reallocation of concert seat tickets

[eddie1234567]

Hi, recieved an e-mail today from SEETICKETS.COM saying that the tickets we had bought for Coldplay at Hampden later this year had been re-allocated as "Due to a system error the seats you were originally allocated did not correspond to the price that you paid"

 

The original tickets were fine but these new ones, you might as well stay at home and put a dvd on, as the only way you will see the band is on the video screens.

 

Can we still demand the original seats we paid for or are concerts treated differently

[legalpickle]

Yes. You paid and were told you could get those seats, if they made a mistake, that's their fault!

[eddie1234567]

Yes. You paid and were told you could get those seats, if they made a mistake, that's their fault!

 

Cheers for the reply Legalpickle.

 

I am not good on how to approach these things, any ideas of how to put it to them what regulations can I use to back it up

[legalpickle]

Cheers for the reply Legalpickle.

 

I am not good on how to approach these things, any ideas of how to put it to them what regulations can I use to back it up

Eddie: There is no need for any regulations. It's clear and simple, you paid under the impression you were getting certain tickets, actually got those tickets but then they changed them.

 

When is the performance?

How much did you spend?

How much would the difference in price between the seats you were originally ordering and the seats they're now giving you be?

When did you order the tickets?

When did they change the seats on you?

If you couldn't get the change of seats now, without paying them, would you;

a) Pay them the difference in dispute.

b) Sit in the seats you've got now, but be unsatisfied about it.

c) Not go to the performance.

 

Please answer these questions, then I'll try to help you further.

[Annoying Twit]

This is a very interesting case. It's not like the normal loss of bargain case is it.....

 

If the OP pays the difference in dispute, then they can then sue for the difference later can't they?

 

Would it be advisable to record the phone call (and tell the person at the other end of the phone) that paying the difference is "in dispute" and that the OP intends to claim the difference?

 

I've got a vague idea that in, particularly online, cases where the price is listed wrong, that it's not possible to sue for loss of bargain where the price is obviously wrong. Could this be argued in this case?

[legalpickle]

This is a very interesting case. It's not like the normal loss of bargain case is it.....

 

If the OP pays the difference in dispute, then they can then sue for the difference later can't they?

 

Would it be advisable to record the phone call (and tell the person at the other end of the phone) that paying the difference is "in dispute" and that the OP intends to claim the difference?

 

I've got a vague idea that in, particularly online, cases where the price is listed wrong, that it's not possible to sue for loss of bargain where the price is obviously wrong. Could this be argued in this case?

Well, Annoying Twit, it's not often I get to call somebody Annoying Twit and not mean it as an insult!

 

1. I wouldn't say it's "interesting" or necessary not like the "normal loss of bargain case" as I don't know what a "normal loss of bargain case" is. Every case is different, and classifying any case as "normal" is unfair.

 

2. Technically. The OP would have to give the company the option to provide the other tickets at no extra cost first.

 

3. Maybe you don't know, but you don't legally have to tell somebody that you're recording the conversation if it's for your personal use. If you're doing it as business then you do. Whether I'd recommend that depends on the OP's responses to my questions in my previous post.

 

4. This isn't always correct. Also, the definition of obvious is wide ranging. It would only be applicable if a normally £500 ticket was sold for £20 or so, and even then there would be arguments against it. It completely depends on the OP's answers to my previous post.

 

So, Annoying Twit, I hope I don't have to experience you acting like your namesake! Lol!

[Annoying Twit]

 

3. Maybe you don't know, but you don't legally have to tell somebody that you're recording the conversation if it's for your personal use. If you're doing it as business then you do. Whether I'd recommend that depends on the OP's responses to my questions in my previous post.

 

I do know that calls where only one person is aware of the recording may or may not be ruled admissible evidence. Telling them that you're recording the call lessens (removes) the probability that the call will be ruled inadmissible.

 

So, Annoying Twit, I hope I don't have to experience you acting like your namesake! Lol!

 

You're lucky that you weren't the person I last bought something from off ebay. We worked it out in the end, but I certainly lived up to the name there.

[rickyd]

not directly related but in a similar vein - I ordered a bottle of whisky online and paid the price listed but after I had received it the seller demanded more money. The reason given was that the it had been priced incorrectly and I should have know this.

 

I told him I wasn't aware it should have cost more and bought it in good faith. He never bothered me again.

 

My point being isn't it the sellers responsibility to ensure the sale is correctly priced before the sale is concluded?

[legalpickle]

I do know that calls where only one person is aware of the recording may or may not be ruled admissible evidence. Telling them that you're recording the call lessens (removes) the probability that the call will be ruled inadmissible.

Rubbish! If it's ruled inadmissible in a case where it's for personal use then the judge and the parties didn't know what they were doing. If it is for commercial use, then without both parties knowing, it's inadmissible (it's actually both parties agreeing, but continuing the conversation once the customer's been told in some way that it's being recorded is deemed consent).

 

You're lucky that you weren't the person I last bought something from off ebay. We worked it out in the end, but I certainly lived up to the name there.

I'd probably say that you're luck I'm not the person who sold you the item, because whilst I may not necessarily be an annoying twit, if there's a legal dispute I will cause the other party - whoever it is - hell! And I have done so before!

 

not directly related but in a similar vein - I ordered a bottle of whisky online and paid the price listed but after I had received it the seller demanded more money. The reason given was that the it had been priced incorrectly and I should have know this.

