What about people like our German friends? Or even SDAddick, Rob, b_r_i_g_o_b, Prague, Tel or others who may have travelled from further afield for the last match of the season?
A free ticket for August might not mean anything for them, and a ruined trip to The Valley would be even more expensive than for those of us who are local!
On this forum alone we have a large contingent of international addicks, and the last match of the season is often a special occasion.
Despite this, I genuinely think the gesture as a whole would've been OK, and some good work were it not for:
- cleansing themselves of any wrongdoing, blame the fans; - lying about alternatives being offered; - leaving the possibility of future usage of the net
They've started the cheap season ticket in The North Lower but is there going to be a continued restricted view with the netting ? . The club should be addressing this
What about people like our German friends? Or even SDAddick, Rob, b_r_i_g_o_b, Prague, Tel or others who may have travelled from further afield for the last match of the season?
A free ticket for August might not mean anything for them, and a ruined trip to The Valley would be even more expensive than for those of us who are local!
On this forum alone we have a large contingent of international addicks, and the last match of the season is often a special occasion.
Despite this, I genuinely think the gesture as a whole would've been OK, and some good work were it not for:
- cleansing themselves of any wrongdoing, blame the fans; - lying about alternatives being offered; - leaving the possibility of future usage of the net
I came up from Somerset, I ain't continental and I enjoyed the whole protest and coming together of like minded fans....united we all were.
I will take the offer of my 'fake apologist' ticket,use it myself or give it freely to someone with a better throwing arm than me.... xx
Just catching up with this thread. As expected the club has refused to accept it is in breach of contract within the terms of the Consumer Rights Act (they are) but made a general offer as good will.
It's for individuals to consider whether this is an acceptable offer of redress but as others have indicated this is not going to be suitable or adequate compensation in every case.
They also may have attached some strings to this in that you have to forward copies of your physical ticket. Whilst having proof of purchase is always a good idea having your ticket is not something required to pursue a claim as there are many other ways of proving proof of purchase, not least of all if you are a season ticket holder or they sent you the thing and will have their own record.
The evidence is that they did not give their customers the opportunity to mitigate their losses by moving seats nor have they indicated whether the netting will be in place for next year. They will though happily sell you a season ticket there in the reasonable expectation that it won't, after all not a single other club in the UK currently has netting in front of its customers. Again if they intend to keep it there they are under a statutory duty, backed up by criminal law, to tell consumers this before they take their money.
If you aren't happy with the "goodwill" offer and do want to pursue it further don't be put off if you still haven't got your ticket. The next stage would be to write back with a letter before action.
It is a while since I was involved with Consumer Law but for me the club has directly breached the terms of its contract of sale under the terms of the sale of goods and services legislation.
It even acknowledges it has breached such terms by referring the offer of alternative seating - even if anecdotal evidence appears to indicate no such offers were made.
The merchant (the club) despite any assertion under its terms and conditions of sales does not get to make up the level of, or manner of compensation for its breach of the contract of sale.
Consumer Law will always take legal precedence over associated terms and conditions of sale.
In this instance every ticket holder at the time of purchase had a reasonable expectation of an uninhibited view of the game. Anyone who considers their view was unduly impacted by the direct actions of the club has cause for action.
Depending on the value of any individual transaction any credit cardholder, under the Consumer Credit Act would have the right, after having sought the appropriate reimbursement from the club, to charge the relevant card transaction back to the club via the cardholder dispute system.
Be aware there may be a financial charge by the your card issuer for this service.
It is I suggest something people may wish to bear in mind for anyone choosing to attend games at the Valley under this regime.
It is a while since I was involved with Consumer Law but for me the club has directly breached the terms of its contract of sale under the terms of the sale of goods and services legislation.
It even acknowledges it has breached such terms by referring the offer of alternative seating - even if anecdotal evidence appears to indicate no such offers were made.
The merchant (the club) despite any assertion under its terms and conditions of sales does not get to make up the level of, or manner of compensation for its breach of the contract of sale.
Consumer Law will always take legal precedence over associated terms and conditions of sale.
In this instance every ticket holder at the time of purchase had a reasonable expectation of an uninhibited view of the game. Anyone who considers their view was unduly impacted by the direct actions of the club has cause for action.
Depending on the value of any individual transaction any credit cardholder, under the Consumer Credit Act would have the right, after having sought the appropriate reimbursement from the club, to charge the relevant card transaction back to the club via the cardholder dispute system.
Be aware there may be a financial charge by the your card issuer for this service.
It is I suggest something people may wish to bear in mind for anyone choosing to attend games at the Valley under this regime.
Cheers @Grapevine49 . You are correct the club does not get to decide the type redress it is prepared to offer for their breach of contract. They've muddied the waters a bit by referring to it as an offer of goodwill. This might be the case where customer service hasn't been what it could be in a restaurant or cinema perhaps but the one thing expected above all others when buying a ticket to a sporting event is an unobstructed view of the playing field or to be told there isn't one if this is the case.
