Ticket Sales Abuse Committee

:00:24. > :00:34.Good morning, and welcome to this further session of the Select

:00:35. > :00:45.Committee looking into ticket abuse. It had been our intention to have

:00:46. > :00:50.evidence alongside you this morning, but they have decided not to send a

:00:51. > :00:53.representative. Despite the fire they have a substantial office in

:00:54. > :00:57.Cannon Street, they don't believe they have Aqua representation in the

:00:58. > :01:07.UK to assist the committee with its enquirer. -- adequate

:01:08. > :01:10.representation. Given that other ticket companies have given evidence

:01:11. > :01:16.to the committee, is disappointed they don't feel that they have any

:01:17. > :01:19.evidence they can contribute. I feel that there's been substantial

:01:20. > :01:26.movements on progress made since the session last year and today the

:01:27. > :01:29.House of Lords is debating the Government amendments to the economy

:01:30. > :01:37.Bill to bring in the power to create an offence of harvesting and selling

:01:38. > :01:40.tickets on the competition has taken its investigation to the next is

:01:41. > :01:48.looking at abuse of selling in the ticketing market. The Government has

:01:49. > :01:53.referred to HMRC it the issue raised last time about people not declaring

:01:54. > :02:02.profits made from ticket sales. So there's lots of debate in progress.

:02:03. > :02:07.If we are to see progress made is clamping down on abuse in the

:02:08. > :02:11.ticketing market, it is important that companies comply with those

:02:12. > :02:15.changes and with the UK law. The purpose of these sessions has been

:02:16. > :02:18.to identify areas where UK law is not been complied with and look at

:02:19. > :02:23.areas where it should be strengthened. We feel that with the

:02:24. > :02:28.necessary legislation, that if companies do not comply and flout UK

:02:29. > :02:44.law, they should face restrictions on trade and advertising.

:02:45. > :02:53.Perhaps you could give us your perspective on their spirits of your

:02:54. > :02:57.company in selling tickets and seeing them up for sale in the

:02:58. > :03:01.secondary market through the site is operated by various companies? I

:03:02. > :03:05.need is to give you some history first. We started as a record shop

:03:06. > :03:12.and used as all tickets over the counter. By gritters software to

:03:13. > :03:19.sell them more efficiently. Now we sell around 10 million a year in the

:03:20. > :03:21.UK. The majority is transacted under what we call a white label format,

:03:22. > :03:29.under the guise of our contracting parties. So Glastonbury or the Royal

:03:30. > :03:33.horticultural Society, we operate as if we are part of the organising

:03:34. > :03:39.party. We have to be whiter than white. We have never colluded with

:03:40. > :03:44.secondary spaces, so we find it... We don't like the section, we don't

:03:45. > :03:47.like it at all. We've been offered money to work with them and

:03:48. > :03:54.refocused on to them, but we have not. We support the efforts of our

:03:55. > :03:59.friends behind us and you lot to legislate against this. But it is

:04:00. > :04:09.difficult to stop. If I can be so bold as to say I'm not a firm

:04:10. > :04:14.believer in this. We have a number of technologies to stop this type of

:04:15. > :04:18.stuff. We don't see it, so we have added more technology and we do not

:04:19. > :04:22.seek conversion rates dropping but the ratio of customer coming into

:04:23. > :04:31.people transacting, so I think there's more can be done. Last week

:04:32. > :04:34.we launched in test mode and exchange platform integrated to our

:04:35. > :04:39.own, so we allow customers to Celtic as they bought through as and a very

:04:40. > :04:47.small mark up. Previously, we weren't doing anything. They could

:04:48. > :04:53.been suspicion. We thought it would make sense to put ourselves in the

:04:54. > :04:58.position of having a mechanism whereby it is clear for everyone to

:04:59. > :05:00.see which standard... Which side of the line we stand on. It is a messy

:05:01. > :05:17.business. Give us some examples? If we see them and we know who was

:05:18. > :05:24.transacted them, then we can block them. But these are clever people.

:05:25. > :05:30.They have multiple names, card numbers and e-mail addresses and

:05:31. > :05:34.phone numbers. Any identifier that we would use to collate and track

:05:35. > :05:38.and spot this activity that we could use to cancel those orders they will

:05:39. > :05:43.try and get around. But it is obvious that if we are selling high

:05:44. > :05:46.profile events, thousands of tickets a minute, some will find their way

:05:47. > :05:50.onto the black market. Sometimes there is little we can do. The

:05:51. > :05:55.rewards are too great for these peoples, so they will find a way. Do

:05:56. > :06:00.you approach other companies and say, someone is selling tickets on

:06:01. > :06:05.your site, which is in breach of the terms?

:06:06. > :06:10.It's kind of pointless. They are not going to talk to you, they are not

:06:11. > :06:16.going to talk to me. We have to start with the customer. We have got

:06:17. > :06:21.technology in place, velocity checking, which I think is what some

:06:22. > :06:25.others use. We instituted that technology and the processes for

:06:26. > :06:31.credit card fraud more than ticket touting. It will allow us to find by

:06:32. > :06:38.a range of identifiers batches of customers that are clearly the same

:06:39. > :06:41.people, by an unbelievable number of tickets Friday diversity of shows

:06:42. > :06:46.and we can place those in suspense automatically and they are subject

:06:47. > :06:50.to human verification. Sometimes we call the customer, we will ask for

:06:51. > :06:54.credit card statements or whatever, to verify they are real people. We

:06:55. > :06:59.will challenge anything that looks out of the ordinary but we cannot

:07:00. > :07:05.stop people who buys six do this and six than that. There are gaps in the

:07:06. > :07:08.system. We are not the only primary agency in the marketplace so it is

:07:09. > :07:13.very easy to stack up a good batch of tickets to sell on a secondary

:07:14. > :07:19.space. A range of identities and a range of primary transaction. See

:07:20. > :07:24.Tickets will not talk to you, but have you tried to engage with some

:07:25. > :07:33.of the secondary sites to say these are the problems that we are dealing

:07:34. > :07:40.fits. -- See Tickets. Viagogo. There is the promoter. You will hear from

:07:41. > :07:47.them later. They play significant bets on shows. They invest in

:07:48. > :07:54.talent. They hired venues. They hope it's going to go according to plan.

:07:55. > :07:59.We can only be so aggressive. If we are fulfilling our objective, the

:08:00. > :08:04.promoted so the be extremely stringent that sometimes there is a

:08:05. > :08:08.fuzzy bit in the middle. Viagogo do not care what we think, whether we

:08:09. > :08:15.think the market is bad or whatever. We can't cancel borderline

:08:16. > :08:18.transactions. That impacts the promoter. Those tickets might not be

:08:19. > :08:25.sold. We are in the middle or little bit. It can be quite complicated.

