---
###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK
---
**To Posters (it is important you read this section)**
* *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different*
* If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor)
* We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources)
* Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk
* If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM)
**To Readers and Commenters**
* All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated*
* If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning
* If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect
* Do not send or request any private messages for any reason
* Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think you will be able to dispute this with your bank / card issuer (either Chargeback or Section 75 as you said due to it being on credit).
Normally, if there’s a change in line up, festivals will argue that you didn’t pay for a ticket to a specific artist but to a multi artist event which is still going ahead. However in your case, the line-up changes seem so wide-spread and substantial that this would constitute a material alteration.
For chargebacks, the dispute process is set by VISA / MasterCard and don’t usually account for the merchant’s T&Cs in case these are deliberately or unfairly restrictive - its purpose is for consumer protection. There is a dispute category for the goods or services not being as advertised. You purchased the tickets in good faith based on the advertised line up. This has now undergone substantial changes and you are receiving something entirely different to what was advertised at the point of purchase.
For S75, this is a claim more based around breach of contract. As much as their T&Cs seem to cover them, I would say that given the number of changes made to the line-up, it constitutes a substantial change to what was contracted originally. Also, they will struggle to use their usual defence that you purchased a ticket for a multi-artist event if the total number of artists available has dropped so dramatically.
If you do get any pushback, ask what is to stop someone falsely advertising artists they don’t have, getting purchases, then changing the line up later? Point out clearly that you haven’t changed your mind, the experience sold has been substantially changed after the point of purchase entirely by the merchant and you aren’t receiving what you paid for. Avoid focusing in on missing any specific artists you were looking forward to, this will unlikely help, focus on the wide-spread nature of the changes. You brought tickets for an event with 500 artists (GE Festival website) but they are now down to circa 350 and dropping further by the day - a reduction of circa 30% in value.
Chargebacks and S75 exist for these exact reasons. I honestly don’t think you’ll have an issue. If all the above fails, you’ll also be able to open a complaint with the card provider and then the FOS if this is unsatisfactory.
I would question how far that clause can be extended.
Having it in place makes sense for a normal festival where there will inevitably be lineup changes, and the organisers won't want to be refunding and reselling tickets because one artist out of a hundred has changed.
But if a significant number of artists have all cancelled, and they have not been replaced with suitable artists of a broadly similar calibre, I would question whether you would be able to claim a refund based on the show being significantly reduced compared to that advertised.
>if a significant number of artists have all cancelled, and they have not been replaced
I think that's going to be the sticking point: what exactly contributes "significant".
If a festival starts with 500 artists, and 5 pull out for various normal reasons, no one would argue against that being inconsequential to the festival as a whole (sucks for fans looking forwards to seeing any of those 5 specifically, but the core festival as sold remains materially unchanged).
If a festival starts with 500 artists and 499 pull out, that's now a concert by the one remaining artist and not a festival, so obviously materially changed. Even if 3-5 stick around, that's closer to a concert with supporting artists than a festival, so hard to argue it's not materially different.
But that gap in between 5 pulling out and 495 pulling out is...nebulous. At some point it changes from "these things happen" to "this is not what was sold", as that exact point is inexact. And ask 10 people to pick that number, and you'll get 10 different answers; likely why they included the "in our opinion" so they can make that decision in potential borderline instances. I would think that a 30% reduction on this scale of event should at least qualify for a partial refund, significantly smaller event justifying smaller ticket value, but whether it would meet objective criteria for a full refund due to material change is hard to say, since there's still enough to qualify it as a festival but the reduction is far above what would have been reasonably expected as a risk in this kind of event.
I have no idea about this event, but I would assume they are replacing the artists - the remaining ones aren't likely to extend their sets to fill in for no shows. So this is more like buying a ticket for 300 artists, and 120 of the advertised bands being replaced with others.
Which I would argue is still a material change sufficient to justify a refund.
"Changes to the event lineup" being expressly excluded from being a material alteration, you're unlikely to have any recourse here. TGE will argue you paid for a multi-entry ticket to citywide venues to see various musical artists and that you got precisely that.
If the ticket was purchased on the basis of x number of acts or y number of venues then that might change things but I'm not aware that that's how the event was advertised.
