...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154361771.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Martin Milan wrote:
Nick responds:
You are obviously having a laugh! Taking out proceedings against your credit
card company.
Would you do this every time you had a problem with a supplier?
Nick
Cynic
<nightjar@"<insert.my.s...@giganews.com>.uk.com wrote:
>If it makes it easier for you to understand, view the tickets as your
>computer and the booking agency as a carrier you have employed to bring that
>computer from the retailer to your house. Would you expect the carrier to
>refund the cost of carriage if the computer turned out not to work because a
>chip was faulty?
I disagree that the situation is in any way similar. You have not
bought the computer from the carrier, there are two separate contracts
in place, one for the sale of the computer, and the other between the
retailer and the carrier for the delivery of the goods.
If the computer were faulty, would you say that the computer retailer
should refund the price paid to him for the computer, or only the
price the retailer paid to the wholesaler he purchased it from?
Because ISTM that that situation is more analagous than the one you
have given.
--
Cynic
Alex Heney
That may be what you think you are doing.
It isn't how the law would see it.
There are many items which *can* be bought directly from the
manufacturer, or from a retailer, so that distinction makes no
difference.
And most retailers do not buy most of the goods they sell direct from
the manufacturer either, they buy from other businesses (wholesalers),
who sometimes (not often, I'll grant you) also sell direct to the
public.
So far as the law is concerned, you are buying them and then selling
them as a business. You are the retailer so far as your customers are
concerned, regardless of whether you bought from a retailer, a
wholesaler, or the manufacturer directly.
If you were offering a service whereby your customers ordered from the
shop, and you merely picked up their order and mailed it to them, then
you would be acting as a courier service, and would have no liability
for the product.
But if they are ordering through you, then you are the retailer, and
do have liability for the product.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Space is an illusion, disk space doubly so.
Alex Heney
wrote:
Very likely.
But that is the risk they take.
If the customer buys from them, then they are the retailer, and are
liable for the full cost of refund if the goods/services are not
supplied satisfactorily.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Talk about memory! This system even has a sense of guilt!
Alex Heney
wrote:
Of course, if the supplier was unwilling to meet their legal
obligations.
Why would you not?
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Can't learn to do something well? Learn to enjoy doing it badly!
Simon Finnigan
"Nick" <tulse0...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2KOdndy9K7I...@bt.com...
I certainly threaten to do so yes. If I ask them nicely to resolve a
problem and they are unwilling to do so, when they are legally obliged to do
so, then of course I write to them letting them know that if a refund (or
whatever else is wanted) is not received within 14 days the next
communication will be through the small claims system. Every single time
i`ve done this I have had the required result without having to carry out
the threat.
What else can you do - keep complaining and escalating the complaint to ever
higher levels of management to ignore? No thanks, threaten to sue and
you`ll get results a lot more quickly.
Jo Lonergan
wrote:
>Alex Heney wrote:
They calculate a price to the buyer at which they'll make a profit. If
their calculations prove to be mistaken, that's not the buyer's
problem. They should be factoring in the occasional loss in the
price, anyway.
Can anybody explain why ticket "scalping" is legally different from
other transactions where somebody buys goods in an open market and
sells them on for as much as they can get? Even Mrs Thatcher balked
at liberalising this market.
--
Jo
Adrian
were saying :
> Invite them to demonstrate where on their website they specify that
> the face value of the tickets you bought are £45 - as far as I can see
> they don't specify this, and the descriptions indicate that the price
> shown is the price you are paying for the ticket, plus £8 P&P.
It appears to be even sneakier than that - I just went through to the point
of putting in details and placing the order, and not only do they NOT
specify the Ts&Cs explicitly, or even state that by ordering you're
agreeing to them, but the price stated is exclusive of VAT - so the £600
(ea) tickets for their best tickets to see Madge at Wembley the day after
tomorrow are suddenly £705 tickets.
Oh, yes, plus £8 P&P. Hiho. At least that £8 includes VAT, it seems.
The Ts&Cs are rather clearly linked on the left hand side menu, however,
and do explicitly include...
>> Conditions of sale.
>>
>> 2.. No money refunded or tickets exchanged in the event of the show
>> being cancelled, in which case only the face value can be refunded.
As to what that face value is, it really isn't difficult to google for
"Wembley Arena Tickets", find whatsonwembley.co.uk and within a couple of
steps be at ticketmaster.co.uk, then find the face value for the tickets.
Of course, two further seconds on ticketmaster would reveal that there's
still tickets availabile - at that face value...
"nightjar" <nightjar@
"Martin Milan" <martin....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154381315....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
That is because the retailer has not supplied it and there is no prospect of
the retailer being able to supply it. However, you have been daft enough to
sign a contract with the carrier that guarantees payment for the carriage
service, whether the goods get delivered or not. I would use a different
carrier or go down the shop myself next time.
Colin Bignell
Old Codger
>
> However, you have touched on the point which may well make a
> significant difference to the OP's case. If the middleman adds a
> markup onto the price of the goods before reselling them, then they
> are a retailer in their own right and the price paid by the customer
> is fully refundable if the goods are either not supplied or not fit
> for purpose. If the goods are sold at face value plus a separate
> charge for handling, then the handling charge can be non-refundable
> (which is often the case with mail order suppliers that charge
> separately for P&P - they are not legally obliged to refund the P&P if
> the customer decides to return the goods).
