Aldershot Town and the Small Claims Court

[londonblue]

I've just spoken to a lawyer about a claim against Aldershot.

He was interested that I would want to claim the full cost of my ticket on the basis that Aldershot knew about the floodlight issue before kick off and went ahead anyway. My justification for this is that I can't be sure I will be able to get to Aldershot for a mid-week replay, and therefore believe I am entitled to a full refund, rather than the reduced cost of a ticket for a replay. As I said to him, if there was a power cut in the area then I would agree that this was beyond their control but that wasn't the case.

His view was that if that can be proved (which it can since Aldershot admitted to it) then there is a good case. There are however, two sicking points:

1. To issue procedings in the small claims court (via the internet) costs £25, i.e. more than the cost of my ticket. (He doesn't know if I can claim for travel to and from the game, but even that doesn't make my claim up to £25).

2. The small claim will be heard by a distric judge, and one districe judge is not bound by a ruling of another district judge. Therefore some of us might win, and others fail.

I therefore have a proposition. Someone who bought more than one ticket, should take them to the small claims court for the full amount of their tickets, and a few of us contribute to the £25. If that person wins, we then all write to Aldershot saying we intend to do the same, and demand from them that they pay up.

 

[South Bucks Shrimper]

As I posted elsewhere, I am giving Aldershot until Monday to respond to my two emails. Then I will report them to Trading Standards.

 

[Blues 'n twos]

Again I will wait for a response from Aldershot before deciding on further options, Football league have replied already to me and have advised Aldershot to do likewise.

 

[South Bucks Shrimper]

I have received an "interim" reply from Aldershot. They will be replying to the emails they have received regarding the game once they have confirmation from Southend of the agreed replay date.

 

[undercovershrimper]

I work in the Dispute Resolution Department at Baker & McKenzie LLP the worlds leading global law firm. I will try and speak to one of the lawyers on Monday to see what they think the chances of sucess are and the best way to proceed, they may even take the case on for us on a bro bono basis, keep you all posted

 

[Big_Nath]

No need to see a lawyer.

As you said it can be done online and will cost £25.00.

Money claim online is the site - just follow step by step instructions - really easy to use. However, before doing that you will need to send a letter before claim. Templates available, just google.

Always put "letter before claim" at top of body of letter in red as well.

A letter before claim basically sets out what your claim is. You can claim costs of your application upto £50.00 I think off top of my head so will make up the shortfall from your £25.00.

Just compled my Legal Practice Course and trying to get a training contract to become a solicitor.

 

[undercovershrimper]

Problem being tho Nath that £25 is more than what you can expect to recieve back from the SCC. Hence why a group action my be better

 

[Big_Nath]

totally agree, group claim would be better just wanted everyone to know how easy it is to complete. But you can claim the £50 in costs as well

 

[undercovershrimper]

Head of Department is also a massive football fan (Man Utd seaso unfortunately) he may well be very intrested

 

[DTS]

Good on you all for getting together. They are taking the **** from start to finish.

 

[Fish]

Personally I don't think any of us have a legal leg to stand on because the terms and conditions of sale are quite clear (http://www.theshots.co.uk/CompanyInfo.ink). They make no mention of '...unless ATFC were aware the game may not be played in full'. What if the weather was dodgy/cold and they were pretty sure the pitch would freeze during the game? You can't abandon a game because of something that might happen. You'd get in trouble with the league for that.


If we object to the T's & C's, we shouldn't have bought the ticket.

However, I am convinced that Aldershot violated the terms of their stadium safety certificate licence by giving out Shrewsbury ticket stubs on the gate letting people out of the ground then back in again, both of which raise serious questions about whether Aldershot had adequate (indeed any) control over how many fans were in the away end. If they did, then we've got leverage to get compensation direct from Aldershot.

 

[londonblue]

Personally I don't think any of us have a legal leg to stand on because the terms and conditions of sale are quite clear (http://www.theshots.co.uk/CompanyInfo.ink). They make no mention of '...unless ATFC were aware the game may not be played in full'. What if the weather was dodgy/cold and they were pretty sure the pitch would freeze during the game? You can't abandon a game because of something that might happen. You'd get in trouble with the league for that.


If we object to the T's & C's, we shouldn't have bought the ticket.