They haven't even had the courtesy to reply to those who complained individually about their specific complaint and are just hoping everyone will lose interest over the summer.
It is a decent response for a change. There is some logic to it as well, as most complainers will not be happy, they need to be made happy. Basic customer service, but something the club has been ignorant towards in the recent past. The only problem I can see is that the suggestion that the netting did not impede views might mean it is used again. Now if there is a perceived threat of items being thrown at the next home game, will they give the recipients of the free ticket another free ticket if the netting is up again? You can see how this chink of light can become a further embaressment and any mistake our ineptly run club can make, it usually does nowadays!
The club state that the netting didn't obstruct the view merely to protect their financial position by not admitting liability. It is a sad indication of their attitude toward their customers that they should take this adversarial approach but I'm not surprised.
It will only take one small claims court case to unravel their scheme to avoid paying cash refunds. Hopefully, they will see sense before it comes to that but given their general stubborn ignorance I suspect it will end up in court.
If the club continues down this path, could not the protest fund be used to fund a few claims through the small claims court? I think it's only £25 for a money claim online. And all things being equal, the protest fund would get its money back when the club loses. How neat would that be - the club funding the protest fund!
I think it is possible to pursue multiple actions through the small claims court as a type of group action, although it would certainly need some central organizing by claimants for the court to grant a group action order. Something for the trust to consider perhaps?
I think it is possible to pursue multiple actions through the small claims court as a type of group action, although it would certainly need some central organizing by claimants for the court to grant a group action order. Something for the trust to consider perhaps?
The new Consumer Rights Act did indeed introduce the concept of group action into English law.
Comments
A free ticket for August might not mean anything for them, and a ruined trip to The Valley would be even more expensive than for those of us who are local!
On this forum alone we have a large contingent of international addicks, and the last match of the season is often a special occasion.
Despite this, I genuinely think the gesture as a whole would've been OK, and some good work were it not for:
- cleansing themselves of any wrongdoing, blame the fans;
- lying about alternatives being offered;
- leaving the possibility of future usage of the net
I came up from Somerset, I ain't continental and I enjoyed the whole protest and coming together of like minded fans....united we all were.
I will take the offer of my 'fake apologist' ticket,use it myself or give it freely to someone with a better throwing arm than me.... xx
Can somebody give me the leagues complaint email address as it has been well over 10 days.
Thanks
It's for individuals to consider whether this is an acceptable offer of redress but as others have indicated this is not going to be suitable or adequate compensation in every case.
They also may have attached some strings to this in that you have to forward copies of your physical ticket. Whilst having proof of purchase is always a good idea having your ticket is not something required to pursue a claim as there are many other ways of proving proof of purchase, not least of all if you are a season ticket holder or they sent you the thing and will have their own record.
The evidence is that they did not give their customers the opportunity to mitigate their losses by moving seats nor have they indicated whether the netting will be in place for next year. They will though happily sell you a season ticket there in the reasonable expectation that it won't, after all not a single other club in the UK currently has netting in front of its customers. Again if they intend to keep it there they are under a statutory duty, backed up by criminal law, to tell consumers this before they take their money.
If you aren't happy with the "goodwill" offer and do want to pursue it further don't be put off if you still haven't got your ticket. The next stage would be to write back with a letter before action.
https://citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/going-to-court/going-to-court/taking-court-action/step-one-write-a-letter-before-action/
#erectionbusting
It is a while since I was involved with Consumer Law but for me the club has directly breached the terms of its contract of sale under the terms of the sale of goods and services legislation.
It even acknowledges it has breached such terms by referring the offer of alternative seating - even if anecdotal evidence appears to indicate no such offers were made.
The merchant (the club) despite any assertion under its terms and conditions of sales does not get to make up the level of, or manner of compensation for its breach of the contract of sale.
Consumer Law will always take legal precedence over associated terms and conditions of sale.
In this instance every ticket holder at the time of purchase had a reasonable expectation of an uninhibited view of the game. Anyone who considers their view was unduly impacted by the direct actions of the club has cause for action.
Depending on the value of any individual transaction any credit cardholder, under the Consumer Credit Act would have the right, after having sought the appropriate reimbursement from the club, to charge the relevant card transaction back to the club via the cardholder dispute system.
Be aware there may be a financial charge by the your card issuer for this service.
It is I suggest something people may wish to bear in mind for anyone choosing to attend games at the Valley under this regime.
They haven't even had the courtesy to reply to those who complained individually about their specific complaint and are just hoping everyone will lose interest over the summer.
It will only take one small claims court case to unravel their scheme to avoid paying cash refunds. Hopefully, they will see sense before it comes to that but given their general stubborn ignorance I suspect it will end up in court.
I guess its the Football Ombudsman next...