Written evidence submitted by Jen and Rob Thomas in a personal capacity

 

 

“Ticket Abuse: How successful have the reforms been to secondary ticketing?”

 

Executive Summary

  1. We understand that the Committee is unlikely to intervene in individual cases, but are keen to share our experiences and observations as a customer of Viagogo to inform your inquiry.

 

  1. It is evident that UK consumers can inadvertently buy tickets from secondary websites without realising they are not the official sellers. Equally, that UK consumers can buy invalid tickets due to undisclosed restrictions, despite the protection intended through the Consumer Rights Act (2015).

 

  1. We have found ourselves in this position after Jen bought six tickets for our family for a concert taking place in London in May 2018. Jen believed throughout the purchase that Viagogo was the official ticket seller, making a rushed decision as it appeared the concert was about to sell out.

 

  1. We realised that evening that Viagogo was in fact reselling tickets at a hugely inflated premium, and also that there were still tickets available through the official seller. However, there was no way to cancel the purchase.

 

  1. Following the CMA update in late November 2017, we checked to see whether there were restrictions on our tickets that could result in us not getting into our concert. After ambiguous communication with Viagogo, we established through both the official ticket seller and venue that the tickets have an age restriction of 14+ and are standing rather than seated.

 

  1. We are unable to use the tickets for these two reasons. Both of our primary school aged children are well under the minimum age permitted, and an older member of our group is blue badge mobility impaired, meaning standing is inappropriate for her.

 

  1. Requests for a refund, citing these two reasons, took three weeks to get a response. Viagogo’s reply did not actually acknowledge the refund request, instead suggesting that we should re-sell any unsuitable tickets through their website.

 

  1. At this stage, we raised a transaction dispute with our credit card provider (Halifax, part of the Lloyds Banking Group). This has been decided twice in Viagogo’s favour, including quoting extracts from their Terms and Conditions. We have now asked for this to be treated as a formal complaint, with Lloyds stating that we should get a decision by early March as it is more complex than originally thought. If a refund is turned down again, the Financial Ombudsman is the likely next step.

 

  1. This submission covers the six main areas where improvements can be made to protect consumers during the purchase process. These are:-

A)        Controls to ensure full information is listed

B)        Clarity on secondary ticket websites that tickets are being bought from individual re-sellers

C)        Clarity on advertising links for secondary ticket websites that they are not original ticket sellers (Google has recently made very limited progress on this)

D)        Controls over claims that create a false pressurised selling environment

E)         Transparent checkout process

F)         Fair Terms and Conditions

 

  1. It also seems that clear guidance is needed on how the Consumer Rights Act (2015) can be enforced, or whether it applies to foreign based companies. For example, advice we have been given by the Citizens Advice Bureau included:-

 

  1. We have provided an overview of our circumstances, but are happy to provide more granular detail and correspondence if this is useful. As Viagogo has been our first (and will be only) experience of buying from a secondary ticket seller, our submission focuses on them.

 

  1. The changes suggested relate directly to our experience, focusing on the purchase process, and detail practical ways to adequately inform customers, increase transparency and ensure undisclosed restrictions are far less likely to occur, as well as addressing unfair Terms and Conditions.

 

A)   Controls to ensure that full information is listed

 

  1. Theoretically, the Consumer Rights Act (2015) should already ensure full information is given, such as whether a ticket is seated or standing, and any age restrictions. However, this information was not disclosed for our tickets, meaning they are unusable for our family.

 

  1. Face value information is meant to be required, but currently the listing screen shows this as a range at the bottom of the page. This makes it difficult to know the face value of any particular ticket. This information is also off-screen and not easily seen by buyers if there are more than a handful of listings.

 

  1. Viagogo already have the functionality to show these restrictions on individual ticket listings. Since purchase, some (but not all) tickets for the same section at our concert have shown these.

 

  1. It should be technologically very simple to insist this information is always provided by sellers. Webforms that do not allow submission until all required fields are completed are commonplace. This could then be used to fully show restrictions on the individual ticket listings seen by consumers. 

 

  1. The mandatory collection and display of fields needed to comply with the Consumer Rights Act (2015) should be legally insisted upon.

 

B)   Clarity on secondary ticket websites that tickets are being bought from individual re-sellers

 

  1. Viagogo’s website appears very professional, and it is relatively easy (especially given the pressurised environment) to miss that it is a ticket reseller rather than an official website.

 

Individual ticket listings

  1. The most effective change would be to show the seller’s username for each ticket listing. Normal websites show this detail if selling for third parties (e.g. eBay and Amazon).

 

  1. This should be technologically simple to implement, as sellers must already create a username before listing tickets. This username could then be shown alongside the other ticket listing information, being clear and upfront that the tickets are being sold by a third party rather than Viagogo.

