Booking fees

[Fredxx]

I hate booking fees but they're a necessary evil.

However the terms and conditions state that if the event is cancelled,
"Booking fees are non-refundable".

Is this kosher? Of course I only see these terms after paying money!

[Jon Ribbens]

I don't see why not (unless you literally *couldn't* see the terms
until after paying). The fees are for the service of selling you the
ticket, which has been completed as soon as you have the ticket.
If the event is later cancelled then that doesn't undo the fact that
you did successfully get the ticket.

[Colin Bignell]

Nor that the seller would have incurred costs in selling it.

--
Colin Bignell

[billy bookcase]

"Colin Bignell" <c...@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message
news:BZ-dnT1ZWdljgKD4...@giganews.com...

Surely even if the seller was self employed philanthropist using
a computer in their local library, which is hardly ideal for a 24
hr operation, you must admit the ultimate cost would simply be
transferred to Council Tax payers.

It isn't that the cost of this transaction may easily be offset
by the profit from all their successful sales ; but rather that
without a computer and the electricity it consumes and all the other
associated costs, software maybe, they couldn't sell on any
tickets at all.


bb

[JNugent]

It's funny how we all used to manage to get to the cinema, to the
theatre (even the Old Vic and the RSC), to concerts and other events
before Ticketmaster came into existence, isn't it?

[billy bookcase]

"billy bookcase" <bi...@anon.com> wrote in message
news:wPWcne2lYO7SuqP4...@brightview.co.uk...

>
> "Colin Bignell" <c...@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:BZ-dnT1ZWdljgKD4...@giganews.com...
>> On 28/10/2023 14:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> On 2023-10-28, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> I hate booking fees but they're a necessary evil.
>>>>
>>>> However the terms and conditions state that if the event is cancelled,
>>>> "Booking fees are non-refundable".
>>>>
>>>> Is this kosher? Of course I only see these terms after paying money!
>>>
>>> I don't see why not (unless you literally *couldn't* see the terms
>>> until after paying). The fees are for the service of selling you the
>>> ticket, which has been completed as soon as you have the ticket.
>>> If the event is later cancelled then that doesn't undo the fact that
>>> you did successfully get the ticket.
>>>
>>
>> Nor that the seller would have incurred costs in selling it.
>

> Surely even if ...

My apologies. I confused "nor" with "not" there.

< redundant verbiage snipped >


bb

[billy bookcase]

"JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kq7f39...@mid.individual.net...
:

>
> It's funny how we all used to manage to get to the cinema, to the theatre
> (even the Old Vic and the RSC), to concerts and other events before
> Ticketmaster came into existence, isn't it?
>

Maybe even more remarkable is how we used to buy second hand-stuff*
before the advent of the likes of eBay. Remember Exchange and Mart ?
And after that, in London anyway, Loot ?

I've got old A to Z's, with the otherwise blank inside covers, full of
names and addresses of places where I'd bought, or at least looked
at stuff.

bb

* Everything from cars to stamps and even new stuff, on occasion.

[Colin Bignell]

On 29/10/2023 20:15, billy bookcase wrote:
> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kq7f39...@mid.individual.net...
> :
>>
>> It's funny how we all used to manage to get to the cinema, to the theatre
>> (even the Old Vic and the RSC), to concerts and other events before
>> Ticketmaster came into existence, isn't it?
>>
>
> Maybe even more remarkable is how we used to buy second hand-stuff*
> before the advent of the likes of eBay. Remember Exchange and Mart ?

Always great reading.

> And after that, in London anyway, Loot ?
>
> I've got old A to Z's, with the otherwise blank inside covers, full of
> names and addresses of places where I'd bought, or at least looked
> at stuff.
>
> bb
>
> * Everything from cars to stamps and even new stuff, on occasion.
>
>
>
>

--
Colin Bignell

[JNugent]

On 29/10/2023 08:15 pm, billy bookcase wrote:

> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:

>> It's funny how we all used to manage to get to the cinema, to the theatre
>> (even the Old Vic and the RSC), to concerts and other events before
>> Ticketmaster came into existence, isn't it?
>
> Maybe even more remarkable is how we used to buy second hand-stuff*
> before the advent of the likes of eBay. Remember Exchange and Mart ?
> And after that, in London anyway, Loot ?