:08:26. > :08:31.Thank you very much indeed. Before we start, can I raise my

:08:32. > :08:34.declarations in the register of members interest to the clerk? It is

:08:35. > :08:41.not unusual for a member of Parliament to be invited to a show.

:08:42. > :08:45.Thank you very much for coming. You are largely responsible for this

:08:46. > :08:52.inquiry taking place. It has stoked my keen interest having tried to buy

:08:53. > :08:57.for Green Day tickets via your site. Which I thought I had, as you are

:08:58. > :09:05.aware, then it appeared that I had failed to buy those old tickets. --

:09:06. > :09:08.four tickets during the checkout process as I put my credit card

:09:09. > :09:11.details and I was told by the site the tickets were no longer

:09:12. > :09:16.available. You mentioned that you don't believe what's are a huge

:09:17. > :09:20.problem in terms of your particular site but can you explain how I had

:09:21. > :09:26.my four tickets stolen from under my nose. I will do my best. It looked

:09:27. > :09:34.as if, this was fateful, it's kind of a lucky break, if it was actually

:09:35. > :09:37.you, I wrote to you. Anyway, that aside, what to spied on that

:09:38. > :09:44.particular day throughout the event, clever character managed to Spieth,

:09:45. > :09:47.these are my own terms, our system in a bit more tickets than he was

:09:48. > :09:54.allowed. What he seemed to be doing, it was a heap because we tracked him

:09:55. > :09:57.down, he had nine transactions. Somehow, it is quite complicated

:09:58. > :10:01.described how it works but when you enter our site and you select two

:10:02. > :10:06.seats, those seats are held fees are ten minutes to allows you to

:10:07. > :10:10.transact and finish transaction. Somehow this individual had gone in

:10:11. > :10:16.with a token, the system uses tokens. It carries it through the

:10:17. > :10:20.site and when he transact, the token is taken away. Somehow this

:10:21. > :10:22.character managed to find a way to stack up the number of tokens and

:10:23. > :10:28.effectively take other people's tickets. It was a rare

:10:29. > :10:34.vulnerability, the vulnerability has been passed. It was not robotic.

:10:35. > :10:39.We're nobodies and to believe that. -- we have no reason. He has been

:10:40. > :10:43.blacklisted. This is the best acclamation I can given a

:10:44. > :10:49.nontechnical way. It was an odd one for sure. It was not robotic. Had it

:10:50. > :10:56.happened to you before? In never happened before, it had never

:10:57. > :11:00.happened since. Yeah, when I got sure e-mail on that moment, I

:11:01. > :11:06.thought this was interesting. Technical errors do happen. I think

:11:07. > :11:10.what sort of raise my concern is between the lines there was a

:11:11. > :11:13.suggestion, forgive me if I say so, you thought we were doing something

:11:14. > :11:16.untoward ourselves and therefore with this tickets find their way

:11:17. > :11:19.onto the secondary market place. That is when I decided I should

:11:20. > :11:25.write to you and set forward our position and that is how I find

:11:26. > :11:29.myself here today. It strikes me then because this was last year, it

:11:30. > :11:35.strikes me that your site is quite weak in terms of its security. If it

:11:36. > :11:42.is vulnerable to a punter who is a bit crafty winsome tokens being able

:11:43. > :11:51.to pinch tickets, does that slightly worried? What action have you taken

:11:52. > :11:57.since then to make your site... It was a vulnerability. We do that all

:11:58. > :12:01.software in-house. We have eight talented and dedicated team of

:12:02. > :12:06.developers. We test the software as best as we can, sometimes there will

:12:07. > :12:10.be vulnerabilities. On a high security perspective, first and

:12:11. > :12:17.foremost, our site has been verified under payment card industry

:12:18. > :12:21.standards, the pavement card business has put in place a number

:12:22. > :12:25.of standards that site had to adhere to to be certified as being city of

:12:26. > :12:37.false credit card transactions. We take that box. -- as being secure

:12:38. > :12:40.for credit card transactions. It has a human management overlay. That

:12:41. > :12:48.device is to screen out anything, any traffic it detects as abusive,

:12:49. > :12:50.robotic or anything that is unbelievable or originates from

:12:51. > :12:57.territories that we probably wouldn't want to transact with.

:12:58. > :13:01.Inside the transaction process, we have got our proprietary code which

:13:02. > :13:05.manages seating and seating allocations and dealing with

:13:06. > :13:09.customers. We also use other technologies like 3-D secure which

:13:10. > :13:14.is the online chip and pin so when you use a credit card, it will ask

:13:15. > :13:19.for the third digit, the eight digit of your password. Or in the case of

:13:20. > :13:23.American Express, it will send a text to your phone with a PIN number

:13:24. > :13:28.that you tied back in. On the security basis, I think our site is

:13:29. > :13:33.very strong. I think the vulnerability was in some coding

:13:34. > :13:38.that we had done that was not tested in an appropriate way. You are

:13:39. > :13:45.confident now your site is bombproof to hackers? As best we can beat that

:13:46. > :13:49.we were anyway. How this character managed to find this, I have no

:13:50. > :13:55.idea. Whether it was by accident or by design, I have no idea. Answering

:13:56. > :14:01.your question directly, yes. You keep a log of all transactions in

:14:02. > :14:06.terms of credit cards, addresses, do you ever find that there are

:14:07. > :14:13.anomalies in terms of multiple diggers being bought from the same

:14:14. > :14:19.street? All the time. What action do you take? I will just reiterate. We

:14:20. > :14:25.have processed inside the transaction loads that we detect by

:14:26. > :14:32.key personally Greene personal identifiers. It will play down by IP

:14:33. > :14:35.address all postcode or whatever. We have got our own rules, and very

:14:36. > :14:39.basic example, if it is a new customer that we have not transacted

:14:40. > :14:43.with before and made by more than 12 tickets on a two-week period, our

:14:44. > :14:47.system will like that. Any order that is flagged by the rules we have

:14:48. > :14:51.built up over time will be placed in suspense. The order will not be

:14:52. > :14:56.fulfilled, it will not be sent to someone who has not verified those

:14:57. > :14:59.orders by side. And asked the question whether those orders are

:15:00. > :15:04.believable, yes or no. Do we believe that someone bought six Green Day

:15:05. > :15:10.tickets, six Rod Stewart tickets, six Adele tickets, is that a genuine

:15:11. > :15:13.customer? Our customer service team responsible for doing that. If they

:15:14. > :15:20.pass the checks which could include a phone call to the customer, then

:15:21. > :15:23.one button is Bush and those orders release for fulfilment. If they

:15:24. > :15:33.failed the test, when the button is pushed, the tickets are cancelled.