However, I am convinced that Aldershot violated the terms of their stadium safety certificate licence by giving out Shrewsbury ticket stubs on the gate letting people out of the ground then back in again, both of which raise serious questions about whether Aldershot had adequate (indeed any) control over how many fans were in the away end. If they did, then we've got leverage to get compensation direct from Aldershot.

As I said, I spoke to a lawyer. With all due respect i'd rather take his word than yours, unless you also happen to be a lawyer.

The point is that the terms and conditions stated that if the circumstances were beyond their control, and the game was abandoned after the end of the first half, the only remedy would be half price ticket to the replay. The argument is that this was NOT beyond their control because they knew about the issue before kick off and didn't fix it. They, however, went ahead with the match knowing that they could get to half time without the need for floodlights, and by getting to half time they would only have to give half price admission to the replay. Had the game been abandoned before kick off, as it should have been (given their acceptance that they knew about the issue) they would have had to refund the full amount. The contention being that they deliberately started the game to make money, and to ensure that they didn't have to refund the admission fee.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Personally I don't think any of us have a legal leg to stand on because the terms and conditions of sale are quite clear (http://www.theshots.co.uk/CompanyInfo.ink). They make no mention of '...unless ATFC were aware the game may not be played in full'. What if the weather was dodgy/cold and they were pretty sure the pitch would freeze during the game? You can't abandon a game because of something that might happen. You'd get in trouble with the league for that.


If we object to the T's & C's, we shouldn't have bought the ticket.

However, I am convinced that Aldershot violated the terms of their stadium safety certificate licence by giving out Shrewsbury ticket stubs on the gate letting people out of the ground then back in again, both of which raise serious questions about whether Aldershot had adequate (indeed any) control over how many fans were in the away end. If they did, then we've got leverage to get compensation direct from Aldershot.

You are assuming that the terms and conditions of sale are incorporated into the contract and aren't post consideration. Was notice of these terms given before the contract was entered into? Were reasonable steps taken to bring it to the attention of the fans? The more unreasonable and unusual the clause is, the greater the notice that needs to be given to it.

 

[Firestorm]

And who was responsible for notifying buyers of the t&cs , particular the advance sales ?

 

[Fish]

Which T's and C's are you referring to, londonblue? The ones on the Aldershot website that I linked to make no mention of whether the abandonment is under their control or not.

I totally agree that the abandonment was something that Aldershot had prior knowledge might happen. But the point is the terms of their customer charter (their name for their ticket T's and C's) doesn't make any distinction that makes that relevant.

If you told your lawyer friend that the T's and C's mention 'circumstances beyond their control', then it's small wonder he thinks we may have a case.

I have consulted Hampshire Trading Standards on this already, and they confirmed that there's nothing we can do on that front. Which is why I'm looking into the terms of the safety certificate.

 

[Fish]

You are assuming that the terms and conditions of sale are incorporated into the contract and aren't post consideration. Was notice of these terms given before the contract was entered into? Were reasonable steps taken to bring it to the attention of the fans? The more unreasonable and unusual the clause is, the greater the notice that needs to be given to it.

They're on the website of the entity providing the service. That's pretty open and up front and counts as prior notice. If you buy tickets for an event subject to those conditions without reading that information which is in the public domain, then it's a case of caveat emptor.

 

[Cy_sufc]

I've read a few of these, not all though. Can't you do a joint claim? The club must have a list of everyone who went so system. Unless you paid on the door, in which case I'm sorry.

I hope you take them for everything you're owed guys, and maybe a little more for the inconvenience.

 

[Earls Hall Blue]

Just playing devils advocate here, but isn't it the ref's decision to call off a game?

I'm sure I've read elsewhere on here that Aldershot informed the ref of the problem's & he allowed the game to go ahead. I'm not saying they can but that might be a get out for them as well..:unsure:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

They're on the website of the entity providing the service. That's pretty open and up front and counts as prior notice. If you buy tickets for an event subject to those conditions without reading that information which is in the public domain, then it's a case of caveat emptor.

In your opinion or in law?

 

[South Bucks Shrimper]

I do not care about their T&Cs. In this country you cannot legally sell someone a service if you know at the time of sale that you may not be able to fulfill that service.

They sold me a ticket when they knew they had a problem with the lights. They did not warn me - they just took my money.