E&M was the Rolls-Royce experience for used sales. I sold a few things
via its pages when I lived in London, fifty+ years ago. In the 1980s, I
even managed to find the whole engine / gearbox assembly for a Metro at
Universal Salvage (a national firm with many regional branches) for £175
inc VAT. They delivered to the garage doing the work - FOC.

Exchange and Mart was a wonderful publication.

Never saw Loot AFAICR. But the various local papers in London (not the
Standard or News) were well-regarded for classified ads.

> I've got old A to Z's, with the otherwise blank inside covers, full of
> names and addresses of places where I'd bought, or at least looked
> at stuff.

:-)

> bb
>
> * Everything from cars to stamps and even new stuff, on occasion.

It was great for car parts from door handles to engine blocks. eBay
seems to have taken over.

[Fredxx]

On 28/10/2023 14:58, Jon Ribbens wrote:

That sounds quite a wheeze. While I can see your point, if I should
claim to have Kylie at the NEC and then cancel because I was unable to
hire Kylie or book the arena, I could via a separate entity, cream off a
couple of ££ per ticket and keep that?

[Sara Merriman]

On 30 Oct 2023 at 10:19:26 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:

> On 29/10/2023 08:15 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>
>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>> It's funny how we all used to manage to get to the cinema, to the theatre
>>> (even the Old Vic and the RSC), to concerts and other events before
>>> Ticketmaster came into existence, isn't it?
>>
>> Maybe even more remarkable is how we used to buy second hand-stuff*
>> before the advent of the likes of eBay. Remember Exchange and Mart ?
>> And after that, in London anyway, Loot ?
>
> E&M was the Rolls-Royce experience for used sales. I sold a few things
> via its pages when I lived in London, fifty+ years ago. In the 1980s, I
> even managed to find the whole engine / gearbox assembly for a Metro at
> Universal Salvage (a national firm with many regional branches) for £175
> inc VAT. They delivered to the garage doing the work - FOC.
>
> Exchange and Mart was a wonderful publication.
>
> Never saw Loot AFAICR. But the various local papers in London (not the
> Standard or News) were well-regarded for classified ads.

The Standard was the go-to paper for finding flat shares.

>
>> I've got old A to Z's, with the otherwise blank inside covers, full of
>> names and addresses of places where I'd bought, or at least looked
>> at stuff.
>
> :-)
>
>> bb
>>
>> * Everything from cars to stamps and even new stuff, on occasion.
>
> It was great for car parts from door handles to engine blocks. eBay
> seems to have taken over.

--
"What happens if a big asteroid hits Earth? Judging from realistic
simulations involving a sledgehammer and a common laboratory frog,
we can assume it will be pretty bad." - Dave Barry

[Mark Goodge]

That, I think, would be unlawful as it would be deliberately setting out to
deceive. But consider a real life situation that I happen to be involved in.
One of the consequences of Storm Babet was that the riverside meadows in my
town were flooded. One of those meadows is the location for the annual
bonfire and firework display. Which cannot now go ahead, as the meadow won't
dry out in time. So, we've had to cancel.

However, we were selling advance tickets for the event, both over the
counter and online. The online ticket sales come with a per-sale booking
fee, which is charged to us by the platform. If we cancel the event, we have
to refund customers. But we don't get a refund from the online ticket
platform. So, do we subtract the fee from the refund, or refund in full? The
former means that disappointed cusomers are out of pocket. The latter means
that we are. Either way, the ticket sales platform has still got its money.
Is that fair? And if not, what do you suggest should be done about it?