:15:34. > :15:37.We send an e-mail, with careful language, we can't accuse people are

:15:38. > :15:43.things, saying you have breached rules with multiple transactions.

:15:44. > :15:46.The origins of the processes whether capturing credit card fraud wishes

:15:47. > :15:52.to be a huge problem for our business, not so because the

:15:53. > :15:58.inclusion of 3-D secure technologies. This is how we do it.

:15:59. > :16:05.You had instances of credit card fraud, you reference a few cases

:16:06. > :16:12.too. Have you referred any of those cases to authorities or police? Yes,

:16:13. > :16:16.yes. Before 3-D secure came in, credit card fraud was the biggest

:16:17. > :16:23.risks to our business. There was one case, probably five years ago,

:16:24. > :16:26.?200,000 worth of broad. It was in multiple jurisdictions. It was very

:16:27. > :16:30.sophisticated and very clever in the way they had use e-mail addresses,

:16:31. > :16:35.phone numbers, to mask their activity. It was when we got it at

:16:36. > :16:40.Mass that we could see what was going on. When we reported it,

:16:41. > :16:44.multiple jurisdictions, Metropolitan Police would not touch it. Each

:16:45. > :16:48.Stewart Dickson wouldn't touch it because there was overlap with the

:16:49. > :16:54.other jurisdictions. -- each jurisdiction. We knew the addresses,

:16:55. > :16:58.we did not know the people of course, we cannot verify whether

:16:59. > :17:02.they are the real names. We knew the addresses involved. There was little

:17:03. > :17:05.we could do to it. The police came to our office, a heap of stuff like

:17:06. > :17:12.this, you can see what they think about. It was the cost of sale, it

:17:13. > :17:17.is a risk of doing business. The new technology is in place, online chip

:17:18. > :17:20.and pin or 3-D secure, there has limited that as a risk to the extent

:17:21. > :17:31.of Gloucester, I have got the numbers here, we transacted over ?3

:17:32. > :17:35.billion and did not suffered very much credit card vote. We are using

:17:36. > :17:39.the technologies they can we doubt or filter out people that could be

:17:40. > :17:46.using the secondary market. Finally, you transact the Glastonbury

:17:47. > :17:52.ticketing platform which, as most people know, is virtually impossible

:17:53. > :17:56.to get a ticket for. And certainly you can't buy a ticket on the

:17:57. > :18:06.secondary market because you are not allowed in. If that bill-mac -- it

:18:07. > :18:13.seems sensible. That works very well for Glastonbury. In terms of being

:18:14. > :18:19.able to identify a ticket, there is current consumer rights act

:18:20. > :18:27.legislation which is a ticket is then sold on, it has to have wrote

:18:28. > :18:34.in the number and identifier. Do you think that legislation is working?

:18:35. > :18:43.-- row seat number. Probably not. No. No, essentially, it is not, is

:18:44. > :18:48.it? Otherwise we would not be that if. What further information on the

:18:49. > :18:55.ticket would be useful in terms of being able to track a the primary

:18:56. > :19:01.seller, presumably you are keen, or the people you work on behalf, are

:19:02. > :19:05.keen to identify where ticket has originated from and it has been

:19:06. > :19:10.resold so the original terms and conditions can be enforced? What

:19:11. > :19:13.additional information do you think would be useful or amendment say to

:19:14. > :19:18.the consumer rights act which I know is being proposed in the law? What

:19:19. > :19:24.additional information do you think would be useful to make this a level

:19:25. > :19:29.playing field for consumers? It is a difficult question. I do not have a

:19:30. > :19:33.smart answer to it. A ticket transaction to be four tickets. You

:19:34. > :19:37.would have four to give under your name. There are three people you may

:19:38. > :19:42.not know who you are going to take. OK, you own those four tickets. At

:19:43. > :19:45.how much would you want to disclose personally on a secondary site.

:19:46. > :19:50.Would you want to bid your own personal information? I do not know.

:19:51. > :19:53.The number, original face value, validation of those things is

:19:54. > :19:58.important. I will go on to say what we launched last week in a bit if I

:19:59. > :20:01.have the opportunity. But I think it is a very difficult thing to ask

:20:02. > :20:05.people to tell the truth. If they are looking to turn a profit, take a

:20:06. > :20:11.?20 ticket and sell at the 200 through our friends here, then why

:20:12. > :20:16.would they tell the truth? Within not help if there was a unique

:20:17. > :20:25.reference number? There are bar codes and everything. What does that

:20:26. > :20:28.say? What does that really say, the unique reference number is 123,456?

:20:29. > :20:37.The customer buying booze tickets from a secondary site, that has got

:20:38. > :20:41.to be good. -- buying both tickets. I do not want to go and say there

:20:42. > :20:45.should be a huge ticket transaction database in the UK. That would be

:20:46. > :20:51.possibly insane. I don't know. I am open to ideas. We will work with the

:20:52. > :20:55.industry as best as we can did throw this thing. I do not have a smart

:20:56. > :21:00.answer because this is not a new problem, it is an old problem. Thank

:21:01. > :21:07.you. I got to see the show. It was great. Can I ask in regards to

:21:08. > :21:13.selling tickets for Glastonbury? A major event of global standing. How

:21:14. > :21:15.realistic is the sort of techniques that are used there to be used for

:21:16. > :21:26.smaller events? We've done it for the Ryder Cup and

:21:27. > :21:31.a number of other events. To give you a quick summary of what it

:21:32. > :21:38.involves, before the tickets go on sale, customers interested in the

:21:39. > :21:41.event log in their personal information and a full-colour

:21:42. > :21:46.passport mugshot of themselves. There's a number of barriers there

:21:47. > :21:49.before you even buy the ticket. So when you buy the ticket, you went to

:21:50. > :21:53.the preference number for that registration number and at that

:21:54. > :21:57.point, we already know who the customer is. You take the photo,

:21:58. > :22:03.print it on the ticket and off it goes. It makes sense for

:22:04. > :22:06.Glastonbury. I can't disclose the number in the database but it's

:22:07. > :22:13.massively oversubscribed for the number of tickets available. For

:22:14. > :22:19.other events that possibly don't have that sort of demand ratio, it

:22:20. > :22:22.would be a barrier and impediment to sales. It's kind of overkill. For

:22:23. > :22:27.Glastonbury, they run the event, they own the site and they control

:22:28. > :22:32.100% of the tickets. We could create a custom solution for those guys.

