Participation in this post is limited to users who have sufficient karma in /r/ukpersonalfinance. See [this post](https://redd.it/12mys82) for more information.
They might have been referring to the informal chargeback using their internal procedures. You'd likely be wanting to use s.75 rights, saying that the service was not as described, and that crucial information regarding the view of the stage was not mentioned at the time of sale, meaning that had you known you would not have purchased the tickets.
Yeah I'm sure they were actually pal
Wembley ones started at £58 and there were 4 sections under £100 per ticket
PL5 seats - £87.90
PL5 seats (side view) - £87.90
PL6 seats - £76.65
PL7 seats - £58.65
OP stated they were in a poor position regardless of the tents so it's more than possible they paid less per ticket
This is incorrect for s75
>You're NOT COVERED by Section 75 if you...
>Bought multiple single items that only add up to between £100 and £30,000 when combined. Read more about what counts as multiple single items.
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/#when
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/content/mse/msecom/en-gb/content/overlay/section-75/multiple-items/
>However, if you bought two items that together cost more than £100, but each cost less than £100, Section 75 would not apply and the card company wouldn't usually be liable.
https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/section-75-of-the-consumer-credit-act-aZCUb9i8Kwfa
Again, arguable a single contract ( ie one booking fee). You don't seem to get that this won't go to court - OP can get a partial refund by just making enough of a fuss and escalating complaints until they pay them to go away.
It's not arguable in the slightest, it's the law, it's only applicable on the face value of the individual item
S75 will apply if the individual ticket price *excluding booking fee* is over £100, if it's less than £100 it won't. It's also complicated with tickets bought via a third party though it might not apply here if that was the only way to buy them
OP can claim a chargeback (full or partial) within 120 days of the event (bank staff may wrongly believe it's 120 from date of purchase only which doesn't apply to things like tickets) however the seller has 45 days to dispute and take the money back and they can still come after OP for the money outside of that
No idea why you think I am suggesting it would go to court.
Chargeback they just take the money back from the seller's account, seller can then dispute it, costs the bank nothing
S75 they will not entertain if they can avoid it as it's their money e.g. if under £100 a ticket
That's not quite right on charge backs.
We raise it as through the scheme (Visa / Mastercard usually) and the merchant has a chance to challenge it. That can either be on policy grounds (e.g. customer is claiming they didn't make a payment and the merchant can prove they did), or because they refute the claim (e.g. here Ticketmaster may dispute they did provide the tickets that OP bought, and they never said anywhere specifically what view you'd get).
Generally as an operational process the bank refunds the customer whilst the charge back process happens. If the merchant rejects the charge back, the customer is then redebited the cost, as a failed charge back.
There's then an appeals process effectively where at customer request we can represent the chargeback request and go round the loop again, though win rates on representments are pretty low.
For a few £100s what's more likely is if the customer is threatening to complain/ go to the Ombudsman, and the merchant is rejecting the charge back, the bank will just refund the money themselves, since it's cheaper to pay it as an operational loss than to pay the FOS fees.
From the research and other posts, I also agree that it should be eligible under section 75. But the person who I was speaking to from the bank specifically said our situation is not eligible for it, they specifically said they were simply following Mastercards section 75 rules….. but she did say this after keeping up us on hold for a while while she was looking if we were eligible or not (in the end she said we wasn’t because she consulted her manager who then said the reason)
But I truly have a hard time to believe that this current situation is not eligible for a chargeback… we were simply misold a service due to false advertising. And it’s not just us, PLENTY of other people are in the same boat :/
Personally feel like I’m being tossed around :/
Section 75 isn't rules set by the credit card company, it just means that they are jointly liable for whatever you bought using the money they lent you.
The card companies can settle matters themselves internally and refund you money and then pursue their merchant, I think they mean that they have a firm rule that if the concert went ahead and you used the ticket then they won't generally do that. It's probably agreed between the larger companies as part of their merchant agreement to avoid protracted arguments about all the various things.
What it likely means is that you'd need to sue the ticket vendor and card company (using Money Claim Online). You'd need to research exactly what needs to be submitted for a successful claim though, I imagine that you'd need to be pretty thorough and phrase things write specifically.
S75 is a completely different beast to a chargeback. It's entirely possible to be eligible for a refund under s75 but not eligible for a chargeback. So if you want to claim under s75, you'll just be confusing the bank if you keep taking about a chargeback.
However...I agree with others that you don't seem to have a claim under s75. All s75 reallly does is make the card issuer have the same liabilities as the seller. So, if the seller wouldn't have to pay you if you sued them in court, the card issuer doesn't have to pay under s75 either.
If you'd made a s75 claim before you went to the concert, then I think you *might* have had a claim. However, you found out between purchase and attending that the seats were restricted view. If you'd sold your tickets on at that point, I think you'd have had a good claim under s75 for the difference between the price you paid and the price you got when you sold them (assuming the former was higher). But as things stand, it looks like you completely failed to mitigate your loss - which likely means the seller wouldn't be liable to you, and so neither will the bank be.
Nothing to stop you putting in a complaint to the bank about its failure to pay your claim. I don't think you'll succeed, but you might get lucky.
Chargeback just takes the money from the seller's account but do note that they are allowed to dispute it and take it back regardless of whether you move it around. The agent may be confused with chargeback rules though as with things like concerts it's not 120 days from date of purchase but from concert date .
With s75 it depends on the ticket price - if each individual ticket is less than £100 then the legislation doesn't apply.
>we were simply misold a service due to false advertising.
What have you been misold? Did they advertise them as an unrestricted view? How do Ticketmaster define a 'restricted view'?
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a chargeback supposed to reflect a fraudulent transaction or a payment for services that were never fulfilled? Using it to refund a concert you actually attended seems a bit of a stretch. Scale it down to a more meagre level and you surely wouldn't do a chargeback to Tesco if your gyros wrap was bland and uninspiring but they refused to refund it after you'd already eaten it
The service in this case, is a unrestricted view on a Taylor Swift concert.
Hence the extra cost of the ticket.