 

I told him I wasn't aware it should have cost more and bought it in good faith. He never bothered me again.

 

My point being isn't it the sellers responsibility to ensure the sale is correctly priced before the sale is concluded?

Yes, in most cases. The cases Annoying Twit is referring to is where it would be obvious that only a mistake could cause that price to be there. For example: If Tesco advertised a packet of cherry tomatoes for 2p AND didn't specify a special offer - that would obviously be that it was a mistake that caused it, and Tesco could claim that you're not entitled to it at that price.

 

But obvious means in such a case, blatantly ridiculously obvious, like my above example.

 

If however Tesco advertised a packet of cherry tomatoes for 2p AND said Special Offer but later claimed it was meant to say 20p, not 2p, you could claim it said Special Offer, so you assumed they were trying to get rid of them, and that would probably be accepted.

[Annoying Twit]

Rubbish! If it's ruled inadmissible in a case where it's for personal use then the judge and the parties didn't know what they were doing. If it is for commercial use, then without both parties knowing, it's inadmissible (it's actually both parties agreeing, but continuing the conversation once the customer's been told in some way that it's being recorded is deemed consent).

 

I read up on this in response to a discussion in the public transport forum, where I read a very interesting page on it. Unfortunately, while I found my post, I didn't put the reference in, and can't find it now

 

It was similar to, but more detailed, than this ombudsman's page:

 

your questions answered - issue 38

 

And I'm sure the original page gave cases where recorded phone conversations where the other side weren't aware of the recording was ruled admissible, and cases where it wasn't.

 

Unfortunately, saying goodnight to my son and getting my guitar practice in are more important to me than making my point properly

 

I'd probably say that you're luck I'm not the person who sold you the item, because whilst I may not necessarily be an annoying twit, if there's a legal dispute I will cause the other party - whoever it is - hell! And I have done so before!

It didn't get as far as legals. I bought an item where there are different versions, and the indicators of what version you have is very subtle. After buying the item (pickup) I then realised I hadn't checked it was as described in the listing. So I checked for the details on the rather dark bus I was on, and didn't find any. Getting off at the other end, I phoned up and "raised the issue". The seller asked me to come back. So, without checking the item again (you can see where this is going), I go back, unwrap it, say "here's the problem", and there's my finger pointing directly at the evidence that the goods were the correct item and ask described.

 

I did get positive feedback though.

[legalpickle]

I read up on this in response to a discussion in the public transport forum, where I read a very interesting page on it. Unfortunately, while I found my post, I didn't put the reference in, and can't find it now

 

It was similar to, but more detailed, than this ombudsman's page:

 

your questions answered - issue 38

 

And I'm sure the original page gave cases where recorded phone conversations where the other side weren't aware of the recording was ruled admissible, and cases where it wasn't.

As the FOS say, it is lawful where it is for your own use. The actual rule is where it is for personal use, not commercial use.

 

I have read the Law in more detail elsewhere, but likewise can't find it in detail at the moment, but I suggest you read these CAG links for more information for now:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/the-news/news/90-can-i-legally-record-telpehone-calls

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/faq/31-general/84-talking-to-banks-or-dcas-on-the-phone

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/169591-recording-phone-calls.html#post1826891

 

 

Unfortunately, saying goodnight to my son and getting my guitar practice in are more important to me than making my point properly

For the first one, I'm please your family is more important than proving yourself right, you've got one priority straight!

 

It didn't get as far as legals. I bought an item where there are different versions, and the indicators of what version you have is very subtle. After buying the item (pickup) I then realised I hadn't checked it was as described in the listing. So I checked for the details on the rather dark bus I was on, and didn't find any. Getting off at the other end, I phoned up and "raised the issue". The seller asked me to come back. So, without checking the item again (you can see where this is going), I go back, unwrap it, say "here's the problem", and there's my finger pointing directly at the evidence that the goods were the correct item and ask described.

 

I did get positive feedback though.

I'd have given you hell! I'd have given you bad feedback and advertised what went on!

[Annoying Twit]

As the FOS say, it is lawful where it is for your own use. The actual rule is where it is for personal use, not commercial use.

 

Ah, I'm not talking about whether it's lawful to take the recording or not, I'm talking about whether the recording would be ruled admissible as evidence in a court case. From the links I found, it appears that most of the time it is, but not all the time.

 

I'd have given you hell! I'd have given you bad feedback and advertised what went on!

 

The seller laughed and said that he couldn't understand why there was a problem as he knew it was the right item. And that he was pleased that the misunderstanding was cleared up.

 

But you wouldn't have given me bad feedback, because ebay sellers can't give buyers bad feedback.

[legalpickle]

Ah, I'm not talking about whether it's lawful to take the recording or not, I'm talking about whether the recording would be ruled admissible as evidence in a court case. From the links I found, it appears that most of the time it is, but not all the time.

If it's lawful, it's admissible. If a Judge refused to admit it and that side lost, it would be grounds for appeal. Any Judge that may have ruled such a recording was inadmissible would have been right old plonker and been proven to not have known the law.

 

The seller laughed and said that he couldn't understand why there was a problem as he knew it was the right item. And that he was pleased that the misunderstanding was cleared up.

 

But you wouldn't have given me bad feedback, because ebay sellers can't give buyers bad feedback.

Firstly, I wouldn't be using eBay because it sucks.

Secondly, there are other ways of causing one hassle. If it was me, then you'd have regretted it for the rest of your life, and got neutral feedback with negative comments rather than positive feedback.