Mark

[JNugent]

On 30/10/2023 12:23 pm, Sara Merriman wrote:
> On 30 Oct 2023 at 10:19:26 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 29/10/2023 08:15 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>
>>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> It's funny how we all used to manage to get to the cinema, to the theatre
>>>> (even the Old Vic and the RSC), to concerts and other events before
>>>> Ticketmaster came into existence, isn't it?
>>>
>>> Maybe even more remarkable is how we used to buy second hand-stuff*
>>> before the advent of the likes of eBay. Remember Exchange and Mart ?
>>> And after that, in London anyway, Loot ?
>>
>> E&M was the Rolls-Royce experience for used sales. I sold a few things
>> via its pages when I lived in London, fifty+ years ago. In the 1980s, I
>> even managed to find the whole engine / gearbox assembly for a Metro at
>> Universal Salvage (a national firm with many regional branches) for £175
>> inc VAT. They delivered to the garage doing the work - FOC.
>>
>> Exchange and Mart was a wonderful publication.
>>
>> Never saw Loot AFAICR. But the various local papers in London (not the
>> Standard or News) were well-regarded for classified ads.
>
> The Standard was the go-to paper for finding flat shares.

It certainly was that for those seeking Central and West London
"status"accommodation.

For those of us whose sights were set somewhat lower, there were more
plebeian publications for less salubrious suburbs. Postcards in
newsagents' windows were another good source for bedsits, etc.

[Roland Perry]

In message <7sjvjidj1cg2fdatr...@4ax.com>, at 15:56:34 on
Mon, 30 Oct 2023, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

If you also had a bricks-and-mortar outlet for advance ticket sales for
cash, it could be possible to argue that the online booking fee is
something the attendees were willing to accept as a sunk cost, for the
convenience.

Next year, pick a platform with more customer-friendly T&C.
--
Roland Perry

[Theo]

Roland Perry <rol...@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <7sjvjidj1cg2fdatr...@4ax.com>, at 15:56:34 on
> Mon, 30 Oct 2023, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
> remarked:
> >

> >However, we were selling advance tickets for the event, both over the
> >counter and online. The online ticket sales come with a per-sale
> >booking fee, which is charged to us by the platform. If we cancel the
> >event, we have to refund customers. But we don't get a refund from
> >the online ticket platform. So, do we subtract the fee from the
> >refund, or refund in full? The former means that disappointed
> >cusomers are out of pocket. The latter means that we are. Either way,
> >the ticket sales platform has still got its money. Is that fair? And
> >if not, what do you suggest should be done about it?

Is there a difference here that the booking fee was included in the
price? Was this fee disclosed to the customers - was the event £5
including 50p booking fee, or £4.50 plus 50p booking fee?

In the latter case you might argue the booking fee was something the
consumer paid to a third party for their convenience. In the former
case it could be argued that it was you paying the booking fee out of
the transaction, not the consumer.

(See eg an ebay sale, where the consumer doesn't get to see the fees
charged by ebay and doing a refund sans fees would not be acceptable.
In that instance ebay refunds the fees too so it's not an issue, but
they could argue they successfully fulfilled their part of the
transaction and should be paid as agreed)

> If you also had a bricks-and-mortar outlet for advance ticket sales for
> cash, it could be possible to argue that the online booking fee is
> something the attendees were willing to accept as a sunk cost, for the
> convenience.

In which case it would be the £4.50 plus 50p booking fee case, except
no 50p fee if you bought the ticket directly from the box office.
Maybe other outlets could set their own booking fee if they wanted.

> Next year, pick a platform with more customer-friendly T&C.

Sounds a bit like the market for estate/letting agents. Their customer is
the seller or landlord, the buyer/renter doesn't get to choose which
agent is offering a particular property. In this case the event
organiser is the one purchasing a booking service. It is only if there
are multiple outlets for the same product does the consumer get some
ability to discriminate which to buy from.