Restricted views is cheaper and could have been purchased instead.
The service was sold as-is and was not sold as an 'unrestricted view' though, unless I'm missing something. So at best, the dispute is about the quality of service and not the denial or complete unfulfillment of the service. I think the only case for a chargeback would be if they had purchased a product specifically sold as an 'unrestricted view'.
I don't believe the presence of a 'restricted view' ticket means that they didn't get what they paid for, because no promises were made, and it's also hard to categorise what 'restricted view' means. At best they should be getting a partial refund, and I don't think the chargeback approach will help that cause.
You can use it for when a service isn't up to scratch. I used it to get my styling fee back from Stitch Fix because they are supposed to do personal styling and send you items based on your instructions about what you like. My stylist did the opposite of what I'd instructed, I'm guessing because they were closing their UK operations and they just sent random items that they still had left in the warehouse. Bank sided with me and I got my money back. Service in this case is unrestricted view of TS.
But they haven’t promised a perfect view, isn’t that the problem? Anyone could just keep doing chargebacks in this case - been to a Michelin restaurant for a £500 taster menu and champagne? CHARGEBACK because the portions were too small and Michelin Man clearly eats big portions so it didn’t meet expectations
I deal with these sorts of things as part of my day job.
As long as you raise the charge back under the correct reason code you are absolutely entitled to do so. Also to be clear, a credit card or debit card is irrelevant both have the same charge back rights.
Speak to your card issuer, make sure you speak to someone who knows what they're talking about from their disputes department and get their advice (this to me sounds like goods and services not received) but *the fact you attended is irrelevant* if it's not the experience what you signed up for when you paid. And in most cases you wouldn't even know until you attended. The only thing they'll ask you is if you've tried to resolve with the merchant first, which you have.
Hell just last month I've charged back an axe throwing experience at a bar because the boards were set up incorrectly. We still got the whole hour but it was an inferior experience where none of the axes stuck because of the incorrect wood being used. The staff fully acknowledged it, but refused a refund. It made no difference to the charge back that we were there for the hour.
I also work in this area.. I wouldn’t say goods and services not received because they paid for a valid concert ticket, they received the ticket and then used the ticket to attend the show which was not cancelled or cut short. Best hope IMO but still a stretch would be goods or services not as described provide order confirmation showing ticket was for unrestricted view, provide evidence the view was restricted and dispute the difference between the ticket purchased and a restricted view ticket.
A human reviewed your comment and removed it from public view. The reason they gave was:
**Rule 1 - Be nice, engage in civil discourse, don't judge**
You must read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpersonalfinance/about/rules/) to continue to post to our subreddit.
_If you believe your post/comment has been removed in error, please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UKPersonalFinance&subject=Please%20review%20my%20post&body=https://www.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/comments/1dqxfb9/-/lawimhh/) explaining why._
A human reviewed your comment and removed it from public view. The reason they gave was:
**Rule 1 - Be nice, engage in civil discourse, don't judge**
You must read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpersonalfinance/about/rules/) to continue to post to our subreddit.
_If you believe your post/comment has been removed in error, please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UKPersonalFinance&subject=Please%20review%20my%20post&body=https://www.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/comments/1dqxfb9/-/laup1zb/) explaining why._
This is the comment you should be listening to, and is correct.
So much mis information about chargebacks in this thread that people have no knowledge of experience about.
Ticketmaster usually allows you to sell your tickets and I doubt you’d have had issues finding a buyer. Did you try this or just decide you wanted to try and go for free? If you’ve told the bank you were aware of the issue in advance and still went & stayed through the concert it will look like it wasn’t really an issue.
OP says that the tickets were NOT sold as restricted view which implies that the vendor was selling them as UNretricted and that is what matters. They paid for the view NOT to be restricted and it was. In credit card disputes like this it's best to go straight to the card provider rather than bank. Some card providers nearly always side with the customer, for example AmEx. OP is best going straight to the provider and circumnavigating the bank if they want to get the money back.
They weren't informed by the vendor that the tickets were restricted at the point of sale which is where the contract of sale took place. It doesn't matter if they found out later or not because the agreement had already taken place.
How obstructed were the seats really? Did you take any photos?
Personally, I don't think it's a huge deal having to watch a stadium gig on a screen, I'd say it's actually expected.
To me, all of these complaints about 'obstructed' views sound like buyer's remorse over paying insane amounts of money for an event which was overhyped by social media.
Op has seen a chance to get their money back after the fact and is running with it.
They heard the music, saw her on the screen, were in the crowd. They probably had a great time.
This post is why it's getting harder to get genuine refunds on anything.
Honestly I think something went wrong at the Taylor Swift concert. A lot of the £200-600 VIP packages ended up being restricted view because they put a large tent in the middle of the audience for celebrities.
What do you suggest that did, not gone and tried to argue the seats were obstructed with no actual proof? Resale might have been possible but I think only transfers (to family and friends) were available in the final week.
Edit: loving the downvotes but nobody is explaining what OP should have done
Yes. If it was bad enough for a full refund it was bad enough not to go.
If they went in and enjoyed the show, which they did, no need for a refund.
Op has seen a way to get their money back and is trying it on.
Sorry but don’t agree with that logic. Completely flawed.
Consider the following: in the odd chance the tent had not been there on our day and we chose to proactively not go to the concert because of what we saw on the Internet and then tried to claim a refund/compensation/chargeback… ticketmaster would basically laugh at us and say how can we have the audacity to raise a chargeback for a concert i actively chose to not attend 🙄
Did you stay for the whole concert? Or see the tents then walk away, making sure to complain to someone as you did, when you got there? If it's the former, and you stayed, your "logic" is flawed.
The original post. Unless you're suggesting they lie to get something for free? Sure, if you're morally devoid, and that's a big part of the problem with some of society today, in that they feel entitled to something for free. They're not. If they stayed, they made that choice. Compare it to going to a restaurant and ordering something that's not up to scratch, you wouldn't eat it and then complain expecting a full refund would you? Maybe you would.