:22:33. > :22:38.They had a problem and said what's the solution and that was what we

:22:39. > :22:45.put in place. Ryder Cup was another client using exactly the same

:22:46. > :22:52.service. But it's not viable to offer it? I don't think so because a

:22:53. > :22:54.lot of ticketing is impulsive. The actual window transaction between

:22:55. > :23:01.transaction time and event could be quite short. Glastonbury is a kind

:23:02. > :23:07.of cultural unique phenomenon. Do you think that sort of approach

:23:08. > :23:18.could be used for other major acts selling major events? Yes, of

:23:19. > :23:22.course, but it's up to the artists, manager, venue, agents. Glastonbury

:23:23. > :23:27.is in a bunch of fields in Somerset. When you walk into the O2, they have

:23:28. > :23:32.got their own processes and security, you can't just walk in and

:23:33. > :23:37.say, do it like this. Ticketmaster I think should be commended. I don't

:23:38. > :23:41.like to commend competitors too often but what they do seems to do

:23:42. > :23:52.some good. I think the industry is trying its best within certain

:23:53. > :23:59.constraints. Thank you. In terms of the consumer rights act, we have

:24:00. > :24:04.heard evidence separately that this could be a matter of enforcement of

:24:05. > :24:11.that. What balance would you put that on? Would you say it was an

:24:12. > :24:15.enforcement failure? I think the legislation is clear so it's got to

:24:16. > :24:20.be enforcement. I'm sure the police and everyone else has got a lot to

:24:21. > :24:28.do. This is ticketing, it's rock and roll and as old as the hills. What

:24:29. > :24:36.do you do? You have the law in place, ignore it and they are not

:24:37. > :24:39.subject to sanction,. Do you think the law is sufficient? From what I

:24:40. > :24:43.read your trying to do, it's pretty clear but it's not stopping it's

:24:44. > :24:48.what is the next step? One doesn't impede the business we operate. The

:24:49. > :24:57.business still has to be fluid and the line for impulsive transactions.

:24:58. > :24:59.It's lived entertainment. I'm looking at recommendations of

:25:00. > :25:06.Professor Waterson in his review and he talks about, let's look at

:25:07. > :25:12.secondary platforms first. He says some platforms, they have no

:25:13. > :25:19.responsibility to make sure sellers comply with the consumer rights act.

:25:20. > :25:24.Do you think the act should make sure they do comply? Absolutely. The

:25:25. > :25:37.problem at the moment with the exception of Ticketmaster, Viagogo

:25:38. > :25:44.is completely isolated from any particular seller. We have developed

:25:45. > :25:49.our own integrated secondary platform that allows customers to

:25:50. > :25:53.resell tickets within a price controlled mechanism which ticks

:25:54. > :25:58.boxes. It only works our customers. You can't come along with a football

:25:59. > :26:03.ticket and float it on our platform. You can select a transaction. We

:26:04. > :26:07.know who you were because we cleared you through these mechanisms. We

:26:08. > :26:13.already spoke about them earlier. We know the face value because we sold

:26:14. > :26:17.the ticket originally. So we can float that ticket with confidence.

:26:18. > :26:25.The buyer knows that ticket is being sold as originally sold by us so the

:26:26. > :26:28.seller knows the original price. We can in to mediate the whole process

:26:29. > :26:32.because we are in the middle for both sides. That is one way of doing

:26:33. > :26:37.it but again that's just for us and doesn't fix the industry. It's a

:26:38. > :26:46.good option for clients of See Tickets. It's the option for our

:26:47. > :26:51.clients. We have to look after our clients and customers. If a client

:26:52. > :26:54.says does, we will let you provide the exchange mechanism, we have got

:26:55. > :27:00.the one that will tick all the boxes. But only for tickets sold

:27:01. > :27:10.through us. A fairly selfish motive to this. We would like to get more

:27:11. > :27:14.of the primary pie because we've got a mechanism that protects and

:27:15. > :27:24.customer. On the that Professor Waterson put down, we've done our

:27:25. > :27:26.bit. Do you think that if the secondary market, there is a

:27:27. > :27:32.requirement to make sure that sellers to comply, will that make a

:27:33. > :27:36.difference? Properly not. If they don't turn up to talk to you, the

:27:37. > :27:42.people providing the platforms, it's hard to see... I'm afraid to say it

:27:43. > :27:46.but it's true. A question on the primary market, one of the

:27:47. > :27:55.recommendations is that you should do more to guard against bots. What

:27:56. > :28:05.else do you think the industry can do and what is your view of how your

:28:06. > :28:11.competitors also guard against bots? If you look at France, for arguments

:28:12. > :28:20.sake, I also chair a French business panel, ticket agents are licensed.

:28:21. > :28:26.Rather like travel agents. Everything is licensed in France.

:28:27. > :28:38.It's hard work! But that's France! They could be that. Whereby ticket

:28:39. > :28:42.agents are licensed, maybe they provide those as travel agents do.

:28:43. > :28:46.So there would be some mechanism to check the validity of the operators

:28:47. > :28:51.in the market to make sure they are not rogue and compliant with

:28:52. > :28:54.legislation. It's difficult if people operate offshore. You can't

:28:55. > :29:01.do anything about that. In France, we operate a platform which again is

:29:02. > :29:05.an ethical price controlled service. In France, tickets can only be sold

:29:06. > :29:09.on the secondary market if the organising party elected to do so

:29:10. > :29:12.and give permission. There's also that permission -based system.

:29:13. > :29:18.That's possibly part of the answer to your question. But it doesn't

:29:19. > :29:23.stop people in Geneva advertising in France, acquiring tickets in France

:29:24. > :29:31.and selling them to French customers from computers plugged into Geneva.