 

  1. At present, it is not possible to know any details about the ticket seller – are they a fan selling unwanted tickets or a tout selling hundreds? Functionality could be provided to allow customers to view other tickets currently listed (or recently sold) by that seller. Equally, it would be possible for past customers to provide ratings on individual sellers.

 

  1. As the seller’s identity is unknown, this also poses a problem with the Consumer Rights Act (2015) should the consumer need to hold them legally accountable. There should be an obligation to provide contact details once tickets are purchased (i.e. the seller’s name, postal address and contact email address). This would also allow buyers to correspond with sellers to work out when tickets will arrive, or clarify any questions they have.

General messaging on website

  1. This has improved very marginally following Google’s recent insistence that a message is put at the top of the website when a customer accesses it – previously we’d seen this information appended to the ‘cookie information’ or provided if a drop-down menu item for ‘secondary tickets’ was selected. The current information reads “We're the world’s largest secondary marketplace for tickets to live events. All tickets are fully protected by our guarantee. Prices are set by sellers and may be below or above face value” and is at the top of the first page.

 

  1. However, given the busyness of the page and relatively small font size, we still believe this is easily missed by consumers. Although many consumers will do searches to validate the reputation of an unfamiliar company, the pressurised sales process minimises the opportunity to do this given users are, it seems, invariably told that tickets are in short supply and about to sell out.

 

  1. As such, we believe that this statement should be:-

 

  1. The website also uses terminology which can easily be interpreted in a way consistent with an official website. After selecting a concert, the potential customer sees a ‘loading screen’ which conveys three main pieces of information – two of these are “Only x tickets left” and “Less than x% of tickets left for this event”.

 

  1. This seems inconsistent with a secondary selling website. Ticket holders can choose to sell their tickets at any point, so the numbers of tickets will fluctuate and could increase. A secondary website should only ever have a minimal quantity of tickets for sale. The language should be tailored to be less misleading. For example, “Only x tickets currently listed for resale” and “Less than x% of tickets being resold for this event through this website”.

 

  1. Finally, the buying of tickets from secondary websites is inherently more risky than buying from the official seller. For example, many tickets are non-transferable and some require the concert attendee to show ID at the venue. It should be made clear that these risks exist, allowing consumers to make an informed choice. There are additional costs of attending concerts (travel and possibly accommodation) that will be incurred regardless of successful entry to an event.

 

C)   Clarity on advertising links for secondary ticket websites that they are not original ticket sellers

 

  1. Google have recently bought in limited requirements for secondary marketplaces advertising via their search engine. However, it seems strange that most of these requirements target the actual website, rather than the search advert.

 

  1. When our tickets were purchased, Google showed Viagogo as the first result and included “Official Site” in its description. Although this is no longer allowed, adverts do not usually state that tickets are being resold if tickets for a particular concert are searched for.

 

  1. For example, if “Ed Sheeran tickets” is Googled (as a prominent artist; 24/02/18) the top result states:-

 

 

“Ed Sheeran Tickets 2018 | Huge Selection Available Today‎

Adticket.viagogo.co.uk/UK/2018-tickets‎

On Sale Today. Selling Fast. Secure Your Seats. Don't Miss Out. Prices Rising.

Selling Fast · Many People Viewing · Fast Checkout · Wide Selection · Secure Delivery

Amenities: Last Minute Tickets, Instant Download, Save Online, 24/7 Customer Service

Ed Sheeran Tickets

Tickets

All Ed Sheeran

See Ed Sheeran”

 

 

  1. Nothing in the Google listing flags that Viagogo is a secondary ticket resale site. Search engines (and other online advertising) should clearly state that tickets are being resold (e.g. “Huge Selection Being Resold Today” or “Buy and Sell Ed Sheeran Tickets”).

 

D)   Controls over claims that create a false pressurised selling environment

 

  1. The various tactics used by Viagogo to suggest that tickets are about to sell out are too many to detail individually. We’re unclear whether there is a UK organisation that regulates websites to ensure that consumers are not mislead. If there isn’t, this seems a major gap.

 

  1. As has been noted, many of the claims on the website seem inconsistent for a secondary ticket marketplace.

 

  1. In addition, when an individual concert is viewed the listings frequently update to show where tickets have been ‘recently sold’. There is no way to tell whether this means just now, within the last hour, or last few days. We noticed on several occasions (and can provide screenshots) where the same individual listings update to ‘recently sold’ on different visits on the same evening – giving the false impression that these tickets are actually being sold as the consumer is viewing the screen. To avoid this false impression, this could be shown as ‘sold x minutes / hours / days ago’.