I believe that to be correct if, and only if, "the customer decides to
return the goods" when there is no failure with the goods. However, if the
goods are not supplied, are faulty or differ from those ordered I believe
the supplier (to the customer) is obliged to also refund the P & P and any
other incidental expenditure associated with the supply of the goods.
> If the ticket agency used
> by the OP did not make a clear distinction between the face value of
> the tickets and the handling fee, then they have avery good case to
> argue that at least some, if not a large proportion, of the difference
> between face value and priced charged is markup rather than a handling
> fee, and therefore refundable. If the deal was advertised as "Tickets
> for £150 each" rather than "Tickets at £45 each plus a handling charge
> of £105 per ticket", then I think they have a good case to argue for a
> much larger refund.
If the contract for the supply of the tickets was between the ticket tout
and the customer then the tout is the supplier and I believe must refund the
full price he charged (including any handling, P & P or other incidental
charges).
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>
>If you were offering a service whereby your customers ordered from the
>shop, and you merely picked up their order and mailed it to them, then
>you would be acting as a courier service, and would have no liability
>for the product.
But that's what they would be doing. The fact that I convey the order
to the shop on their behalf, as well as collecting the goods from the
shop on their behalf, doesn't alter that.
>But if they are ordering through you, then you are the retailer, and
>do have liability for the product.
If I hired a taxi driver to take some of my money to a nearby Chinese
takeaway and bring me back a house special, is the taxi driver a
retailer?
Mark
--
Please give me one! http://www.pleasegivemeone.com
Alex Heney
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 11:50:04 +0100, Alex Heney put finger to keyboard
>and typed:
>
>>
>>If you were offering a service whereby your customers ordered from the
>>shop, and you merely picked up their order and mailed it to them, then
>>you would be acting as a courier service, and would have no liability
>>for the product.
>
>But that's what they would be doing. The fact that I convey the order
>to the shop on their behalf, as well as collecting the goods from the
>shop on their behalf, doesn't alter that.
Yes it does.
They are ordering from you. They have no contact with the shop, who
are effectively wholesalers in this case.
>
>>But if they are ordering through you, then you are the retailer, and
>>do have liability for the product.
>
>If I hired a taxi driver to take some of my money to a nearby Chinese
>takeaway and bring me back a house special, is the taxi driver a
>retailer?
If you gave him your order, for him to convey to the takeaway, then
technically, he probably would be.
If you phoned your order through to the takeaway, then he would not
be.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
As easy as 3.14159265358979323846264338327950288419716
Alex Heney
wrote:
>Nick (tulse0...@yahoo.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying :
>
>> Invite them to demonstrate where on their website they specify that
>> the face value of the tickets you bought are £45 - as far as I can see
>> they don't specify this, and the descriptions indicate that the price
>> shown is the price you are paying for the ticket, plus £8 P&P.
>
>It appears to be even sneakier than that - I just went through to the point
>of putting in details and placing the order, and not only do they NOT
>specify the Ts&Cs explicitly, or even state that by ordering you're
>agreeing to them, but the price stated is exclusive of VAT - so the £600
>(ea) tickets for their best tickets to see Madge at Wembley the day after
>tomorrow are suddenly £705 tickets.
That is unlawful too.
These sound like an outfit whose regard for consumer law is rather ion
a par with the late Robert Maxwell's regard for pensions law.
They are banking on few enough people knowing their right to be able
to make a profit even when they legally shouldn't.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Tolkien is hobbit-forming.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> "\"nightjar\" <nightjar@"wrote:
>
>>If it makes it easier for you to understand, view the tickets as
>>your computer and the booking agency as a carrier you have
>>employed to bring that computer from the retailer to your house.
>>Would you expect the carrier to refund the cost of carriage if the
>>computer turned out not to work because a chip was faulty?
>
> I disagree that the situation is in any way similar. You have not
> bought the computer from the carrier, there are two separate
> contracts in place, one for the sale of the computer, and the
> other between the retailer and the carrier for the delivery of the
> goods.
I think what nightjar and Mark are mistaking this for is the
situation in which the intermediary is merely the agent for the
purchaser - hired to do the bidding of the buyer. If the buyer hires
someone to buy something for his, the agent is paid for his services
and it is unrelated to the goods purchased. The agent does not buy
for his own account and is an intermediary, a conduit for the
transfer of goods.
In the case of a ticket agency, it is not simply an agent for the
buyer - it buys the tickets before the buyer ever asks it to. It is
an independent business that has all the rights and obligations of
other businesses.
As such, when it sells a ticket to an event that does not take place,
it is required to make a full refund because the buyer did not get
what he paid for.
Stu
Adrian
were saying :
>>It appears to be even sneakier than that - I just went through to the
>>point of putting in details and placing the order, and not only do
>>they NOT specify the Ts&Cs explicitly, or even state that by ordering
>>you're agreeing to them, but the price stated is exclusive of VAT - so
>>the £600 (ea) tickets for their best tickets to see Madge at Wembley
>>the day after tomorrow are suddenly £705 tickets.