:29:32. > :29:37.It's difficult. A question on the issue of bots. If I can build on

:29:38. > :29:42.that question, they are not necessarily a problem for See

:29:43. > :29:46.Tickets. Through the wonders of technology, I was having a little

:29:47. > :29:53.look at the internet and a simple search for ticket bots rings you to

:29:54. > :30:00.a cracking little site called ticket bots dot net where you can see these

:30:01. > :30:07.arts that will sweep up tickets for you. There is a See Tickets website

:30:08. > :30:16.spinner dot. It's got five starts reviews. Clearly some punters are

:30:17. > :30:21.thinking it's working. I wondered whether... It says it allows you to

:30:22. > :30:25.reserve multiple tickets and do multiple searches simultaneously for

:30:26. > :30:35.one event or multiple events. I wonder how that stacks up... These

:30:36. > :30:44.things certainly exist, I've seen them all. I've re-engineered or

:30:45. > :30:49.repurposed load testing services. That's what they are, testing

:30:50. > :30:53.websites. YouTube shows some of these in operation. They does mouse

:30:54. > :31:03.clicks and you record your actions on the website and you savers and it

:31:04. > :31:07.goes. Just talking about what we do about bots, before I described this

:31:08. > :31:11.hardware and human interface that sits over the top of our hosting

:31:12. > :31:16.environment, which will weed out anything that seems to be of a

:31:17. > :31:25.robotic nature, but also and when we met, you said one of our competitors

:31:26. > :31:28.said we don't use catch up. Because if you look on you tube again you

:31:29. > :31:37.will see they are very easy to crack. Google's I'm not a robot from

:31:38. > :31:42.a month ago, it's a robotic device and Google has a wealth of

:31:43. > :31:49.information on devices, what they use for etc. It's got a good idea of

:31:50. > :31:55.what is a robot and what isn't. Have you bought one of these? It might be

:31:56. > :32:08.an idea to test it. I will go and do that. Good. What we found, when we

:32:09. > :32:11.put the Google device in place, we didn't see any drop off in

:32:12. > :32:16.conversion rates, except for the number of visitors to our website,

:32:17. > :32:21.number of people actually transacting, the ratio remained the

:32:22. > :32:27.same. It tells us we either... Bots can't get through or the robotic

:32:28. > :32:37.activity on our site was negligible as to not impact that ratio at all.

:32:38. > :32:41.I think it takes a bit of a herring. -- a red herring and I don't think

:32:42. > :32:48.it's all about bots. It definitely isn't. I've found dissenting online

:32:49. > :32:54.and was Gandalf the same question, clearly there there is an issue and

:32:55. > :33:00.you sound as if you feel powerless to stop this. Is that where you are?

:33:01. > :33:07.Apart from the mechanisms I've outlined this morning, we are kind

:33:08. > :33:11.of powerless. If you bought six tickets today, we don't know you and

:33:12. > :33:14.you bought six tickets and floated them through Viagogo, we are

:33:15. > :33:18.powerless to stop that. If you came back tomorrow and did it again and

:33:19. > :33:23.the day after, we wouldn't be powerless because we could build a

:33:24. > :33:28.profile of you. However you transacted, we would find you

:33:29. > :33:32.eventually, our algorithms for want of a better term, would identify

:33:33. > :33:35.your transactions as being suspect and hence your orders would be

:33:36. > :33:40.placed in suspense and then we could trap them and cancel them or

:33:41. > :33:44.whatever. But it's easy to get through our system, not with bots

:33:45. > :33:48.but just picking up your mobile and putting in your card number, it's

:33:49. > :33:57.easy to buy and sell what you want. So in that case we are powerless. It

:33:58. > :34:04.may deter people on the fringes... What's the word... The more honest

:34:05. > :34:08.might think, I don't really want to do that. There is legislation in

:34:09. > :34:14.place and I'll pass on that. But the hardcore abusers, no legislation is

:34:15. > :34:19.going to stop them, just as it doesn't stop criminality sadly. It

:34:20. > :34:28.will minimise it. So on that basis, yes. Bats the definition of

:34:29. > :34:33.powerless, to a degree, yes, we are. Have you thought of taking civil

:34:34. > :34:38.action against these people? For what? They bought something from us,

:34:39. > :34:44.what they do with it, we can't... The terms and conditions of ticket

:34:45. > :34:48.sales on our sites are specific, we will cancel those issues if we get

:34:49. > :34:53.them. But after the fact, it's quite difficult because the carry out some

:34:54. > :34:59.action, we have to suffer some form of damages I assume. I'm not a

:35:00. > :35:09.lawyer. What have we suffered? Someone bought something from us. I

:35:10. > :35:14.think pursuing this through courts, taking a guy who bought six tickets

:35:15. > :35:17.sold them, to court, how will that end up? We will pay an absolute

:35:18. > :35:24.fortune and get him in court and then what happens? He gets a ?100

:35:25. > :35:29.fine or whatever. That's not going to help. It may deter some people

:35:30. > :35:37.but if the sanction is great enough, then what can we do? We know for the

:35:38. > :35:41.Olympics, there was a ?5,000 fine and they went up to 20,000. That

:35:42. > :35:51.type of threat makes a difference but I think through the law courts,

:35:52. > :35:54.it's not as... A crime, I guess... It is a crime, I guess but what

:35:55. > :36:01.businesses can achieve, I don't know.

:36:02. > :36:09.And it is a negative answer but it is the truth. Going back to the

:36:10. > :36:15.question about the credit card, that was material fraud. Material value

:36:16. > :36:23.to others ?200,000, Gaughan. We had the evidence but we could not pursue

:36:24. > :36:29.it, what could we do? -- gone. Everything you seem to do seems to

:36:30. > :36:35.be done with six tickets. That is just an example. It seems to be the

:36:36. > :36:41.magic number. That would've caused me issues because I have four kids.

:36:42. > :36:45.It was obvious when I went any place I would buy six or eight tickets.

:36:46. > :36:50.How do you differentiate between genuine people who want to buy a

:36:51. > :36:57.number of tickets and people who are trying to fiddle the system? It is

:36:58. > :37:04.subjective. If we look to your order history and it was certain type, the

:37:05. > :37:11.tickets to the same address and the events with the same profile, the

:37:12. > :37:15.transaction of events was believable, you would be passed. If

:37:16. > :37:22.you had been buying tickets every single day for a diversity of

:37:23. > :37:27.events, it would be unbelievable. And perhaps it would be believed if

:37:28. > :37:32.you were selling to these guys but I presume you did not. Ultimately it

:37:33. > :37:35.comes down to human verification, knowing who the acts are and how

:37:36. > :37:41.this thing works and say yes or no, this thing works and say yes or no,

:37:42. > :37:47.to invite you people into the sea to invite you people into the sea

:37:48. > :37:58.this process. It is not a problem. We do we can. -- in two C. Thank

:37:59. > :38:02.you. Can I share your frustration about Viagogo not being present

:38:03. > :38:06.today, if not contempt of Parliament they have clearly shown lack of

:38:07. > :38:14.respect to parliamentarians and the British public. If we had a top of

:38:15. > :38:18.lard I am sure we could put it on the chair today. You mentioned

:38:19. > :38:22.earlier one you have started a resealing capability for people who

:38:23. > :38:29.bought tickets on your site. You mention that was a small mark-up,

:38:30. > :38:38.what is it? 5% over the place the customer paid for the ticket. There

:38:39. > :38:42.is a cap on the... Absolutely, the price controls are in the system.