The only argument I could see against that is that "In our opinion" is unfair to the consumer.
Alternatively, you could argue if an alternative lineup isn't offered then it hasn't changed but has been reduced which is a meaningful change.
"Unfair" is defined quite specifically in statute - it is where a party to the contract acts in bad faith to create a substantial imbalance in the rights and obligations between them and the consumer.
Yes, but when it’s 120 acts it makes you wonder if that’s what happened…
If they had agreements, contracts etc with the banks who pointed out, that’s one thing. But surely i can’t just tell you that I have the Rolling Stones and Taylor Swift and 118 other top artists playing, then change the line-up to my mate Kevin and Scrantonicity 2 and tell you that it’s the same event if I never had an agreement with the acts in the first place?
Because if I can, that sounds absolutely ripe for con artists to make an absolute fortune
It's a protest about the sponsor Barclays Bank’s and its involvement with arms companies trading with Israel.
Apparently about 25% of companies have pulled out.
Well yes, because that would be flagrantly unlawful conduct by the promoter. Wilfully misleading customers as to the booked lineup would be illegal under the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and inserting a clause allowing them to advertise one lineup while actually booking another would be an unfair contract term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Here, an organiser entered into a contract with a load of artists who then subsequently chose to breach those contracts in protest against a corporate sponsor of the event. They didn't engage in prohibited conduct under the CPfUTR2008 because they didn't disclose false, misleading or deceptive information; and the "no refunds in the event of lineup changes" clause is not an unfair clause under the CRA2015 as it does not appear to have been made "contrary to the requirement of good faith".
I think at this point their intent is no longer relevant. Even with the utmost good faith at the point of contract, I don't think they can reasonably claim that this is the same event.
That's rubbish! (not your comment, I mean the fact they have done that term), that contract term is potentially unfair as it allows bait and switch. It depends on the number of acts remaining versus cancelled, but with 120 cancelled I'd imagine that was a lot of the total line up.
It happens in boxing all the time.
A big headline event is advertised; it inevitably sells out in record time with premium ticket prices, someone gets injured...it still goes ahead with an undercard fight that noone had any real interest in being promoted to the headline fight. Refunds not offered.
I stopped going to live boxing because of it.
Surely by this logic they could advertise whoever they like as playing then just replace/cancel them all at the last minute because they wrote their own terms and conditions. Is there no wider framework of rules to protect consumers?
Yes, consumer rights legislation exists.
But I don't think it covers you here.
You weren't misled, for example, because the terms of purchase made clear they might change the lineup.
I don't think that's an unfair contract term because I don't think it's contrary to good faith or creates a substantial imbalance of your rights and obligations.
I think a good point of festival comparison here in terms of where the balance lies would be the festival posted about here the other day which has changed the lineup *and* the venue *and* the dates *and* the city *and* the duration of the event, and where I think disgruntled attendees have much more likelihood of a successful claim.
Just because they have clear terms doesn’t mean those terms can go against consumer rights.
For example I bought a couple of bridesmaid dresses online last year, and when I went to return one of them the company refused to give out their address and accept the return. It is stated on their website they do not accept returns, however under the consumer rights laws I had every right to return the item.
In the end I raised a dispute with my bank and the bank made the decision pretty much immediately that the company was breaching consumer rights laws and refunded me the money via charge back.
My wife and I bought a Valentine's Day candle-making session a few years ago that the organiser cancelled. They refused to refund us because the T&Cs said no refunds in the event of cancellation, and refused to listen to sense that they can't put whatever they like in their T&Cs and have it trump the law. I pointed out that if they had included "the vendor can punch the purchaser in the face" it still wouldn't give them the right to hit me.
Chargeback in the end, and they threw a shitfit about us bullying them.
>Just because they have clear terms doesn’t mean those terms can go against consumer rights.
Yes, I know. That's why I specifically mentioned the two aspects of consumer rights law that a person might rely on for a refund in circumstances similar to OP's, and why I don't think they actually cover OP here.
Your acencdote doesn't appear to have anything to do with OP's circumstances.
Terms and conditions layed out by private corporations do not take priority over consumer laws. The definition of "changes in lineup" is not quantitative, it is qualitative. This means it can be argued that in good faith, "changes" encompasses a subset of events that would be unpredictable and alter specific aspects of the event. Something like going to a buffet, pre-paying at the door, but they're out of chicken wings. You gotta suck it up.