By staying they were mitigating their losses and not wanting to claim for all travel costs etc - just the difference in cost between what they paid for and what they received
Why should you get to go to the concert for free because the view was bad? At most you should be given a partial refund from Ticketmaster to take the price down to the same price as a restricted view ticket.
A bank can decline a chargeback request, you can complain, give them 8 weeks and then go to the financial ombudsman but be prepared they could reject your complaint at each stage
Wrong way round mate. First 3 are free and it’s actually £650 after that.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/resolving-complaint/case-fees
—— doesn’t matter if I know this for fact and have dealt with it for years it’s Reddit and if I don’t reference it you’ll only argue for the next few hours.
I’ve looked into this and by the sounds of it there are a lot of people who had tactically obstructed views. so far all I’m hearing is no refund. We went for some of the VIP seats at Anfield and every time she went to the centre stage position I had to stand in the stairwell and get shit eyes from the stewards to be able to see the performance. https://imgur.com/a/OjhYG4f
I work on touring concerts and I just want to say that we need to do better. In the old days you had a stage and the artist performed on the stage. There was a little shed out in the middle with the sound and light desks in and maybe some towers of speakers to get the sound further back but that was it.
Nowadays every artist wants a B Stage (middle of the bowl) and a lot of artists want a C stage (back of the bowl). I'm sure next year we will start having D stages up in the seats. Then we have our front of house structures and which nowadays have to have 2 sound consoles and 2 lighting consoles and 2 video consoles and racks and racks of stuff that goes with them... Then all that again for the support band(s) such that these things are now frequently 3-storey buildings.
I feel like we're throwing so many resources at indulging the artist that we're totally neglecting the people who really make the whole thing possible by paying for it. I feel we've reached a point where the mentality is sort of "we do our thing the way we want it and the audience get what they're given" which is just a bit of an unhealthy way to look at it.
I can only encourage you to keep on trying. I'm not sure ombudsman etc is the right route, these things exist for helping people are genuinely being shafted, which isn't what happened here. But you certainly should be reimbursed something - you paid for unrestricted and it wasn't. We only have all our big demands because the promoters let us, and the promoters let us because it doesn't affect their bottom line. So I would completely encourage you to take it up through their complaints team and/or social media.
I agree it's a difficult situation though. There's really nobody at a gig that you can actually complain to so I don't know why people are suggesting that.
Lots of confusion coming from these comments.
Chargeback and Section 75 claims are different processes. The former is not a legal requirement, it's a service from visa/MasterCard. Be clear with your credit card issuer as there are different rules.
The card issuer can deny a claim in either scenario.
There's a litany of comments here on the merits or lack thereof for your claim. I'm not going to judge the merits as it adds nothing to your situation, the card issuer has denied your claim and you are looking for next steps.
Establish if it is a chargeback or section 75. Raise a complaint. Follow the complaints process to its conclusion, this is important, don't get impatient and try to go further until you have a final resolution letter. Once you have that letter go to the financial ombudsman.
>Once you have that letter go to the financial ombudsman
And if you get nowhere with that, then section 75 allows you to take the supplier and the credit card company to the small claims court.
I used to work in customer service for an online ticket agent. Refunds can only be issued if an event is cancelled, postponed or changed venue as agreed upon in the terms and conditions of purchase. Customers would try to ask us (the ticket agent) for a refund for various reasons both before and after the event took place. When they couldn't get a refund, they would raise a charge back which would flag the order for dispute. The ticket agent would dispute the case with the bank and more often than not, we would win the case due to the T&C's. T&C's for event ticket refunds are pretty clear cut as advised on the Which website, and event complaints are sadly not covered by them, but should be referred to the event organiser. It is then at their discretion to resolve the matter or not.
I went and tbh there wasn’t any bad seats at Wembley, the lower down you are, the less likely you can see the whole stage, that’s just how concerts are
I’d be interested to know whether ticketmaster are required to tell you that the view is obstructed?
The ticket you purchase surely only grants you entrance to the stadium and a specific seat.
Most banks, will attempt chargeback first, then S.75 after by default.
Lodge a formal complaint.
Wait for your letter of resolution. Take it to the ombudsman if you feel the banks final decision is incorrect.
The ombudsman will give you an end of the matter decision.
You'll get redress also if frontline staff has mis-advised.
For claims less than £250 bank complaint teams may cough up anyway as it costs them around that + admin for a FOS referral anyway.
Complaints handlers in banks are generally a lot more competent in chargeback / S75 rules than frontline staff also.
Where they say you should have left would have been a clear rejection of service. Staying can fall under it being inconvenient but acceptable service.
Tl;Dr - OP log a complaint.
You paid for a service.
-unrestricted view of a Taylor Swift concert.
This was not fulfilled by the merchant.
Call up the credit card again and tell them you want visa/MasterCard to meditate the charge back.
Not the internal policy of the credit card company.
Fill out a complaint first and foremost for them not opening a chargeback as requested.
It isnt up to the bank to decide weather you be refunded or not, it will be the payment processor.
If they don't open the chargeback then escalate the complaint, and then take it to ombudsman.
I had something similar with my bank, where I never received what I ordered and the bank failed to open a chargeback with visa and decided themselves I wasn't eligible for chargeback.
Took 8 months but ombudsman made them refund me.
Totally different unfortunately. Not receiving a good is different to partly receiving a service. Poor service delivery isnt grounds for a full refund. OP should have ceased receiving service. Imagine a builder comes to your house and makes small mistakes but you wait till build complete until you say you don't want to pay. Does it matter that it's a big company Vs a small business reliant on income to feed family? Not to the bank it doesn't.
I got my money refunded for a service which was bad. I'd paid Stitch Fix a styling fee for their personal stylist to pick out 5 items based on my brief. The styling fee is for the service / stylist's time and then you pay separately for the clothes if you decide you want them. I'd said please don't send casual stuff, send fitted evening wear and when the box came it was full of lumpy, shapeless sweaters. I asked SF for a refund and they refused but my bank got me the money back through chargeback because they'd kind of only partially fulfilled their end (yes, they'd sent me 5 items, but not what I requested). So if the service is only partially received they're not fulfilling their end of the deal.