:38:43. > :38:48.You cannot float the system for anything other than the system says

:38:49. > :38:53.it can be sold for. What about handling fees and others? That is

:38:54. > :38:57.the transaction fee which is passed to the sellers, they can send the

:38:58. > :38:59.tickets to the customer but it is all disclosed on the site. If I had

:39:00. > :39:06.a couple of tickets priced at 50p a couple of tickets priced at 50p

:39:07. > :39:19.for ?110? 110 is 5%. Or is it 105. for ?110? 110 is 5%. Or is it 105.

:39:20. > :39:24.Small amount, yes, plus postage fee for which you would be compensated.

:39:25. > :39:28.You will not get paid as a seller until five days after the event so

:39:29. > :39:34.after we know the event has gone on and there's been no issue with that

:39:35. > :39:39.transaction. We sit in the middle of it, we do not disclose the identity

:39:40. > :39:45.know you that those tickets from us, know you that those tickets from us,

:39:46. > :39:50.we know the original price and bar codes, we know everything, we know

:39:51. > :39:54.it can be sold and guaranteed and authenticated by others. Obviously

:39:55. > :40:00.there are many examples of tickets being sold multiple times their face

:40:01. > :40:06.value and second in the markets, what do you think is an appropriate

:40:07. > :40:12.multiple or mark-up? The cost of doing business is the cost of doing

:40:13. > :40:17.business. We operate a competitive marketplace so roughly 10% is fair.

:40:18. > :40:20.We can afford to sell a ticket and apprentice piece for 10%. The

:40:21. > :40:25.secondary space should operate at secondary space should operate at

:40:26. > :40:36.10% also over the value of the purchase. -- second in the price for

:40:37. > :40:42.10%. This morning I looked at a ticket sale on Viagogo for Little

:40:43. > :40:47.Mix on the 7th of July. They have an interesting site which will talk

:40:48. > :40:57.about later on. But tickets for ?45, after you have gone through several

:40:58. > :41:03.points, face value was ?45, they are being sold for 700 and 11p each.

:41:04. > :41:13.Only when you get to the final point do you realise. -- ?711. Only until

:41:14. > :41:20.I press the buy button do I realise that is an additional charge. The

:41:21. > :41:30.total price for two tickets valued at ?45 each is ?1900. That is crazy.

:41:31. > :41:36.libertarians might say, that is libertarians might say, that is

:41:37. > :41:41.fine, what do you think? That is atrocious. You should buy because it

:41:42. > :41:49.is much cheaper. I do not know what to say about it, it is insane. Their

:41:50. > :41:55.site is a comedy. The charge you mentioned earlier on about in a

:41:56. > :41:59.digital age and the international environment, it is difficult to

:42:00. > :42:06.restrict one country. So if the UK said a maximum of 50%, it would be

:42:07. > :42:12.difficult to enforce internationally? Yes, it is consumer

:42:13. > :42:17.education, a kitemark for ticket agents possibly. There is very

:42:18. > :42:23.little you can do, you know more about this than I do. If they can

:42:24. > :42:29.operate like they do out of Geneva and get away with it, it will

:42:30. > :42:38.continue. Do you think that is the role for the artists in this as

:42:39. > :42:43.well? Yes but it is rock and roll, we do but not to the extent of every

:42:44. > :42:50.advertising being about secondary ticketing. It is not what artists

:42:51. > :42:56.want to do. It does not reflect well on them? It probably does not which

:42:57. > :42:59.is a shame because they are not part of this. They are part of it because

:43:00. > :43:06.they are the artist in the first place. They are not complicit in it.

:43:07. > :43:13.Do you think the artist community is vocal enough about its? I think they

:43:14. > :43:20.have been. The first time I met the manager of Arctic monkeys and the

:43:21. > :43:25.manager of iron maiden in Soho, eight years ago, it was the same

:43:26. > :43:30.thing. It was a cohort of artists who wanted to do something about it.

:43:31. > :43:34.Know the core heart -- cohort has changed, it just goes on and on.

:43:35. > :43:38.They want to try and do something They want to try and do something

:43:39. > :43:42.about this but if they don't get action, they will move onto other

:43:43. > :43:53.things. There is only so much they can do, my opinion. Thank you. You

:43:54. > :43:58.must share the anger of people, from the evidence you have given us, you

:43:59. > :44:04.are seeing the primary market is the solution and there is investment you

:44:05. > :44:09.have to make to put security in place, alongside that our sites like

:44:10. > :44:15.Viagogo who are making huge amounts of money about people abusing the

:44:16. > :44:18.ticketing market. It seems to me there must be an obligation placed

:44:19. > :44:25.on those sites to police activity on those sites and not just make money

:44:26. > :44:31.out of the racketeering of ticket touts? I agree, there should be,

:44:32. > :44:37.especially if the UK registered businesses. I have to point out

:44:38. > :44:42.absent friends. If they are operating offshore, they can do with

:44:43. > :44:46.a want. I agree with you but it is very difficult. There are a

:44:47. > :44:54.occasions when the absence of Viagogo speaks volumes. For sure.

:44:55. > :44:59.You talk about 10% as a reasonable margin, if you could introduce a cap

:45:00. > :45:06.on that and legislate for it, do you think that would work or drivers

:45:07. > :45:11.back to ticket touts outside? I think if the rewards are so great,

:45:12. > :45:21.it will drive people to find the most profitable channel whatever be

:45:22. > :45:26.tried to do. We had another session with people from Ticketmaster or

:45:27. > :45:34.whenever, Phil Collins at the Albert Hall concert, the promoter is live

:45:35. > :45:41.nation, the primary seller is Ticketmaster, it is on the advert

:45:42. > :45:44.for the concert which says tickets cannot be resold or exchanged. We

:45:45. > :45:52.put this to them and they were very evasive. What is your view on that?