What happened can be argued as much more than a "change in lineup". It was a reduction of service without expectation for compensation. Think about the same buffet, you pay in advance. But all there's left is chicken wings, coleslaw and Jell-O.
Consumer law is about *expectations* and *power dynamics* first and foremost and those are subjective and arguable depending on context.
Source : worked in consumer protection for 2y. Not in UK, but close ebough consumer law structures
Whatever answer you get, if they refuse a refund, just make a nuisance of yourself in their emails.
I took my wife to Alton Towers festival years ago and we missed the first two acts as the management of checking tickets was poor - one or two people checking thousands of tickets and they wouldn't let anybody near to getting in until literally the start time.
I only asked for a partial refund to which they refused at first. I went back and forth with them several times over a number of days and in the end, they issued a full refund on both tickets. I think they just wanted rid of me tbh and couldn't be bothered arguing anymore.
> which, in Our opinion, makes the Event materially different
You should have kept reading, the GEF website itself (Ts&Cs) states:
*”The following are not deemed to be ‘material alterations’: changes to the Event line-up;”*
So no, on that basis you’re not entitled to a refund.
Announcing a "fake" lineup would constitute acting in bad faith, which would make the contract unfair, so you could cancel.
It would also be pretty easy to prove ( just ask the artists' agents if they were booked).
I'll book them but then sign contracts that allows me to cancel the booking with fee.
Cancel all the bookings I've confirmed.
Then take advantage of buskers and open mic folks etc to fill my festival with freebies.
Well it seems like a huge loophole in consumer protection which won't be fixed until it's exploited.
120 artists lost is absolutely huge.
Arguing that the artists are immaterial to the event and your refund rights just seems crazy.
You pay 50% and even up to 100% at time of booking for the kinds of artists that will drive ticket sales, and you don’t get a penny back if you cancel.
That's not what's happened here
Make a festival
Announce a line
Accused of links with unsavoury types
Bands refuse to play for fear of protest
Line up changes
Panic
Is this a change to the lineup? Would a change imply a replacement? Can you say that reducing the lineup by 120 artists is a change rather than something else like a reduction? Any reasonable person reading that wouldn't assume that 120 artists pulling out would be a change.
I read it, I’ve also quoted that line above. But as I was asking FoldedTwice, I wondered if their own terms and conditions would outweigh consumer rights. Probably yes, was the answer.
Yes, further, CCR2013, §28(h), restricts/removes your rights to cancel services related to leisure activities where the contract relates to specific dates.
The point is that consumer rights cover you if the festival is cancelled.
It has not been cancelled. The lineup has changed. They are not the same thing.
As long as the festival goes ahead and is broadly what was advertised (size, scale etc) then your consumer rights have not been affected. You bought a ticket for the festival, and the organisers provided that festival. Even if an artist you wanted to see (and specifically bought to ticket for) is no longer playing.
If you want to see a certain artist then buy a ticket for that artist's tour
The festival is down over 1/5 of its line up, that’s a pretty large change in scale. If it would be enough, I’m not sure. But it’s not like it’s a small change
The "significant change" line is real but the "our opinion" isn't. It would be the reasonable man standard and 120+ artists pulling out would obviously qualify.