> That is unlawful too.
Excuse me? Quoting a price as £600+vat is unlawful?
On the order page, it is clearly stated as being "+vat", although it isn't
on the page where you select the desired ticket.
"nightjar" <nightjar@
....
> I think what nightjar and Mark are mistaking this for is the
> situation in which the intermediary is merely the agent for the
> purchaser - hired to do the bidding of the buyer. If the buyer hires
> someone to buy something for his, the agent is paid for his services
> and it is unrelated to the goods purchased. The agent does not buy
> for his own account and is an intermediary, a conduit for the
> transfer of goods.
That is specifically what this site claims it does.
> In the case of a ticket agency, it is not simply an agent for the
> buyer - it buys the tickets before the buyer ever asks it to. It is
> an independent business that has all the rights and obligations of
> other businesses.
The selling point of the site is that they specialise in getting tickets to
sold-out events. In other words, people come to this site when the normal
ticket agencies have sold out. Either they have the prescentience to buy
tickets in advance for events that will sell out and the nerve to hold onto
them until everywhere else has sold out, or they do go out and try to find
the tickets that the customer requests. If they have the contacts, the
latter would be an attractive business model, particularly as they do not
make any guarantee of obtaining the tickets requested and get to keep the
booking deposit in any case. Of course, they may do a mixture of both buying
in advance, as it should be quite easy to predict that some events will sell
out, and buying to order but that would make it very difficult to prove
which they did in a specific case.
Colin Bignell
Alex Heney
<nightjar@"<insert.my.s...@giganews.com>.uk.com wrote:
>
>"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns9812AE6DDA490s...@130.133.1.4...
>....
>> I think what nightjar and Mark are mistaking this for is the
>> situation in which the intermediary is merely the agent for the
>> purchaser - hired to do the bidding of the buyer. If the buyer hires
>> someone to buy something for his, the agent is paid for his services
>> and it is unrelated to the goods purchased. The agent does not buy
>> for his own account and is an intermediary, a conduit for the
>> transfer of goods.
>
>That is specifically what this site claims it does.
But it clearly doesn't, regardless of claims.
It doesn't allow the customer to say "Find me a ticket for xxx".
It lists the "xxx" for which they have tickets (or can get them)
>
>> In the case of a ticket agency, it is not simply an agent for the
>> buyer - it buys the tickets before the buyer ever asks it to. It is
>> an independent business that has all the rights and obligations of
>> other businesses.
>
>The selling point of the site is that they specialise in getting tickets to
>sold-out events.
Is it?
I thought that was just a minor claim by them.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Status Symbol: n. Something that you don't want, that you buy with money that you don't have, to impress people that you don't know
Alex Heney
wrote:
>Alex Heney (m...@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying :
>
>>>It appears to be even sneakier than that - I just went through to the
>>>point of putting in details and placing the order, and not only do
>>>they NOT specify the Ts&Cs explicitly, or even state that by ordering
>>>you're agreeing to them, but the price stated is exclusive of VAT - so
>>>the £600 (ea) tickets for their best tickets to see Madge at Wembley
>>>the day after tomorrow are suddenly £705 tickets.
>
>> That is unlawful too.
>
>Excuse me? Quoting a price as £600+vat is unlawful?
>
Yes.
Where the supplier deals with consumers it is a requirement that the
price be quoted inclusive of VAT.
The Consumer Protection (Code of Practice for Traders on Price
Indications) Approval Order 2005 (2.2.7 - 2.2.10 are the relevant
parts of the schedule)
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20052705.htm>
>On the order page, it is clearly stated as being "+vat", although it isn't
>on the page where you select the desired ticket.
If they dealt only with other businesses, that would be lawful.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Too bad stupidity isn't painful.
Toom Tabard
Adrian wrote:
> Alex Heney (m...@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying :
>
> >>It appears to be even sneakier than that - I just went through to the
> >>point of putting in details and placing the order, and not only do
> >>they NOT specify the Ts&Cs explicitly, or even state that by ordering
> >>you're agreeing to them, but the price stated is exclusive of VAT - so
> >>the £600 (ea) tickets for their best tickets to see Madge at Wembley
> >>the day after tomorrow are suddenly £705 tickets.
>
> > That is unlawful too.
>
> Excuse me? Quoting a price as £600+vat is unlawful?
>
VAT - see Price Marking Order 2004. I think for online sales, the unit
price (including vat) may have to be shown next to the item on the site
(not mentioning separately, or at a later stage, that VAT will be
added).
> On the order page, it is clearly stated as being "+vat", although it isn't
> on the page where you select the desired ticket.
Then that may not comply with the Price Marking Order 2004, if it
apples to this transaction
You'll find that most internet sites aimed at consumers, e.g. Amazon,
quote prices inclusive of VAT. The invoice will show the actual price
and the VAT separately. That is legal. Doing it the other way round,
i.e. quoting the cost minus VAT next to the item, and showing VAT
separately or at a later stage, wouldn't comply with Price Marking
Order
Toom
Nick
"Adrian" <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9812BA3861EA7ad...@204.153.244.170...