:45:53. > :46:04.I do not know enough about it. It is an interesting one. Is this a fair

:46:05. > :46:12.way to do business? If the rewards are there, 26% up on the ticketing

:46:13. > :46:16.last year, this is part of their business but whether it is

:46:17. > :46:21.legitimate, I do not know. Customers are buying and selling in a free

:46:22. > :46:27.market therefore it is legitimate. I do not know enough about live

:46:28. > :46:33.nation's ticketing to know whether what they do is underhand. Thank you

:46:34. > :46:37.very much. I would like to associate myself as well with the chair's

:46:38. > :46:47.comments about Viagogo not turning up. We say this rarely that we have

:46:48. > :46:50.an empty chair for somebody. Most organisations have enough respect

:46:51. > :46:55.for Parliament that when you're asked to appear, they turn up and to

:46:56. > :46:59.their arguments. It says something for their lack of self-respect and

:47:00. > :47:03.the shady nature of their operations that they feel they cannot appear

:47:04. > :47:11.here and answered questions. It is not just the music industry that

:47:12. > :47:17.finds itself in bad order of others, it is also sport. I was interested

:47:18. > :47:24.to read a Daily Record investigation about Scottish rugby were going by a

:47:25. > :47:28.reporter who will appear and give evidence shortly. What is

:47:29. > :47:34.extraordinary is that Scottish rugby are passing on tickets to Viagogo.

:47:35. > :47:45.Some of the sums are absolutely extraordinary. Tickets bought for

:47:46. > :47:52.?115 were being sold for ?1956. Once Viagogo had taken the cut of ?450 a

:47:53. > :48:00.time for quote, VAT and booking fees. That is kind of crazy.

:48:01. > :48:09.Scottish rugby has accused to answer, doesn't it? Viagogo's model

:48:10. > :48:13.of old was although rights actions. -- rights acquisitions. They used to

:48:14. > :48:20.have Premier League football clubs. They said this was a good service

:48:21. > :48:24.for fans. Here is a lump of money. UBC then selling Premier games. You

:48:25. > :48:30.do not state very much now. -- you would say then selling. They can

:48:31. > :48:34.induce a client to work with them by writing a big fat cheque. At the

:48:35. > :48:37.moment we're not doing anything illegal but that is the question to

:48:38. > :48:43.be asked of these organisations who feel that this is the right thing to

:48:44. > :48:48.do. That is my opinion. What is that question? Why would you take a lump

:48:49. > :48:54.of money from these organisations to allow your tickets to be touted and

:48:55. > :49:00.your fans to be ripped off? In my words. That is a very good question,

:49:01. > :49:04.you should be a journalist because that is the question that our

:49:05. > :49:10.journalist asked the Scottish Rugby Union. Their response, I think some

:49:11. > :49:14.of them were derisory. One of their responses was that the reason they

:49:15. > :49:23.passed on his tickets was because they want the stadium to be filled.

:49:24. > :49:31.That's a good one. Isn't it? I think... That was my thoughts,

:49:32. > :49:41.imagine being the idiot press officer they gave that and so. I do

:49:42. > :49:46.not know. Also to have so little respect for your fans. You don't

:49:47. > :49:53.actually think they are going to turn up for one of your rugby

:49:54. > :49:58.matches? And with Scotland playing, of course, it is always going to be

:49:59. > :50:07.backed as everybody knows. I do not know, it is bizarre. I have a lot of

:50:08. > :50:14.support from my friend the chair. It is a serious point, what we have

:50:15. > :50:18.done until no is to be a great deal of attention to the ticket touts but

:50:19. > :50:23.as Mr Huddleston says, maybe we should be turning our attention to

:50:24. > :50:30.where the tickets originally from in the first place and asking these

:50:31. > :50:36.influential rock and pop stars and also the sports organisations to be

:50:37. > :50:43.taking a stronger stance. I think so probably. Although perhaps we could

:50:44. > :50:45.not take a leaf out of the books of the Bay City Rollers because I

:50:46. > :50:48.notice that when the discovered notice that when the

:50:49. > :50:54.their tickets were going to ticket their tickets were going to ticket

:50:55. > :51:03.touts, they decided they would turn up at that daughter of the ticket

:51:04. > :51:08.touts and call him a parasite. -- at the door of the ticket tout. And

:51:09. > :51:14.asked him to get a real job. I suspect every person in this room

:51:15. > :51:22.thinks the ticket touts should get a real job. Looking at another Daily

:51:23. > :51:27.Record story, when he turns up at the door of this ticket tout who was

:51:28. > :51:31.selling Bay City Rollers tickets they discovered he was driving a

:51:32. > :51:43.very lavish card. Not surprising that.

:51:44. > :52:00.Thank you very much. That concludes this part of the depositions.

:52:01. > :52:08.Thank you for joining us, the second panel on our enquiry on the abuse on

:52:09. > :52:15.the ticketing market. Could I start by asking you about the obligations

:52:16. > :52:22.placed on primary sellers. We've heard the evidence we received in

:52:23. > :52:26.the first panel. We asked whether the preregistration of customers

:52:27. > :52:29.that operates for major events like Glastonbury is something that is

:52:30. > :52:33.suitable or appropriate for other events, other major events. I'd be

:52:34. > :52:40.interested in your views and whether you feel there are more people, but

:52:41. > :52:43.primary sellers could do to make sure the tickets end up in the right

:52:44. > :52:53.hands or whether this requires a bigger solution across the whole of

:52:54. > :52:57.the primary and secondary markets? Mr Kelly? I recollect Hamilton

:52:58. > :53:02.musical and so far we have spoken about primarily the sports and music

:53:03. > :53:07.markets. The theatre market is slightly different I think. We would

:53:08. > :53:11.normally work with most players in the primary market so it would be

:53:12. > :53:18.unusual for us to deal with ten or 12, 14 major ticket agencies. Events

:53:19. > :53:25.like Glastonbury, the way they work, they deal through See Tickets. We do

:53:26. > :53:33.work with various agencies because they have different strengths. One

:53:34. > :53:38.has a particular strength in the tourist market, others are a global

:53:39. > :53:43.brand, others may have specialist marketing and presence in the

:53:44. > :53:46.education market. Sizing for a registration system along the lines

:53:47. > :53:49.of Plastun bridgework, in my mind, we would have to have a central

:53:50. > :53:56.database through one ticket agencies are not sure it would work for the

:53:57. > :54:03.theatre agency. That won't work in the world of rock and pop. We have

:54:04. > :54:09.investigated it. Glastonbury have a huge gross each year and are able to

:54:10. > :54:15.implement a costly system and they have the ability to have one act as

:54:16. > :54:19.a control system at one venue. If you take an example of the O2 arena