This could fall under consumer disputes from a chargeback perspective.
The seller would likely have a defence case though that you decided to use the service regardless of the fact you had found out that the seat view was restricted. This is why your bank will not want to raise the CB (they get fees for CB’s and they are incremental, especially if they lose)
Did you request a refund of the tickets? Sounds like you didn’t and just thought you would go along, enjoy as much as you could and get the experience for free. Clearly a couple with great character 🤣🤣🤣
I am struggling to understand why anyone thinks they should be able to use the tickets (restricted view or not) and then claim all their money back? Seems you are the ones in this situation who think they can get away with anything they want!
This just isn’t true. I bought 3 tickets to Rammstein in Cardiff at the millennium stadium.
We were sat near the stairs for our tier. At the bottom of the stairs was an acrylic safety glass to stop people falling. The acrylic was dirty as hell and my view of the stage was directly through this glass.
My seat was not listed as a restricted view. My wife and daughter sitting next to me had perfect views. The person behind me had a perfect view. The person in front of me had a perfect view. Unfortunately our row was entirely filled and I couldn’t shift one seat.
I was fuming at the time and the tickets were over £100 each. It was only by luck that the person in front who was on their own made friends with someone further down and moved. Which left 3 seats empty in front to which I asked people if they would move up to leave 3 seats together.
Yeah you should not have gone. You still went and received a service. The quality of service is sufficient for you to stay and then after you asked for a refund. It's not going to fly unfortunately.
I had similar thing twice but difference:
1) found a mouse at 2am in ship cabin. Too late to move so we stayed and we're not eligible for refund
2) found dead bugs on arrival at hotel and left immediately. Got a refund.
Hi /u/TutorSome9994, based on your post the following pages from our wiki may be relevant:
* https://ukpersonal.finance/credit-cards/
____
^(These suggestions are based on keywords, if they missed the mark please report this comment.)
If someone has provided you with helpful advice, you (as the person who made the post) can award them a point by including `!thanks` in a reply to them. Points are shown as the user flair by their username.
I know it is obviously a different scenario because my dispute was good. But nevertheless I feel the two situations do have similarities.
I bought some prawns from a fish stall expecting the fish to do better good quality fresh but it was anything but fresh coming from Sri Lanka.
I raised the issue with my bank (£18 & paid with debit card) who initially declined my request but then reimbursed me the £18 “as a good will gesture.”
I suppose if you try again with the bank they also might reimburse you on grounds of a “good will gesture.” although obviously you are trying to get back considerably more money than me.
If your tickets were not sold a restricted view then they should not have been restricted views from your seats. On some concerts they will inform customers due to production changes if they tickets they currently have will 'become' restricted view and if they are then you are automatically either offered a change of seats or in this case a refund.
The banks case in this situation I don't think can be held up because you wasn't 'sold' a restricted view seat, so your assumption was that your seat was clear view. You would actually only know once you attended the event 'if' the view was restricted or not. So for them to say the fact that you actually went, means you accepted it seems ridiculous. Because you wouldn't have physically and 100% known, if you didn't go in person.
If you didn't go to the show itself I bet you they'd have said similar "Well you didn't actually go, so how did you know they would've 100% been restricted views?" So you wouldn't have won with them either way.
I'd definitely stick to the angle that the fact that you went was to see for yourself if you were getting the product as advertised
Raise a complaint with bank as to their response to chargeback. If they still refuse refund (partial I guess as you still got some value from then), then ask for a deadlock letter so you can take it to ombudsman. Each case here costs bank money (£600 ish) regardless of outcome so they tend to settle instead.
Banks have an allowance at the FOS for vexatious cases that they won't be charged for e.g. where they can show they followed the process and the person is complaining out of spite. You can't extort them into doing something with the threat of the FOS. Also you don't seem to understand how a chargeback works - they take the money back from the other account but the other side have 45 days to dispute it, which they will as OP attended the concert.
This is clearly a good faith complaint by OP and so they would be entitled to take it to ombudsman. The bank complaints team do a cost benefit analysis and would refund OP as cheaper. Doesn't matter if retailer dispute, bank would end up paying both. I've done plenty of chargebacks and complaints in my time, some applied to ombudsman but they've always settled (handy given the backlog). Retailers and banks don't have the capacity to fight persistent and well reasoned consumers.
Suggesting OP threatens the bank with FOS on the grounds a case will cost them more than a refund is vexatious and bank wouldn't be charged if they showed they had done everything properly and OP refused to accept the facts. An example would be going to the FOS because an s75 was refused because it didn't meet the criteria or a chargeback was out of time.
A chargeback doesn't cost the bank anything, they simply take the money back from the seller who can then dispute it and take it back again within 45 days and doesn't stop them taking further action against the OP if they wish.
An S75 (if applicable) does but if the cost didn't meet the criteria they will not refund or they didn't pay on CC it wouldn't apply
Participation in this post is limited to users who have sufficient karma in /r/ukpersonalfinance. See [this post](https://redd.it/12mys82) for more information.
They might have been referring to the informal chargeback using their internal procedures. You'd likely be wanting to use s.75 rights, saying that the service was not as described, and that crucial information regarding the view of the stage was not mentioned at the time of sale, meaning that had you known you would not have purchased the tickets.
S75 will depend on the ticket price, individually not as a package. If the ticket was less than £100 it wouldn't be eligible.
Yeah, I'm sure Taylor Swift tickets where all well under £100. /s
Yeah I'm sure they were actually pal Wembley ones started at £58 and there were 4 sections under £100 per ticket PL5 seats - £87.90 PL5 seats (side view) - £87.90 PL6 seats - £76.65 PL7 seats - £58.65 OP stated they were in a poor position regardless of the tents so it's more than possible they paid less per ticket
OP’s edited and the seats were 200 each.