> Nick (tulse0...@yahoo.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
> were saying :
>
>> Invite them to demonstrate where on their website they specify that
>> the face value of the tickets you bought are £45 - as far as I can see
>> they don't specify this, and the descriptions indicate that the price
>> shown is the price you are paying for the ticket, plus £8 P&P.
>
TimB actually wrote this. This answers my question that it is clearly the
format/software that TimB is using that means that I can't easily quote
using OE.
I now know what action take to correct this! Please no more lectures -
either lawyers or not people here are very good at telling other people what
they should be doing.
Nick
Nick
"Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
news:44cfae3b$0$12157$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Interestingly by way of comparison, I looked at the Keith Prowse Conditions
and they include:
"All prices that are displayed show separately the face value of the
tickets, any applicable payment processing fees, booking fees and any
applicable dispatch/handling charges. All prices are inclusive of any
applicable VAT."
http://tinyurl.com/jrwbk (massive URL)
Nick
Adrian
were saying :
>>> That is unlawful too.
>>Excuse me? Quoting a price as £600+vat is unlawful?
> Yes.
>
> Where the supplier deals with consumers it is a requirement that the
> price be quoted inclusive of VAT.
>
> The Consumer Protection (Code of Practice for Traders on Price
> Indications) Approval Order 2005 (2.2.7 - 2.2.10 are the relevant
> parts of the schedule)
> <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20052705.htm>
I stand corrected and slightly gobsmacked.
Consumers are now officially too stupid to understand even the basic
concept of VAT.
alwaysaskingquestions
legislation apply to buying concert tickets on the Internet?
A few months ago, I bought tickets for a concert from Ticketmaster and a
couple of hours later realised that I had mistakenly booked a matinee
performance instead of an evening performance. I rang Ticketmaster to get
the tickets changed. The sales girl refused to do this, she said the tickets
could not be cancelled.
I insisted on speaking to a supervisor, he started off with the same
approach, no cancellations allowed. Chancing my arm a bit, I told him that
irrespective of their T&C, I could cancel them with 7 days under consumer
legislation relating to Distance Selling. He hummed and hawed a bit and then
agreed to change them as a special case as I had requested the change within
less than 24 hours, was buying higher priced tickets for the evening
performance and I agreed to accept the 5% credit card fee on the first
tickets; also, this was about 2 months before the concert and there were
still quite a lot of tickets available.
Was I right in saying that I could cancel under the legislation especially
as this was 2 months before the concert? (I can see issues if somebody tried
to cancel say 24 or 48 hours before the concert making it difficult for the
ticket agents to get sell on the tickets)
Mark Goodge
alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
> As a separate question on this, does the 'cooling off' period under consumer
> legislation apply to buying concert tickets on the Internet?
No, it doesn't.
> Was I right in saying that I could cancel under the legislation especially
> as this was 2 months before the concert? (I can see issues if somebody tried
> to cancel say 24 or 48 hours before the concert making it difficult for the
> ticket agents to get sell on the tickets)
No, you were not right. Event tickets are partially exempt from the DSR,
and the right to cancel is one of the elements that is not covered.
Specifically, the right to cancel is excluded from:
"contracts for the provision of accommodation,
transport, catering or leisure services, where
the supplier undertakes, when the contract is
concluded, to provide these services on a specific
date or within a specific period."
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002334.htm Paragraph 6.2(b)
Mark
Joe Lee
>
>> If she hasnt received anything for the money, then surely the Credit
>> Card Company will do a chargeback for you?
>> That would be my first call.
>> If paying by Debit card then you may be stuffed, apart from
>> threatening/taking Court action against them if they still refuse to
>> refund fully.
>> Alan.
>
> He's spoken with the CC company - their dispute people are apparently
> going to be in touch in the next couple of days...
Ticket Agencies are perfectly respectable businesses but the touts your
friend used have driven a coach & horses through just about every piece of
applicable consumer protection & regulations as far as I can tell.
Irrespective of what the CC provider says I'd recommend your friend to
contact Trading Standards. They will at the very least log the call as a
complaint against Krystalsboxoffice (KBO).
Where KBO charged a booking fee/service charge of ~235%, members of the
Society of Ticket Agents & Retailers (S*T*A*R*S) for example, have a typical
booking fee/service charge of 25% of the face value of the ticket/s.
More importantly though, KBO do not state the face value of the tickets they
offer for sale. It became a criminal offence not to do so under Sec. 3 of
the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The enforcement body is Trading Standards.
http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/
S*T*A*R*S
http://www.s-t-a-r.org.uk/
Joe Lee
> Martin
Michael Hoffman
> More importantly though, KBO do not state the face value of the tickets they
> offer for sale. It became a criminal offence not to do so under Sec. 3 of
> the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
I think you might mean Part III since S3 is all about product safety.
--
Michael Hoffman
Joe Lee
"Michael Hoffman" <cam....@mh391.invalid> wrote in message
news:ear92j$856$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
Quite right, my apologies.
Joe Lee
> --
> Michael Hoffman
>
Nick
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4jbtdlF...@individual.net...
> As a separate question on this, does the 'cooling off' period under
> consumer
> legislation apply to buying concert tickets on the Internet?