 

  1. Once a customer selects an individual ticket listing, they are placed in a ‘waiting room’. Once past that screen, the tickets are ‘reserved’ for the buyer to make their purchase decision. We have since looked at similar tickets for our event – these allowed 5.5 minutes to complete the four stage order process, including agreeing to the Terms & Conditions which extend to 4,449 words. During the process a clock counts down, with animation every 10 seconds, giving the warning that “Please note that these tickets may not be available again if you release them”. The process appears designed to lead buyers to believe tickets are about to sell out, and rush their decision.

 

  1. A regulator should take responsibility for reviewing misleading websites selling in the UK. This regulator should have the power to specify changes if they believe they unfairly mislead consumers.

 

E)    Transparent checkout process

 

  1. During the order process, the full cost of the transaction is only shown at the very end of the process. Even after selecting tickets, the cost is shown before delivery and booking fees (which later significantly inflate the total). The full total is only shown towards the very end of the process once the delivery address is inputted and payment details are required, giving customers minimal time to think through the final cost.

 

  1. As a minimum, the website should show the total ‘basket’ cost on selection of the tickets (as most normal websites do), before getting the customer to create their site username, provide a delivery address and payment details.

 

  1. The receipt confirmation from Viagogo only shows the aggregated total amount for the tickets, rather than itemising the cost with various delivery, booking fees and VAT. Again, this seems a major omission. The receipt should also include seller contact details, as well as full ticket details such as row/seat, face value and any restrictions applicable to the ticket.

 

F)    Fair Terms and Conditions

 

  1. Viagogo should allow sufficient time within the ordering process to read their Terms and Conditions – at 4,449 words there is no way they can be fully read within the overall time limits (as little as 5.5 minutes) allowed before tickets are released. If this is not possible, there should either be a cooling off period in which the customer can cancel their purchase (this would be a good idea regardless), or the terms should automatically be deemed unfair and unenforceable.

 

  1. In our case, we can see that the seller breached Viagogo’s Terms and Conditions (omission, incorrect listing), and also that Viagogo could cancel the transaction and withhold payment to the seller (they do not pay sellers until 5-8 working days after the concert). However, Viagogo have chosen not to enforce this. There should be an obligation for secondary ticket websites to enforce conditions in a way that protects consumers, and not selectively choose whether to apply or ignore their own T&Cs. Consumers should be given automatic refunds if they purchase tickets where undisclosed restrictions are not shown, or shown incorrectly.

 

  1. Viagogo also employ a blanket disclaimer, stating “By using this Site, You agree to accept such risks and agree that viagogo is not responsible for the acts or omissions of users on the Site”. This seemingly indemnifies them against any responsibility for undisclosed restrictions that lead to unusable tickets being bought. We believe that the Consumer Rights Act (2015) intends for the responsibility to be joint between the seller and secondary ticketing operator, but this does not seem to be happening in practice. Such widespread disclaimers should not be allowed.

 

Conclusion

  1. Despite the current provisions in the Consumer Rights Act (2015), we find ourselves in a position where we have inadvertently bought tickets that are invalid for us. We should already have been protected by the existing legislation.

 

  1. It seems possible to us that there is somehow a loophole that allows foreign registered secondary ticket marketplaces to step outside the scope of the Consumer Rights Act (2015). If this is the case, legislation needs to be enhanced to change this; if this is simply a misunderstanding then clear published guidance should be given by the DCMS Committee on behalf of Parliament.

 

  1. There seems to be no clear way to get a refund. Viagogo do not seem to think that they are jointly accountable for selling tickets (with undisclosed restrictions) that we cannot use. For whatever reason, our credit card company (and judging from social media many others) seem reluctant to get involved fully. Citizens Advice Bureau also seems to be issuing ‘risk averse’ advice, passing details to Trading Standards for information only with no evidence that action will be taken. Google continues to direct new unsuspecting customers to the website, without even mentioning that they are reselling tickets. No regulatory body appears responsible for policing the misleading and pressurised claims contained within the website.

 

  1. Most online businesses are self-regulating, trying to build up a loyal customer base to help grow their business. These secondary ticket websites seem to have an entirely different business model, which our current regulatory and financial services seem unprepared for.

 

  1. The relatively modest controls and adjustments described above could be used to increase transparency and allow consumers to make a more informed decision about their potential purchase.

 

  1. We have only commented on areas directly relevant to our case. We strongly believe that the Committee should consider other measures which will doubtless be advanced by other witnesses. For example, controls should also be put in place to ban the resale of tickets above face value (including buyer’s fees), as this reduces supply for genuine fans and forces more consumers to knowingly resort to using secondary ticket sites.

 

  1. It is our hope that through this inquiry, and the outputs of it, that this problem is not allowed to continue further and remain an issue in future years.

 

February 2018