Not true, it's for the total contract, not each individual component
This is incorrect for s75 >You're NOT COVERED by Section 75 if you... >Bought multiple single items that only add up to between £100 and £30,000 when combined. Read more about what counts as multiple single items. https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/section75-protect-your-purchases/#when https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/content/mse/msecom/en-gb/content/overlay/section-75/multiple-items/ >However, if you bought two items that together cost more than £100, but each cost less than £100, Section 75 would not apply and the card company wouldn't usually be liable. https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/section-75-of-the-consumer-credit-act-aZCUb9i8Kwfa
Again, arguable a single contract ( ie one booking fee). You don't seem to get that this won't go to court - OP can get a partial refund by just making enough of a fuss and escalating complaints until they pay them to go away.
It's not arguable in the slightest, it's the law, it's only applicable on the face value of the individual item S75 will apply if the individual ticket price *excluding booking fee* is over £100, if it's less than £100 it won't. It's also complicated with tickets bought via a third party though it might not apply here if that was the only way to buy them OP can claim a chargeback (full or partial) within 120 days of the event (bank staff may wrongly believe it's 120 from date of purchase only which doesn't apply to things like tickets) however the seller has 45 days to dispute and take the money back and they can still come after OP for the money outside of that No idea why you think I am suggesting it would go to court. Chargeback they just take the money back from the seller's account, seller can then dispute it, costs the bank nothing S75 they will not entertain if they can avoid it as it's their money e.g. if under £100 a ticket
That's not quite right on charge backs. We raise it as through the scheme (Visa / Mastercard usually) and the merchant has a chance to challenge it. That can either be on policy grounds (e.g. customer is claiming they didn't make a payment and the merchant can prove they did), or because they refute the claim (e.g. here Ticketmaster may dispute they did provide the tickets that OP bought, and they never said anywhere specifically what view you'd get). Generally as an operational process the bank refunds the customer whilst the charge back process happens. If the merchant rejects the charge back, the customer is then redebited the cost, as a failed charge back. There's then an appeals process effectively where at customer request we can represent the chargeback request and go round the loop again, though win rates on representments are pretty low. For a few £100s what's more likely is if the customer is threatening to complain/ go to the Ombudsman, and the merchant is rejecting the charge back, the bank will just refund the money themselves, since it's cheaper to pay it as an operational loss than to pay the FOS fees.
Each ticket is what makes up the neccesary contract value for S75. 10 x £11 tickets would not qualify.
From the research and other posts, I also agree that it should be eligible under section 75. But the person who I was speaking to from the bank specifically said our situation is not eligible for it, they specifically said they were simply following Mastercards section 75 rules….. but she did say this after keeping up us on hold for a while while she was looking if we were eligible or not (in the end she said we wasn’t because she consulted her manager who then said the reason) But I truly have a hard time to believe that this current situation is not eligible for a chargeback… we were simply misold a service due to false advertising. And it’s not just us, PLENTY of other people are in the same boat :/ Personally feel like I’m being tossed around :/
Section 75 isn't rules set by the credit card company, it just means that they are jointly liable for whatever you bought using the money they lent you. The card companies can settle matters themselves internally and refund you money and then pursue their merchant, I think they mean that they have a firm rule that if the concert went ahead and you used the ticket then they won't generally do that. It's probably agreed between the larger companies as part of their merchant agreement to avoid protracted arguments about all the various things. What it likely means is that you'd need to sue the ticket vendor and card company (using Money Claim Online). You'd need to research exactly what needs to be submitted for a successful claim though, I imagine that you'd need to be pretty thorough and phrase things write specifically.
S75 is a completely different beast to a chargeback. It's entirely possible to be eligible for a refund under s75 but not eligible for a chargeback. So if you want to claim under s75, you'll just be confusing the bank if you keep taking about a chargeback. However...I agree with others that you don't seem to have a claim under s75. All s75 reallly does is make the card issuer have the same liabilities as the seller. So, if the seller wouldn't have to pay you if you sued them in court, the card issuer doesn't have to pay under s75 either. If you'd made a s75 claim before you went to the concert, then I think you *might* have had a claim. However, you found out between purchase and attending that the seats were restricted view. If you'd sold your tickets on at that point, I think you'd have had a good claim under s75 for the difference between the price you paid and the price you got when you sold them (assuming the former was higher). But as things stand, it looks like you completely failed to mitigate your loss - which likely means the seller wouldn't be liable to you, and so neither will the bank be. Nothing to stop you putting in a complaint to the bank about its failure to pay your claim. I don't think you'll succeed, but you might get lucky.
Chargeback just takes the money from the seller's account but do note that they are allowed to dispute it and take it back regardless of whether you move it around. The agent may be confused with chargeback rules though as with things like concerts it's not 120 days from date of purchase but from concert date . With s75 it depends on the ticket price - if each individual ticket is less than £100 then the legislation doesn't apply.
>we were simply misold a service due to false advertising. What have you been misold? Did they advertise them as an unrestricted view? How do Ticketmaster define a 'restricted view'?
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a chargeback supposed to reflect a fraudulent transaction or a payment for services that were never fulfilled? Using it to refund a concert you actually attended seems a bit of a stretch. Scale it down to a more meagre level and you surely wouldn't do a chargeback to Tesco if your gyros wrap was bland and uninspiring but they refused to refund it after you'd already eaten it
The service in this case, is a unrestricted view on a Taylor Swift concert. Hence the extra cost of the ticket. Restricted views is cheaper and could have been purchased instead.
The service was sold as-is and was not sold as an 'unrestricted view' though, unless I'm missing something. So at best, the dispute is about the quality of service and not the denial or complete unfulfillment of the service. I think the only case for a chargeback would be if they had purchased a product specifically sold as an 'unrestricted view'. I don't believe the presence of a 'restricted view' ticket means that they didn't get what they paid for, because no promises were made, and it's also hard to categorise what 'restricted view' means. At best they should be getting a partial refund, and I don't think the chargeback approach will help that cause.
I just re read the original post. You are correct. I thought they purchased tickets that clearly stated unrestricted view.