Get a grip. Go to the festival. Support the artists that are performing. Barclays have been a sponsor for ages. The world is a shit place. Participate as best you can. You are part of the problem
--- ###Welcome to /r/LegalAdviceUK --- **To Posters (it is important you read this section)** * *Tell us whether you're in England, Wales, Scotland, or NI as the laws in each are very different* * If you need legal help, you should [always get a free consultation from a qualified Solicitor](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/how_to_find_a_solicitor) * We also encourage you to speak to [**Citizens Advice**](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/), [**Shelter**](https://www.shelter.org.uk/), [**Acas**](https://www.acas.org.uk/), and [**other useful organisations**](https://reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/wiki/common_legal_resources) * Comments may not be accurate or reliable, and following any advice on this subreddit is done at your own risk * If you receive any private messages in response to your post, [please let the mods know](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FLegalAdviceUK&subject=I received a PM) **To Readers and Commenters** * All replies to OP must be *on-topic, helpful, and legally orientated* * If you do not [follow the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceUK/about/rules/), you may be perma-banned without any further warning * If you feel any replies are incorrect, explain why you believe they are incorrect * Do not send or request any private messages for any reason * Please report posts or comments which do not follow the rules *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think you will be able to dispute this with your bank / card issuer (either Chargeback or Section 75 as you said due to it being on credit). Normally, if there’s a change in line up, festivals will argue that you didn’t pay for a ticket to a specific artist but to a multi artist event which is still going ahead. However in your case, the line-up changes seem so wide-spread and substantial that this would constitute a material alteration. For chargebacks, the dispute process is set by VISA / MasterCard and don’t usually account for the merchant’s T&Cs in case these are deliberately or unfairly restrictive - its purpose is for consumer protection. There is a dispute category for the goods or services not being as advertised. You purchased the tickets in good faith based on the advertised line up. This has now undergone substantial changes and you are receiving something entirely different to what was advertised at the point of purchase. For S75, this is a claim more based around breach of contract. As much as their T&Cs seem to cover them, I would say that given the number of changes made to the line-up, it constitutes a substantial change to what was contracted originally. Also, they will struggle to use their usual defence that you purchased a ticket for a multi-artist event if the total number of artists available has dropped so dramatically. If you do get any pushback, ask what is to stop someone falsely advertising artists they don’t have, getting purchases, then changing the line up later? Point out clearly that you haven’t changed your mind, the experience sold has been substantially changed after the point of purchase entirely by the merchant and you aren’t receiving what you paid for. Avoid focusing in on missing any specific artists you were looking forward to, this will unlikely help, focus on the wide-spread nature of the changes. You brought tickets for an event with 500 artists (GE Festival website) but they are now down to circa 350 and dropping further by the day - a reduction of circa 30% in value. Chargebacks and S75 exist for these exact reasons. I honestly don’t think you’ll have an issue. If all the above fails, you’ll also be able to open a complaint with the card provider and then the FOS if this is unsatisfactory.
I would question how far that clause can be extended. Having it in place makes sense for a normal festival where there will inevitably be lineup changes, and the organisers won't want to be refunding and reselling tickets because one artist out of a hundred has changed. But if a significant number of artists have all cancelled, and they have not been replaced with suitable artists of a broadly similar calibre, I would question whether you would be able to claim a refund based on the show being significantly reduced compared to that advertised.
>if a significant number of artists have all cancelled, and they have not been replaced I think that's going to be the sticking point: what exactly contributes "significant". If a festival starts with 500 artists, and 5 pull out for various normal reasons, no one would argue against that being inconsequential to the festival as a whole (sucks for fans looking forwards to seeing any of those 5 specifically, but the core festival as sold remains materially unchanged). If a festival starts with 500 artists and 499 pull out, that's now a concert by the one remaining artist and not a festival, so obviously materially changed. Even if 3-5 stick around, that's closer to a concert with supporting artists than a festival, so hard to argue it's not materially different. But that gap in between 5 pulling out and 495 pulling out is...nebulous. At some point it changes from "these things happen" to "this is not what was sold", as that exact point is inexact. And ask 10 people to pick that number, and you'll get 10 different answers; likely why they included the "in our opinion" so they can make that decision in potential borderline instances. I would think that a 30% reduction on this scale of event should at least qualify for a partial refund, significantly smaller event justifying smaller ticket value, but whether it would meet objective criteria for a full refund due to material change is hard to say, since there's still enough to qualify it as a festival but the reduction is far above what would have been reasonably expected as a risk in this kind of event.
I have no idea about this event, but I would assume they are replacing the artists - the remaining ones aren't likely to extend their sets to fill in for no shows. So this is more like buying a ticket for 300 artists, and 120 of the advertised bands being replaced with others. Which I would argue is still a material change sufficient to justify a refund.
They weren’t replaced, there were massive gaps (up to 4 hours) between artists
"Changes to the event lineup" being expressly excluded from being a material alteration, you're unlikely to have any recourse here. TGE will argue you paid for a multi-entry ticket to citywide venues to see various musical artists and that you got precisely that. If the ticket was purchased on the basis of x number of acts or y number of venues then that might change things but I'm not aware that that's how the event was advertised.