Theo

[Colin Bignell]

The online ticket platform has supplied the service it charged for, so
is entitled to its money. Whether you decide to refund the full amount,
the amount paid less the fee, or to split the fee between you and the
customer, is something for your bonfire society to decide, based upon
how you think customers will react in the circumstances and how it will
affect the society's funds.

--
Colin Bignell

[Roger Hayter]

On 1 Nov 2023 at 12:50:56 GMT, "Colin Bignell" <c...@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk>
wrote:

I would hope any ticket agency would have what happens when an event is
cancelled in its Ts & Cs, but what you say would seem to be the default
position. They should probably say who will administer refunds, too. And
whether if he ticket agency does it there will be an extra fee.

--
Roger Hayter

[Andy Burns]

Mark Goodge wrote:

> One of the consequences of Storm Babet was that the riverside meadows in my
> town were flooded. One of those meadows is the location for the annual
> bonfire and firework display. Which cannot now go ahead, as the meadow won't
> dry out in time. So, we've had to cancel.
>
> However, we were selling advance tickets for the event, both over the
> counter and online. The online ticket sales come with a per-sale booking
> fee, which is charged to us by the platform. If we cancel the event, we have
> to refund customers. But we don't get a refund from the online ticket
> platform. So, do we subtract the fee from the refund, or refund in full? The
> former means that disappointed cusomers are out of pocket. The latter means
> that we are. Either way, the ticket sales platform has still got its money.
> Is that fair? And if not, what do you suggest should be done about it?

Event cancellation insurance?

[Roland Perry]

In message <uhvr6o$u5sg$6...@dont-email.me>, at 09:47:05 on Thu, 2 Nov
2023, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>Did they add any value to the transaction ?
>
>I have a particular ire for what I call "shim outfits" who interpose
>themselves between consumer and provider and then do fuck all.
>
>2 instances spring to mind. One telecoms outfit who were suppoed to heko
>us get the best deal and take care of *all* our telecoms. The moment
>there was a billing error (first month) they put their hands up and said
>"nothing to do with us". Turned out they had zero obligations to do
>anything for the 15% they were creaming off.
>
>A year later I had to use a company "Parcels2Go" that were supposed to
>act as an agent commissioning and dealing with couriers. Courer was late,
>I complained to Parcels2Go who said "nothing to do with us, you need to
>take it up with the courier".
>
>Both experiences were in a commercial setting and out of my control
>(company policy). Luckily it's meant I avoid such outfits where I can.
>
>AirB'B and UberEats seem to be similar outfits.

Yes, we had a serious incident with AirBNB earlier this year. We booked
a holiday let having specified to their search engine that accessible
was essential. So they sent a shortlist and we booked one. When the
booking confirmation came through minutes later it as clear the property
was an upstairs flat that was not accessible.

So we immediately sent a cancellation through, which the landlord blew
off saying as far as they were concerned all bookings were
non-refundable, even if cancelled minutes after being made.

On taking that up with AirBNB they said "nothing to do with us, even if
you cancelled within half an hour (which I have an idea might be in
their T&C) if the landlord refuses to co-operate "There's nothing we can
do"TM.

On being pressed they said they'd give us a 10% (or whatever) ex-gratia
payment, which was them simply saying they'd write off their booking
fee.

This was a red rag to a bull [never ever annoy SWMBO about things like
this, it won't end well!] and she involved some serious MSM consumer
journalists [who we happen to know because of our former day-jobs, and
of course is much of the reason why I involve myself here] and AirBNB
caved in and gave us all our money back plus a £250 voucher.

>Quite happy to take the money until there is a problem. Then the words
>"Scotch Mist" spring to mind.
>
>At least insurance brokers do the grunt work of delaing with an insurer
>for their daily bread.

https://youtu.be/qaSMqEahThQ
https://youtu.be/kbcG7QTJdno

--
Roland Perry

[billy bookcase]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.uk> wrote in message
news:eRjHMZNj...@perry.uk...