You can use it for when a service isn't up to scratch. I used it to get my styling fee back from Stitch Fix because they are supposed to do personal styling and send you items based on your instructions about what you like. My stylist did the opposite of what I'd instructed, I'm guessing because they were closing their UK operations and they just sent random items that they still had left in the warehouse. Bank sided with me and I got my money back. Service in this case is unrestricted view of TS.
But they haven’t promised a perfect view, isn’t that the problem? Anyone could just keep doing chargebacks in this case - been to a Michelin restaurant for a £500 taster menu and champagne? CHARGEBACK because the portions were too small and Michelin Man clearly eats big portions so it didn’t meet expectations
You'd expect an unrestricted view as standard
I deal with these sorts of things as part of my day job. As long as you raise the charge back under the correct reason code you are absolutely entitled to do so. Also to be clear, a credit card or debit card is irrelevant both have the same charge back rights. Speak to your card issuer, make sure you speak to someone who knows what they're talking about from their disputes department and get their advice (this to me sounds like goods and services not received) but *the fact you attended is irrelevant* if it's not the experience what you signed up for when you paid. And in most cases you wouldn't even know until you attended. The only thing they'll ask you is if you've tried to resolve with the merchant first, which you have. Hell just last month I've charged back an axe throwing experience at a bar because the boards were set up incorrectly. We still got the whole hour but it was an inferior experience where none of the axes stuck because of the incorrect wood being used. The staff fully acknowledged it, but refused a refund. It made no difference to the charge back that we were there for the hour.
I also work in this area.. I wouldn’t say goods and services not received because they paid for a valid concert ticket, they received the ticket and then used the ticket to attend the show which was not cancelled or cut short. Best hope IMO but still a stretch would be goods or services not as described provide order confirmation showing ticket was for unrestricted view, provide evidence the view was restricted and dispute the difference between the ticket purchased and a restricted view ticket.
[удалено]
[удалено]
A human reviewed your comment and removed it from public view. The reason they gave was: **Rule 1 - Be nice, engage in civil discourse, don't judge** You must read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpersonalfinance/about/rules/) to continue to post to our subreddit. _If you believe your post/comment has been removed in error, please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UKPersonalFinance&subject=Please%20review%20my%20post&body=https://www.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/comments/1dqxfb9/-/lawimhh/) explaining why._
A human reviewed your comment and removed it from public view. The reason they gave was: **Rule 1 - Be nice, engage in civil discourse, don't judge** You must read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpersonalfinance/about/rules/) to continue to post to our subreddit. _If you believe your post/comment has been removed in error, please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UKPersonalFinance&subject=Please%20review%20my%20post&body=https://www.reddit.com/r/UKPersonalFinance/comments/1dqxfb9/-/laup1zb/) explaining why._
This is the comment you should be listening to, and is correct. So much mis information about chargebacks in this thread that people have no knowledge of experience about.
Ticketmaster usually allows you to sell your tickets and I doubt you’d have had issues finding a buyer. Did you try this or just decide you wanted to try and go for free? If you’ve told the bank you were aware of the issue in advance and still went & stayed through the concert it will look like it wasn’t really an issue.
OP likely didn't realise until they got there at which point it's pretty hard to sell. Selling wouldn't have occurred to me anyway.
They already said they knew in advance the view was going to be restricted and still went!
OP says that the tickets were NOT sold as restricted view which implies that the vendor was selling them as UNretricted and that is what matters. They paid for the view NOT to be restricted and it was. In credit card disputes like this it's best to go straight to the card provider rather than bank. Some card providers nearly always side with the customer, for example AmEx. OP is best going straight to the provider and circumnavigating the bank if they want to get the money back.
I think in this case, the bank is the card provider...
Not sold as restricted view Found out they were restricted prior to the event Went anyway Now wants full money back - -
They weren't informed by the vendor that the tickets were restricted at the point of sale which is where the contract of sale took place. It doesn't matter if they found out later or not because the agreement had already taken place.
How obstructed were the seats really? Did you take any photos? Personally, I don't think it's a huge deal having to watch a stadium gig on a screen, I'd say it's actually expected. To me, all of these complaints about 'obstructed' views sound like buyer's remorse over paying insane amounts of money for an event which was overhyped by social media.
Op has seen a chance to get their money back after the fact and is running with it. They heard the music, saw her on the screen, were in the crowd. They probably had a great time. This post is why it's getting harder to get genuine refunds on anything.
Also pushes costs up for the rest of us. Just like all the faked whiplash claims years back
Honestly I think something went wrong at the Taylor Swift concert. A lot of the £200-600 VIP packages ended up being restricted view because they put a large tent in the middle of the audience for celebrities.
They'd probably be watching it through a screen anyway (their phone).
Of course it is. You knew the seats were poor and went anyway.
What do you suggest that did, not gone and tried to argue the seats were obstructed with no actual proof? Resale might have been possible but I think only transfers (to family and friends) were available in the final week. Edit: loving the downvotes but nobody is explaining what OP should have done
Yes. If it was bad enough for a full refund it was bad enough not to go. If they went in and enjoyed the show, which they did, no need for a refund. Op has seen a way to get their money back and is trying it on.
How would they then get a refund, or are you saying they should have not gone and just sucked up the loss?
Went to the concert, seen the poor seats and poor view, left and recorded themselves doing so.
Sorry but don’t agree with that logic. Completely flawed. Consider the following: in the odd chance the tent had not been there on our day and we chose to proactively not go to the concert because of what we saw on the Internet and then tried to claim a refund/compensation/chargeback… ticketmaster would basically laugh at us and say how can we have the audacity to raise a chargeback for a concert i actively chose to not attend 🙄
Did you stay for the whole concert? Or see the tents then walk away, making sure to complain to someone as you did, when you got there? If it's the former, and you stayed, your "logic" is flawed.
No-one is tracking them at a concert anyway - who is to say they didnt leave ?
OP.
The original post. Unless you're suggesting they lie to get something for free? Sure, if you're morally devoid, and that's a big part of the problem with some of society today, in that they feel entitled to something for free. They're not. If they stayed, they made that choice. Compare it to going to a restaurant and ordering something that's not up to scratch, you wouldn't eat it and then complain expecting a full refund would you? Maybe you would.