>
> A few months ago, I bought tickets for a concert from Ticketmaster and a
> couple of hours later realised that I had mistakenly booked a matinee
> performance instead of an evening performance. I rang Ticketmaster to get
> the tickets changed. The sales girl refused to do this, she said the
> tickets
> could not be cancelled.
Earlier this year I bought some hotel tickets online in the US using a US
website, I believe.
I wanted to cancel one day of the stay. I found it quite difficult to do
this - I am not complaining about it but it was just the case.
I actually found it difficult to receive confirmation that the booking had
been made let alone changing it.
It did in the end resolve itself - there was little money involved - but
being a cheap hotel I did not know how many nights I had booked for until I
arrived - I was not using the room for a night as I was going elsewhere.
I would have been prepared to pay for the extra night.
The fact is that I wouldn't have known about the hotel and certainly been
able to book it except it online - 16 years ago I travelled round the US and
I had to make bookings by post - sending Postal Coupons.
One hotel in San Fransisco that I had found in a Budget Travel book I had
sent a coupon to as a deposit - I arrived a day late - I couldn't even
locate the hotel!
The fact is that one can do things on the Internet that one couldn't do
previously.
Nick
Nick
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:5es0d2llumasinrtu...@4ax.com...
Not exactly these are the first few lines on their website:
"Welcome to Krystals Box Office, your online specialist in sourcing concert
tickets and sold out concert tickets.
Collectively, we have over 20 years experience within the industry for
supplying concert tickets for a vast range of events. We are confident that
if you can't find sold out concert tickets here; you won't be able to find
them anywhere else!"
Otherwise by definition the concerts are not sold-out if they are selling
the tickets. Obviously the box office might no longer have the tickets on
sale any more.
But then that is what I thought agencies did ie buy up blocks of tickets or
contract to buy blocks of tickets.
Nick
Alex Heney
wrote:
>
>"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:5es0d2llumasinrtu...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>>>
>>>The selling point of the site is that they specialise in getting tickets
>>>to
>>>sold-out events.
>>
>> Is it?
>>
>> I thought that was just a minor claim by them.
>
>Not exactly these are the first few lines on their website:
>
>"Welcome to Krystals Box Office, your online specialist in sourcing concert
>tickets and sold out concert tickets.
Yes. Note that it is only "*and* sold out concert tickets".
>
>Collectively, we have over 20 years experience within the industry for
>supplying concert tickets for a vast range of events. We are confident that
>if you can't find sold out concert tickets here; you won't be able to find
>them anywhere else!"
>
>Otherwise by definition the concerts are not sold-out if they are selling
>the tickets. Obviously the box office might no longer have the tickets on
>sale any more.
>
>But then that is what I thought agencies did ie buy up blocks of tickets or
>contract to buy blocks of tickets.
>
Yes.
They probably have more chance of having tickets for "sold out" events
because they make such a ridiculous mark nobody will buy from them
until nowhere else is left.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Just what part of "NO" didn't you understand...?
Mike Bristow
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Consumers are now officially too stupid to understand even the basic
> concept of VAT.
It's bugger all to do with that; it makes comparison between vendors
easier.
--
I don't play The Game - it's for five-year-olds with delusions of adulthood.
Don Aitken
wrote:
>Alex Heney (m...@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying :
>
>>>> That is unlawful too.
>
>>>Excuse me? Quoting a price as £600? is unlawful?
>
>> Yes.
>>
>> Where the supplier deals with consumers it is a requirement that the
>> price be quoted inclusive of VAT.
>>
>> The Consumer Protection (Code of Practice for Traders on Price
>> Indications) Approval Order 2005 (2.2.7 - 2.2.10 are the relevant
>> parts of the schedule)
>> <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20052705.htm>
>
>I stand corrected and slightly gobsmacked.
>
>Consumers are now officially too stupid to understand even the basic
>concept of VAT.
The current Order may date from 2005, but the the principle that
prices for consumer transactions must be given inclusive of VAT goes
back for many years. In fact, I think it goes back to when VAT was
first introduced, and that even before then the same rule applied to
Purchase Tax.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Old Codger
It is surprising how many do not understand percentages and cannot work them
out.
Nick
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message news:t9u3d25opermsktal...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 12:45:12 +0100, "Nick" <tulse0...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:5es0d2llumasinrtu...@4ax.com...
> <snip>
>
>>>>
>>>>The selling point of the site is that they specialise in getting tickets
>>>>to
>>>>sold-out events.
>>>
>>> Is it?
>>>
>>> I thought that was just a minor claim by them.
>>
>>Not exactly these are the first few lines on their website:
>>
>>"Welcome to Krystals Box Office, your online specialist in sourcing concert
>>tickets and sold out concert tickets.
>
> Yes. Note that it is only "*and* sold out concert tickets".
>
You said it is a minor claim. Sounds to me more like second billing.
>>
>>Collectively, we have over 20 years experience within the industry for
>>supplying concert tickets for a vast range of events. We are confident that
>>if you can't find sold out concert tickets here; you won't be able to find
>>them anywhere else!"
>>
>>Otherwise by definition the concerts are not sold-out if they are selling
>>the tickets. Obviously the box office might no longer have the tickets on
>>sale any more.