>
> Yes, we had a serious incident with AirBNB earlier this year. We booked a
> holiday let having specified to their search engine that accessible was
> essential. So they sent a shortlist and we booked one. When the booking
> confirmation came through minutes later it as clear the property was an
> upstairs flat that was not accessible.

Surely isn't it a big fault with AirBNB's business model that a
customer might only find out, "after" booking, that a flat was
upstairs ?

Surely every possible piece of available information about the
property, about anything in fact which was going to be bought
or booked online, from plane flights, to cars to packets of screws
to holidays must be made available to the customer before they
commit themselves ? Thus enabling them to make a more informed
choice, and avoid potential causes of complaint.

Isn't there some sort of basic business principle here ?

If this really is AirBNB's amateurish way of going about things,
then it seems yet one more reason to avoid them like the plague


< snippage >


bb

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 4 Nov 2023 13:50:32 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Nov 2023 10:05:23 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> We booked a holiday let having specified to their search engine that
>> accessible
>

>There's no such thing. That was your first mistake.

On the contrary, "Accessibility features" is one of the filter sections on
the website. It includes things like "Step-free guest access", which clearly
would not be met by a first-floor property without a lift.

AirBnB may try to argue that that's the fault of the landlord, who wrongly
selected those options when listing the property. But the contract is
between AirBnB and the customer, so AirBnB is responsible for any errors
which require the contract to be cancelled.

That, though, is one of the reasons why I'd be very reluctant to use AirBnB.
When I've booked self-catering accommodation in the past, I've used
Booking.com, and on the one occasion when it did go pear-shaped due to the
landlord screwing up, their customer service couldn't have been more
helpful. Not only did they not even slightly quibble over an immediate
refund, they also found and booked an alternative for me. AirBnB has too
many horror stories like Roland's for me to seriously consider them unless
it really was the last resort.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <mUOdndnvTJI7v9v4...@brightview.co.uk>, at
10:53:25 on Sat, 4 Nov 2023, billy bookcase <bi...@anon.com> remarked:

>
>"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.uk> wrote in message
>news:eRjHMZNj...@perry.uk...
>>
>> Yes, we had a serious incident with AirBNB earlier this year. We booked a
>> holiday let having specified to their search engine that accessible was
>> essential. So they sent a shortlist and we booked one. When the booking
>> confirmation came through minutes later it as clear the property was an
>> upstairs flat that was not accessible.
>
>Surely isn't it a big fault with AirBNB's business model that a
>customer might only find out, "after" booking, that a flat was
>upstairs ?

It doesn't actually matter if a property is upstairs, as long as it
qualifies as "accessible", as requested in the search. It could for
example have a lift.

We had an accessible room in a Travelodge in September, and that was
upstairs but with a lift. Often they'll have the accessible rooms on
the ground floor and no lift for the upstairs rooms.

The replacement AirBNB we booked was at ground level, but what they
failed to mention that time was a flight of about 30 steps down from
the road outside. <Sigh>

>Surely every possible piece of available information about the
>property, about anything in fact which was going to be bought
>or booked online, from plane flights, to cars to packets of screws
>to holidays must be made available to the customer before they
>commit themselves ? Thus enabling them to make a more informed
>choice, and avoid potential causes of complaint.
>
>Isn't there some sort of basic business principle here ?
>
>If this really is AirBNB's amateurish way of going about things,
>then it seems yet one more reason to avoid them like the plague

The problem is that in some areas they have a virtual monopoly on
holiday lets.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <ui5i78$3a3ue$7...@dont-email.me>, at 13:50:32 on Sat, 4 Nov
2023, Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:

>On Sat, 04 Nov 2023 10:05:23 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:
>

>> We booked a holiday let having specified to their search engine that
>> accessible
>

>There's no such thing. That was your first mistake.

No, it was a box you could tick...

>Nothing was ever going to get better from there.

... just like things such as "within a mile from the train station" and
"good sea views". And the latter of course is why it was upstairs.
--
Roland Perry