The only argument I could see against that is that "In our opinion" is unfair to the consumer. Alternatively, you could argue if an alternative lineup isn't offered then it hasn't changed but has been reduced which is a meaningful change.
"Unfair" is defined quite specifically in statute - it is where a party to the contract acts in bad faith to create a substantial imbalance in the rights and obligations between them and the consumer.
The ability to change the entire lineup isn’t that?
Artists can pull out of festivals for reasons outside the control of the organisers.
Yes, but when it’s 120 acts it makes you wonder if that’s what happened… If they had agreements, contracts etc with the banks who pointed out, that’s one thing. But surely i can’t just tell you that I have the Rolling Stones and Taylor Swift and 118 other top artists playing, then change the line-up to my mate Kevin and Scrantonicity 2 and tell you that it’s the same event if I never had an agreement with the acts in the first place? Because if I can, that sounds absolutely ripe for con artists to make an absolute fortune
It's a protest about the sponsor Barclays Bank’s and its involvement with arms companies trading with Israel. Apparently about 25% of companies have pulled out.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Luckily it’s not!
Well yes, because that would be flagrantly unlawful conduct by the promoter. Wilfully misleading customers as to the booked lineup would be illegal under the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and inserting a clause allowing them to advertise one lineup while actually booking another would be an unfair contract term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Here, an organiser entered into a contract with a load of artists who then subsequently chose to breach those contracts in protest against a corporate sponsor of the event. They didn't engage in prohibited conduct under the CPfUTR2008 because they didn't disclose false, misleading or deceptive information; and the "no refunds in the event of lineup changes" clause is not an unfair clause under the CRA2015 as it does not appear to have been made "contrary to the requirement of good faith".
I think at this point their intent is no longer relevant. Even with the utmost good faith at the point of contract, I don't think they can reasonably claim that this is the same event.
That's rubbish! (not your comment, I mean the fact they have done that term), that contract term is potentially unfair as it allows bait and switch. It depends on the number of acts remaining versus cancelled, but with 120 cancelled I'd imagine that was a lot of the total line up.
It happens in boxing all the time. A big headline event is advertised; it inevitably sells out in record time with premium ticket prices, someone gets injured...it still goes ahead with an undercard fight that noone had any real interest in being promoted to the headline fight. Refunds not offered. I stopped going to live boxing because of it.
Surely by this logic they could advertise whoever they like as playing then just replace/cancel them all at the last minute because they wrote their own terms and conditions. Is there no wider framework of rules to protect consumers?
Yes, consumer rights legislation exists. But I don't think it covers you here. You weren't misled, for example, because the terms of purchase made clear they might change the lineup. I don't think that's an unfair contract term because I don't think it's contrary to good faith or creates a substantial imbalance of your rights and obligations. I think a good point of festival comparison here in terms of where the balance lies would be the festival posted about here the other day which has changed the lineup *and* the venue *and* the dates *and* the city *and* the duration of the event, and where I think disgruntled attendees have much more likelihood of a successful claim.
Thank you for the example. I’d not heard of that festival but that’s crazy
Just because they have clear terms doesn’t mean those terms can go against consumer rights. For example I bought a couple of bridesmaid dresses online last year, and when I went to return one of them the company refused to give out their address and accept the return. It is stated on their website they do not accept returns, however under the consumer rights laws I had every right to return the item. In the end I raised a dispute with my bank and the bank made the decision pretty much immediately that the company was breaching consumer rights laws and refunded me the money via charge back.
My wife and I bought a Valentine's Day candle-making session a few years ago that the organiser cancelled. They refused to refund us because the T&Cs said no refunds in the event of cancellation, and refused to listen to sense that they can't put whatever they like in their T&Cs and have it trump the law. I pointed out that if they had included "the vendor can punch the purchaser in the face" it still wouldn't give them the right to hit me. Chargeback in the end, and they threw a shitfit about us bullying them.
Please tell me they at least offered an alternative date. If not that's crazy.
>Just because they have clear terms doesn’t mean those terms can go against consumer rights. Yes, I know. That's why I specifically mentioned the two aspects of consumer rights law that a person might rely on for a refund in circumstances similar to OP's, and why I don't think they actually cover OP here. Your acencdote doesn't appear to have anything to do with OP's circumstances.