>>
>>But then that is what I thought agencies did ie buy up blocks of tickets or
>>contract to buy blocks of tickets.
>>
>
> Yes.
>
> They probably have more chance of having tickets for "sold out" events
> because they make such a ridiculous mark nobody will buy from them
> until nowhere else is left.
Obviously touts etc depend on the tickets selling out - on one occasion 25 years ago I was at Highbury after the game had started and I presume that we were offered two seats for money.
We must have rejected the offer because the tout gave the tickets to us - we looked like the students or young workers that we were.
I would have thought that was rather unusual - a soft-hearted tout.
They buy up tickets (and the agency would be the same) that the tickets would be so much in demand that they will be in short supply nearer the time of the game.
I recall in 1978 going to Chelsea to buy 4 tickets for the FA Cup Semi-final between Arsenal and Leyton Orient. It was a lunchtime and the ticket office was very quiet. Besides myself there was one other person there. I remember that a man bought 10 tickets - despite as I remember there being a notice up saying that there was a maximum of 4 tickets per person.
I was recently recounting this in a local pub - it turned out that the fellow I was speaking to had a mate who used to work in the ticket office at Chelsea. I went suddenly quiet ;)
Nick
Alex Heney
wrote:
>Alex Heney (m...@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
They have been for quite a while.
Although I linked to the 2005 version, as the latest incarnation, that
rule first came in quite a few years ago.
I can't remember exactly when , but I do remember all the home
computer magazine adverts suddenly changing to include VAT when they
never had before. I think it was around 2001 or 2002, but I'm not
sure.
And it wasn't really because consumers were considered too stupid. It
was because most retail outlets had always listed the price you
actually pay, and outlets (such as those in the above mentioned
magazines) which quoted VAT exclusive prices, with the only reference
to that being in VERY small print at the bottom of the page were
confusing enough that consumers were being conned.
Although I suppose it was still rather stupid of them to then not back
out of the transaction when the actual amount to be charged showed up.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
All wiyht. Rho sritched mg kegtops awound?
Simon Finnigan
news:4jbtdlF...@individual.net...
The trick I`ve used in the past is to email/phone them asking them to post
the tickets out ASAP, since you need them to sell on ebay. They tend to
cancel the sale quickly enough then :-)
Adrian
saying :
>> Consumers are now officially too stupid to understand even the basic
>> concept of VAT.
> It's bugger all to do with that; it makes comparison between vendors
> easier.
As long as everything's stated as being inc or exc vat, there's no problem
anyway. Unless you're too stupid to understand the concept of "add 17.5%"
Stuart A. Bronstein
>> Consumers are now officially too stupid to understand even the
>> basic concept of VAT.
>
> It's bugger all to do with that; it makes comparison between
> vendors easier.
And hides the amount of tax actually being imposed.
Stu
Mark Goodge
typed:
Consumers don't need to. Businesses need the VAT element separated
out, so that they can reclaim it in their own tax returns. But a
consumer can't do that, so to them the VAT element is irrelevent. All
they need to know is the price.
Mark
--
Please give me one! http://www.pleasegivemeone.com
PC Paul
> Adrian wrote:
>> Alex Heney (m...@privacy.net) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>> were saying :
>>
>>>>> That is unlawful too.
>>
>>>> Excuse me? Quoting a price as £600+vat is unlawful?
>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Where the supplier deals with consumers it is a requirement that
>>> the price be quoted inclusive of VAT.
>>>
>>> The Consumer Protection (Code of Practice for Traders on Price
>>> Indications) Approval Order 2005 (2.2.7 - 2.2.10 are the relevant
>>> parts of the schedule)
>>> <http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20052705.htm>
>>
>> I stand corrected and slightly gobsmacked.
>>
>> Consumers are now officially too stupid to understand even the basic
>> concept of VAT.
>
> It is surprising how many do not understand percentages and cannot
> work them out.
IIRC the law was brought in because of a large number of cases where
unscrupulous traders tucked the 'VAT' words and amount away until right at
the end or even not till the CC statement arrived - which made it very
difficult to do things like compare prices online.
Cynic
wrote:
>> Consumers are now officially too stupid to understand even the basic
>> concept of VAT.
>It's bugger all to do with that; it makes comparison between vendors
>easier.
That is indeed the official reason for the rule. The real reason
however is so that the consumer is not constantly being reminded of
how much money s/he is paying to the government with every purchase.
If it were not for that rule, retailers would almost certainly display
prices that are exclusive of VAT, because the lower the display price,
the cheaper the goods appear to be. Similar to pricing an item at
£99.99 instead of £100, or leaving off the price of all the "optional
extras" and "installation charges" etc. on the display price. So
price comparisons would be like-for-like and just as easy without the
rule, except that the amount of our hard-earned cash that we are
paying in tax would be shoved in our face practically every day
instead of hidden from view inside an inclusive price and largely
forgotten about.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>> Consumers are now officially too stupid to understand even the basic
>> concept of VAT.
>It is surprising how many do not understand percentages and cannot work them
>out.
Although 17.5% is not the easiest figure to do mental arithmetic with.