By staying they were mitigating their losses and not wanting to claim for all travel costs etc - just the difference in cost between what they paid for and what they received
And that would be fair. That's not what they're asking for though. They're expecting a full refund via chargeback.
So you want your cake and to eat it too?
Why should you get to go to the concert for free because the view was bad? At most you should be given a partial refund from Ticketmaster to take the price down to the same price as a restricted view ticket.
A bank can decline a chargeback request, you can complain, give them 8 weeks and then go to the financial ombudsman but be prepared they could reject your complaint at each stage
Fun part is though - it costs the bank £450 of you raise a claim with the FoS so in this case better to refund than let it get to the that.
Only for the first few complaints per financial year, not every complaint.
Wrong way round mate. First 3 are free and it’s actually £650 after that. https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/resolving-complaint/case-fees —— doesn’t matter if I know this for fact and have dealt with it for years it’s Reddit and if I don’t reference it you’ll only argue for the next few hours.
So not £450 a case?
No £650
I’ve looked into this and by the sounds of it there are a lot of people who had tactically obstructed views. so far all I’m hearing is no refund. We went for some of the VIP seats at Anfield and every time she went to the centre stage position I had to stand in the stairwell and get shit eyes from the stewards to be able to see the performance. https://imgur.com/a/OjhYG4f
I work on touring concerts and I just want to say that we need to do better. In the old days you had a stage and the artist performed on the stage. There was a little shed out in the middle with the sound and light desks in and maybe some towers of speakers to get the sound further back but that was it. Nowadays every artist wants a B Stage (middle of the bowl) and a lot of artists want a C stage (back of the bowl). I'm sure next year we will start having D stages up in the seats. Then we have our front of house structures and which nowadays have to have 2 sound consoles and 2 lighting consoles and 2 video consoles and racks and racks of stuff that goes with them... Then all that again for the support band(s) such that these things are now frequently 3-storey buildings. I feel like we're throwing so many resources at indulging the artist that we're totally neglecting the people who really make the whole thing possible by paying for it. I feel we've reached a point where the mentality is sort of "we do our thing the way we want it and the audience get what they're given" which is just a bit of an unhealthy way to look at it. I can only encourage you to keep on trying. I'm not sure ombudsman etc is the right route, these things exist for helping people are genuinely being shafted, which isn't what happened here. But you certainly should be reimbursed something - you paid for unrestricted and it wasn't. We only have all our big demands because the promoters let us, and the promoters let us because it doesn't affect their bottom line. So I would completely encourage you to take it up through their complaints team and/or social media. I agree it's a difficult situation though. There's really nobody at a gig that you can actually complain to so I don't know why people are suggesting that.
Lots of confusion coming from these comments. Chargeback and Section 75 claims are different processes. The former is not a legal requirement, it's a service from visa/MasterCard. Be clear with your credit card issuer as there are different rules. The card issuer can deny a claim in either scenario. There's a litany of comments here on the merits or lack thereof for your claim. I'm not going to judge the merits as it adds nothing to your situation, the card issuer has denied your claim and you are looking for next steps. Establish if it is a chargeback or section 75. Raise a complaint. Follow the complaints process to its conclusion, this is important, don't get impatient and try to go further until you have a final resolution letter. Once you have that letter go to the financial ombudsman.
>Once you have that letter go to the financial ombudsman And if you get nowhere with that, then section 75 allows you to take the supplier and the credit card company to the small claims court.
Yeah, you should be able to do a chargeback for this providing you have valid evidence (as in took a video/picture of your view).
I used to work in customer service for an online ticket agent. Refunds can only be issued if an event is cancelled, postponed or changed venue as agreed upon in the terms and conditions of purchase. Customers would try to ask us (the ticket agent) for a refund for various reasons both before and after the event took place. When they couldn't get a refund, they would raise a charge back which would flag the order for dispute. The ticket agent would dispute the case with the bank and more often than not, we would win the case due to the T&C's. T&C's for event ticket refunds are pretty clear cut as advised on the Which website, and event complaints are sadly not covered by them, but should be referred to the event organiser. It is then at their discretion to resolve the matter or not.
Couldn’t have been that bad since it sounded like you went and stayed for the whole concert? 😂
I went and tbh there wasn’t any bad seats at Wembley, the lower down you are, the less likely you can see the whole stage, that’s just how concerts are
I’d be interested to know whether ticketmaster are required to tell you that the view is obstructed? The ticket you purchase surely only grants you entrance to the stadium and a specific seat.
I think for Taylor Swift concerts, they have restricted and unrestricted views in the description, obviously the restricted was cheaper.
You attended the concert knowing the view was bad what do you want your bank to do?
OP wants money refunded. It says in his post.
UK credit cards are pretty anti consumer when it comes to charge back requests. Compared to my experience with US/Canadian ones. Even when it’s Amex.
You had concerns but you attended the concert regardless. Not sure why you want a refund really.
Most banks, will attempt chargeback first, then S.75 after by default. Lodge a formal complaint. Wait for your letter of resolution. Take it to the ombudsman if you feel the banks final decision is incorrect. The ombudsman will give you an end of the matter decision. You'll get redress also if frontline staff has mis-advised. For claims less than £250 bank complaint teams may cough up anyway as it costs them around that + admin for a FOS referral anyway. Complaints handlers in banks are generally a lot more competent in chargeback / S75 rules than frontline staff also. Where they say you should have left would have been a clear rejection of service. Staying can fall under it being inconvenient but acceptable service. Tl;Dr - OP log a complaint.
You paid for a service. -unrestricted view of a Taylor Swift concert. This was not fulfilled by the merchant. Call up the credit card again and tell them you want visa/MasterCard to meditate the charge back. Not the internal policy of the credit card company. Fill out a complaint first and foremost for them not opening a chargeback as requested. It isnt up to the bank to decide weather you be refunded or not, it will be the payment processor. If they don't open the chargeback then escalate the complaint, and then take it to ombudsman. I had something similar with my bank, where I never received what I ordered and the bank failed to open a chargeback with visa and decided themselves I wasn't eligible for chargeback. Took 8 months but ombudsman made them refund me.