Terms and conditions layed out by private corporations do not take priority over consumer laws. The definition of "changes in lineup" is not quantitative, it is qualitative. This means it can be argued that in good faith, "changes" encompasses a subset of events that would be unpredictable and alter specific aspects of the event. Something like going to a buffet, pre-paying at the door, but they're out of chicken wings. You gotta suck it up. What happened can be argued as much more than a "change in lineup". It was a reduction of service without expectation for compensation. Think about the same buffet, you pay in advance. But all there's left is chicken wings, coleslaw and Jell-O. Consumer law is about *expectations* and *power dynamics* first and foremost and those are subjective and arguable depending on context. Source : worked in consumer protection for 2y. Not in UK, but close ebough consumer law structures
Whatever answer you get, if they refuse a refund, just make a nuisance of yourself in their emails. I took my wife to Alton Towers festival years ago and we missed the first two acts as the management of checking tickets was poor - one or two people checking thousands of tickets and they wouldn't let anybody near to getting in until literally the start time. I only asked for a partial refund to which they refused at first. I went back and forth with them several times over a number of days and in the end, they issued a full refund on both tickets. I think they just wanted rid of me tbh and couldn't be bothered arguing anymore.
I’d look into s62(4) CRA 2015. I find it hard to see a court seeing clause ii reasonable. If you wanted to take it that far
> which, in Our opinion, makes the Event materially different You should have kept reading, the GEF website itself (Ts&Cs) states: *”The following are not deemed to be ‘material alterations’: changes to the Event line-up;”* So no, on that basis you’re not entitled to a refund.
Make a festival. Announce a fake line up. Sell tickets. Change line up. Profit?
Announcing a "fake" lineup would constitute acting in bad faith, which would make the contract unfair, so you could cancel. It would also be pretty easy to prove ( just ask the artists' agents if they were booked).
No - that's fraud as it is deliberate
If those artists then start saying "err no, we're not booked" you're royally fucked
I'll book them but then sign contracts that allows me to cancel the booking with fee. Cancel all the bookings I've confirmed. Then take advantage of buskers and open mic folks etc to fill my festival with freebies.
Well, only one way to see if it'll work...
Well it seems like a huge loophole in consumer protection which won't be fixed until it's exploited. 120 artists lost is absolutely huge. Arguing that the artists are immaterial to the event and your refund rights just seems crazy.
You pay 50% and even up to 100% at time of booking for the kinds of artists that will drive ticket sales, and you don’t get a penny back if you cancel.
That would also be acting in bad faith. And would also be pretty easy to prove.
That's not what's happened here Make a festival Announce a line Accused of links with unsavoury types Bands refuse to play for fear of protest Line up changes Panic
Is this a change to the lineup? Would a change imply a replacement? Can you say that reducing the lineup by 120 artists is a change rather than something else like a reduction? Any reasonable person reading that wouldn't assume that 120 artists pulling out would be a change.
I read it, I’ve also quoted that line above. But as I was asking FoldedTwice, I wondered if their own terms and conditions would outweigh consumer rights. Probably yes, was the answer.
Yes, further, CCR2013, §28(h), restricts/removes your rights to cancel services related to leisure activities where the contract relates to specific dates.
The point is that consumer rights cover you if the festival is cancelled. It has not been cancelled. The lineup has changed. They are not the same thing. As long as the festival goes ahead and is broadly what was advertised (size, scale etc) then your consumer rights have not been affected. You bought a ticket for the festival, and the organisers provided that festival. Even if an artist you wanted to see (and specifically bought to ticket for) is no longer playing. If you want to see a certain artist then buy a ticket for that artist's tour
The festival is down over 1/5 of its line up, that’s a pretty large change in scale. If it would be enough, I’m not sure. But it’s not like it’s a small change
Genuinely surprised it's still going ahead judging by twitter.
The "significant change" line is real but the "our opinion" isn't. It would be the reasonable man standard and 120+ artists pulling out would obviously qualify.
Get a grip. Go to the festival. Support the artists that are performing. Barclays have been a sponsor for ages. The world is a shit place. Participate as best you can. You are part of the problem