My technique is to work out 10% first (easy), then add half of that,
then add half of that again. So £78 ex VAT is £78+£7.80+£3.90 +£1.95
Or approx. £78+£8+£4+£2
--
Cynic
Adrian
were saying :
>>> Consumers are now officially too stupid to understand even the basic
>>> concept of VAT.
>>It is surprising how many do not understand percentages and cannot
>>work them out.
> Although 17.5% is not the easiest figure to do mental arithmetic with.
> My technique is to work out 10% first (easy), then add half of that,
> then add half of that again. So £78 ex VAT is £78+£7.80+£3.90 +£1.95
Add 20% and be pleasantly surprised.
Nick
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1id6d2hbqvaaptruk...@4ax.com...
I presume that most people want to know what the total bill is.
The amount of the total bill which is VAT is 17.5/117.5= approx 15% of the
total bill.
In restaurants menus used to exclude VAT. I think that most people want to
know how much they are going to be spending - to not quote it means that the
consumer's bill will be 17.5 per cent more than they anticipate.
As you suggest that most people are not very good at maths or finance, may I
suggest that is a very good reason for including VAT in the price.
Nick
Old Codger
Precisely, but one needs to understand percentages before one can even
attempt that. As I said, there are many consumers who do not understand
percentages.
Mike Bristow
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Consumers are now officially too stupid to understand even the basic
>>> concept of VAT.
>
>> It's bugger all to do with that; it makes comparison between vendors
>> easier.
>
> As long as everything's stated as being inc or exc vat, there's no problem
> anyway. Unless you're too stupid to understand the concept of "add 17.5%"
It does not make you stupid if you don't want to have to add 17.5%
to some figures. It's not hard, but I'd rather spend the time doing
something more interesting.
Nick
So 35 +17.5%=
35+ 3.5 + (3/4)*3.5= 35+3.5+ approx 2.8=approx 41.30
My PC has got a calculator on Start/All Programs/Accessories/Calculator
which is considerably easier.
Nick
"Nick" <tulse0...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b8-dnSmTSrpk-E7Z...@bt.com...
Cynic
wrote:
>Also 10 per cent + 3/4 of 10 per cent.
>
>So 35 +17.5%=
>
>35+ 3.5 + (3/4)*3.5= 35+3.5+ approx 2.8=approx 41.30
>
>My PC has got a calculator on Start/All Programs/Accessories/Calculator
>which is considerably easier.
Yes, but lugging a PC, keyboard and monitor around the shops is
tiring.
--
Cynic
Nick
"Mike Bristow" <mi...@urgle.com> wrote in message
news:slrned74dd...@wafer.urgle.com...
> In article <Xns98149C8F04AF1ad...@204.153.244.170>,
> Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Consumers are now officially too stupid to understand even the basic
>>>> concept of VAT.
>>
>>> It's bugger all to do with that; it makes comparison between vendors
>>> easier.
>>
>> As long as everything's stated as being inc or exc vat, there's no
>> problem
>> anyway. Unless you're too stupid to understand the concept of "add 17.5%"
>
> It does not make you stupid if you don't want to have to add 17.5%
> to some figures. It's not hard, but I'd rather spend the time doing
> something more interesting.
I don't know about stupidity - but it was made a rule that it should be
included because, I would suggest, that one knew precisely where one stood.
Most people when they reach the till and find they haven't realised that
there was the VAT included will probably go ahead with the transaction
rather than deciding not to go ahead with it - certainly for small amounts.
For most "ordinary" people it is fair that they should know exactly how much
they are paying before they decide to buy - shopping should not be a game.
Nick
Grant
""nightjar" <nightjar@ .uk.com" <insert.my.s...@giganews.com> wrote
in message news:LZmdnaY2oOA...@giganews.com...> news:1154175443.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
>> My friend's wife has tried to buy some tickets to a Madonna concert in
>> Manchester through www.krystalsboxoffice.co.uk, for which she paid
>> £150
>> each for two tickets - ie a total of £300.
>>
>> Since the time of the transaction, the concert has been cancelled, so
>> she's approached Krystals for a refund. Their response is that they are
>> only prepared to refund the face value of the tickets (£45), as per
>> their terms and conditions. They seem to be under the (mistaken)
>> impression that she has signed the terms and conditions - where as in
>> truth, the only time she has read them was when they included them in
>> their response to try and support their case.
>>
>> Now, to be fair to Krystals, and having expicitly searched for it,
>> their
>> terms and conditions are available on their website, via a link of the
>> main page. They are not however, from what I can see, presented during
>> the process of making an order - certainly not before you've already
>> submitted your credit card details - which is the point I came away
>> from
>> the attempt...
>
> According to the DTI guidance on web sales, it is sufficient for the terms
> and conditions to be made available in a durable form that is available to
> the purchaser; A condition that can be satisfied by publishing them on a
> web
> site. There is no requirement for the buyer specifically to be informed of
> the terms and conditions before making the purchase. Krystal are quite
> within their rights to refund only the price of the tickets. The balance
> is
> a booking fee (albeit an exorbitant one) and your friend's wife made a
> booking with them; a service that they provided, even if the concert was
> subsequently cancelled.