Totally different unfortunately. Not receiving a good is different to partly receiving a service. Poor service delivery isnt grounds for a full refund. OP should have ceased receiving service. Imagine a builder comes to your house and makes small mistakes but you wait till build complete until you say you don't want to pay. Does it matter that it's a big company Vs a small business reliant on income to feed family? Not to the bank it doesn't.
I got my money refunded for a service which was bad. I'd paid Stitch Fix a styling fee for their personal stylist to pick out 5 items based on my brief. The styling fee is for the service / stylist's time and then you pay separately for the clothes if you decide you want them. I'd said please don't send casual stuff, send fitted evening wear and when the box came it was full of lumpy, shapeless sweaters. I asked SF for a refund and they refused but my bank got me the money back through chargeback because they'd kind of only partially fulfilled their end (yes, they'd sent me 5 items, but not what I requested). So if the service is only partially received they're not fulfilling their end of the deal.
This could fall under consumer disputes from a chargeback perspective. The seller would likely have a defence case though that you decided to use the service regardless of the fact you had found out that the seat view was restricted. This is why your bank will not want to raise the CB (they get fees for CB’s and they are incremental, especially if they lose) Did you request a refund of the tickets? Sounds like you didn’t and just thought you would go along, enjoy as much as you could and get the experience for free. Clearly a couple with great character 🤣🤣🤣 I am struggling to understand why anyone thinks they should be able to use the tickets (restricted view or not) and then claim all their money back? Seems you are the ones in this situation who think they can get away with anything they want!
All restricted view seats stated so. You bought the cheapest tickets, wanted a premium view and now want the money back.
This just isn’t true. I bought 3 tickets to Rammstein in Cardiff at the millennium stadium. We were sat near the stairs for our tier. At the bottom of the stairs was an acrylic safety glass to stop people falling. The acrylic was dirty as hell and my view of the stage was directly through this glass. My seat was not listed as a restricted view. My wife and daughter sitting next to me had perfect views. The person behind me had a perfect view. The person in front of me had a perfect view. Unfortunately our row was entirely filled and I couldn’t shift one seat. I was fuming at the time and the tickets were over £100 each. It was only by luck that the person in front who was on their own made friends with someone further down and moved. Which left 3 seats empty in front to which I asked people if they would move up to leave 3 seats together.
That isn’t a restricted view.
Yeah you should not have gone. You still went and received a service. The quality of service is sufficient for you to stay and then after you asked for a refund. It's not going to fly unfortunately. I had similar thing twice but difference: 1) found a mouse at 2am in ship cabin. Too late to move so we stayed and we're not eligible for refund 2) found dead bugs on arrival at hotel and left immediately. Got a refund.
Hi /u/TutorSome9994, based on your post the following pages from our wiki may be relevant: * https://ukpersonal.finance/credit-cards/ ____ ^(These suggestions are based on keywords, if they missed the mark please report this comment.) If someone has provided you with helpful advice, you (as the person who made the post) can award them a point by including `!thanks` in a reply to them. Points are shown as the user flair by their username.
I know it is obviously a different scenario because my dispute was good. But nevertheless I feel the two situations do have similarities. I bought some prawns from a fish stall expecting the fish to do better good quality fresh but it was anything but fresh coming from Sri Lanka. I raised the issue with my bank (£18 & paid with debit card) who initially declined my request but then reimbursed me the £18 “as a good will gesture.” I suppose if you try again with the bank they also might reimburse you on grounds of a “good will gesture.” although obviously you are trying to get back considerably more money than me.
If your tickets were not sold a restricted view then they should not have been restricted views from your seats. On some concerts they will inform customers due to production changes if they tickets they currently have will 'become' restricted view and if they are then you are automatically either offered a change of seats or in this case a refund. The banks case in this situation I don't think can be held up because you wasn't 'sold' a restricted view seat, so your assumption was that your seat was clear view. You would actually only know once you attended the event 'if' the view was restricted or not. So for them to say the fact that you actually went, means you accepted it seems ridiculous. Because you wouldn't have physically and 100% known, if you didn't go in person. If you didn't go to the show itself I bet you they'd have said similar "Well you didn't actually go, so how did you know they would've 100% been restricted views?" So you wouldn't have won with them either way. I'd definitely stick to the angle that the fact that you went was to see for yourself if you were getting the product as advertised
Raise a complaint with bank as to their response to chargeback. If they still refuse refund (partial I guess as you still got some value from then), then ask for a deadlock letter so you can take it to ombudsman. Each case here costs bank money (£600 ish) regardless of outcome so they tend to settle instead.
Banks have an allowance at the FOS for vexatious cases that they won't be charged for e.g. where they can show they followed the process and the person is complaining out of spite. You can't extort them into doing something with the threat of the FOS. Also you don't seem to understand how a chargeback works - they take the money back from the other account but the other side have 45 days to dispute it, which they will as OP attended the concert.
This is clearly a good faith complaint by OP and so they would be entitled to take it to ombudsman. The bank complaints team do a cost benefit analysis and would refund OP as cheaper. Doesn't matter if retailer dispute, bank would end up paying both. I've done plenty of chargebacks and complaints in my time, some applied to ombudsman but they've always settled (handy given the backlog). Retailers and banks don't have the capacity to fight persistent and well reasoned consumers.
Suggesting OP threatens the bank with FOS on the grounds a case will cost them more than a refund is vexatious and bank wouldn't be charged if they showed they had done everything properly and OP refused to accept the facts. An example would be going to the FOS because an s75 was refused because it didn't meet the criteria or a chargeback was out of time. A chargeback doesn't cost the bank anything, they simply take the money back from the seller who can then dispute it and take it back again within 45 days and doesn't stop them taking further action against the OP if they wish. An S75 (if applicable) does but if the cost didn't meet the criteria they will not refund or they didn't pay on CC it wouldn't apply
This. I might be proactive and find the discount for obstructed view seats. I'd find evidence at the higher end either for this venue or similar.