>
Every on-line purchase i have every made has required a box to be checked
stating that i have read and accept the terms and conditions, i believe this
is what people have come to expect and to not have this facility suggests to
me that the seller has something to hide.
Alex Heney
<nightjar@"<insert.my.s...@giganews.com>.uk.com wrote:
>
>"Martin Milan" <martin....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1154175443.9...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>Hi,
>
>> My friend's wife has tried to buy some tickets to a Madonna concert in
>> Manchester through www.krystalsboxoffice.co.uk, for which she paid
>> Ł150
>> each for two tickets - ie a total of Ł300.
>>
>> Since the time of the transaction, the concert has been cancelled, so
>> she's approached Krystals for a refund. Their response is that they are
>> only prepared to refund the face value of the tickets (Ł45), as per
>> their terms and conditions. They seem to be under the (mistaken)
>> impression that she has signed the terms and conditions - where as in
>> truth, the only time she has read them was when they included them in
>> their response to try and support their case.
>>
>> Now, to be fair to Krystals, and having expicitly searched for it,
>> their
>> terms and conditions are available on their website, via a link of the
>> main page. They are not however, from what I can see, presented during
>> the process of making an order - certainly not before you've already
>> submitted your credit card details - which is the point I came away
>> from
>> the attempt...
>
>According to the DTI guidance on web sales, it is sufficient for the terms
>and conditions to be made available in a durable form that is available to
>the purchaser; A condition that can be satisfied by publishing them on a web
>site. There is no requirement for the buyer specifically to be informed of
>the terms and conditions before making the purchase. Krystal are quite
>within their rights to refund only the price of the tickets.
They are almost certainly not within their rights.
Those T&C would almost certainly fall foul of the Unfair Terms in
Consumer Contracts Regulations, so would not be enforceable.
They will *try* to argue that they are only an agent (and not a
retailer who would have responsibility for the product), but IMO it is
extremely unlikely that they would succeed with that argument in
court.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I still miss my ex-wife.....BUT, My aim is improving!
alwaysaskingquestions
"Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
news:44d37950$0$30313$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> Cynic wrote:
>> Although 17.5% is not the easiest figure to do mental arithmetic with.
>> My technique is to work out 10% first (easy), then add half of that,
>> then add half of that again. So £78 ex VAT is £78+£7.80+£3.90 +£1.95
>>
>> Or approx. £78+£8+£4+£2
>
> Precisely, but one needs to understand percentages before one can even
> attempt that. As I said, there are many consumers who do not understand
> percentages.
Try sometime explaining to Joe Bloggs that when you take the VAT off
something, it's not reduced by 17.5%, it's reduced by 14.9%.
I spent an hour in our shop one day trying to explain this to a guy who was
entitled to a VAT free sale (cross border) - he was still convinced I was
try to diddle him.
Nick Atty
I spent a long time behind someone who has having an argument with the
person at the cash register about what order two different percentage
discounts should be applied.
--
On-line canal route planner: http://www.canalplan.org.uk
(Waterways World site of the month, April 2001)
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.
Old Codger
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:45:02 +0100, "alwaysaskingquestions"
> <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:44d37950$0$30313$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
>>> Cynic wrote:
>>
>>>> Although 17.5% is not the easiest figure to do mental arithmetic
>>>> with. My technique is to work out 10% first (easy), then add half
>>>> of that, then add half of that again. So £78 ex VAT is
>>>> £78+£7.80+£3.90 +£1.95
>>>>
>>>> Or approx. £78+£8+£4+£2
>>>
>>> Precisely, but one needs to understand percentages before one can
>>> even attempt that. As I said, there are many consumers who do not
>>> understand percentages.
>>
>> Try sometime explaining to Joe Bloggs that when you take the VAT off
>> something, it's not reduced by 17.5%, it's reduced by 14.9%.
>>
>> I spent an hour in our shop one day trying to explain this to a guy
>> who was entitled to a VAT free sale (cross border) - he was still
>> convinced I was try to diddle him.
>
> I spent a long time behind someone who has having an argument with the
> person at the cash register about what order two different percentage
> discounts should be applied.
I doubt many shop cashiers know enough to argue that so I imagine it would
have been a very long wait.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Nick Atty wrote:
>> "alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaski...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I spent an hour in our shop one day trying to explain this to a
>>> guy who was entitled to a VAT free sale (cross border) - he was
>>> still convinced I was try to diddle him.
>>
>> I spent a long time behind someone who has having an argument
>> with the person at the cash register about what order two
>> different percentage discounts should be applied.
>
> I doubt many shop cashiers know enough to argue that so I imagine
> it would have been a very long wait.
The the cashier knows his maths he won't have to argue. Because it
shouldn't matter which order discounts are given, the result should be
the same in any case.
Stu
Old Codger
You know that and I know that. I would be very surprised if many shop
cashiers now that. I suspect many, perhaps most, have trouble with
percentages and not a few have trouble with simple arithmetic. It is all
done by the till so, most of the time, they only need to know how to operate
the till.
inri
"Stuart A. Bronstein" <spam...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Xns982B6DACEB4C9sp...@130.133.1.4...
Commutative springs to mind.
inri