:54:20. > :54:25.in London, similar to the West End, you will find up to ten different

:54:26. > :54:28.agencies selling tickets for that. Their systems are all slightly

:54:29. > :54:34.different, some are very different and to try to bring them together

:54:35. > :54:42.would not work. It's the 100% inventory class to rehouse that

:54:43. > :54:46.allows them to do that. Some of our theatre shows runs for years. They

:54:47. > :54:53.are not one-off events with limited capacity. We will sell to 600,000

:54:54. > :54:57.odd people a year on selection. A great deal of care has gone into

:54:58. > :55:03.trying to racial tickets for Hamilton go to people buying them

:55:04. > :55:11.legitimately. Some have ended up on secondary sites for sale like

:55:12. > :55:15.Viagogo four ?2500 ago. What action do you feel you could take and do

:55:16. > :55:26.you think that the action of ticket tout or opportunistic fans? It's

:55:27. > :55:30.more than ?2500, they are listed between 350 and 7500 fans. They only

:55:31. > :55:38.appear on Viagogo. We did a deal with Ticketmaster. We talk to

:55:39. > :55:41.various agencies about the problems we anticipated and Ticketmaster came

:55:42. > :55:52.back with what we thought was the best solution. Four major secondary

:55:53. > :55:58.resellers in the UK. Stump up not listed any tickets for Hamilton.

:55:59. > :56:06.Viagogo were listing tickets for Hamilton within an hour of going on

:56:07. > :56:11.sale. Looking at those listings, I can prove some of them don't exist,

:56:12. > :56:16.they are speculative. I don't know how money people have a copy of the

:56:17. > :56:22.letter I wrote to Nigel and trading standards but I included in there,

:56:23. > :56:27.examples of at least may be 50 tickets that I know don't exist that

:56:28. > :56:34.they are selling on the sites. What can we do? Following the

:56:35. > :56:42.conversation we had earlier, I'd like to see the consumer rights act

:56:43. > :56:44.enforced. I understand the implications of them allegedly being

:56:45. > :56:52.based in Switzerland but they do have an office with tenants may be

:56:53. > :56:55.hundreds of staff and they trade under Viagogo with a UK website

:56:56. > :57:02.address. I think they should be made to follow the board. Our terms and

:57:03. > :57:10.conditions say that ticket reselling is forbidden. If you look at the way

:57:11. > :57:19.that rather glossy but sneaky site is constructed, they've gone a long

:57:20. > :57:26.way not to be complied with the way they've built their ticketing sites.

:57:27. > :57:33.If you look at tickets which lists Hamilton at ?5,000, you can't I it

:57:34. > :57:36.for that price because there are three compulsory fees. But there is

:57:37. > :57:42.no mention of them until you get onto page six or seven of the

:57:43. > :57:49.booking process. Suddenly, as mentioned before, there is the

:57:50. > :57:56.appearance of this merged VAT and booking fee amount which is

:57:57. > :57:59.something like ?1500 and underneath it, they say free shipping but on

:58:00. > :58:04.the next page, there appears something called secure delivery

:58:05. > :58:09.charge. No explanation what it is and it's five to 95 and you cannot

:58:10. > :58:15.avoid it. So that ?5,000 ticket has cost to over ?6,000. I can't

:58:16. > :58:21.identify that ticket because Viagogo don't follow the consumer rights

:58:22. > :58:26.act. There was a clause in that act which says all seats need to be

:58:27. > :58:35.identified by terms of seat number, row number and theatre, stalls,

:58:36. > :58:39.dress circle, etc. When a seller on Viagogo goes to list that, those

:58:40. > :58:44.fields are not enforced and you can bypass them. So if nobody is making

:58:45. > :58:51.the customer list the location of the seat number, what can I do? You

:58:52. > :58:56.said there are tickets being sold on Viagogo that you know don't exist.

:58:57. > :59:04.Have you notified Viagogo about that? I wrote to them a few weeks

:59:05. > :59:08.ago. The director. I explained the system we were operating for

:59:09. > :59:12.Hamilton which I'm sure he knew about anyway and I pointed out most

:59:13. > :59:15.of the tickets being sold on Viagogo, if sold, they would be

:59:16. > :59:22.turned away at the door. And please remove them. And prevent all future

:59:23. > :59:27.listings. What response have you had? None. Surveyor knowingly

:59:28. > :59:31.selling tickets and making money from tickets where the seats may not

:59:32. > :59:36.exist and the people want to be admitted to the show. And no

:59:37. > :59:40.notification of that at all? The only notification is on page five or

:59:41. > :59:44.six of their booking process, a box appears about Di Livio tickets.

:59:45. > :59:58.About delivery of tickets. Page six of the booking process and

:59:59. > :00:03.it says, choose your ticket method, only one option for Hamilton and it

:00:04. > :00:06.says picked up at event. Instructions for following an

:00:07. > :00:12.e-mail. You can't receive that e-mail until you've bought the

:00:13. > :00:18.tickets. What I know this e-mail set is, I know this because someone who

:00:19. > :00:26.did purchase tickets contacted a BBC programme to explain the situation.

:00:27. > :00:33.He does know who he has bought from. He paid nearly ?7,000 for three

:00:34. > :00:36.tickets. He has to turn up outsider venue and try to find whoever this

:00:37. > :00:45.person is and I presume what this person will do is walk them into the

:00:46. > :00:49.venue with their credit card. To explain, we are operating a system

:00:50. > :00:52.which means that once the customer buys the ticket for Hamilton, they

:00:53. > :00:58.don't receive anything through the post. No tickets for this event

:00:59. > :01:02.exist. All they receive is a simple confirmation e-mail which says this

:01:03. > :01:06.is not a ticket and it can't be resold and it has no monetary value

:01:07. > :01:14.so you need to bring it along to the event. The customer needs to bring

:01:15. > :01:18.official Government ID, photo ID, the confirmation e-mail and the card

:01:19. > :01:21.they used to book the tickets. The photo ID let's us identify the

:01:22. > :01:24.person standing in front of us is the cardholder and the original

:01:25. > :01:28.person with the tickets, when we are happy with that, we will swipe the

:01:29. > :01:34.credit card through a reader and the usher has a small ticket printer

:01:35. > :01:40.which will print a small location which will get them into the venue.

:01:41. > :01:48.People selling these tickets on Viagogo have nothing to sell. There

:01:49. > :01:53.is no product. Just so we're clear, when someone who has bought tickets

:01:54. > :01:57.for Hamilton is then given the slip to allow them to enter the theatre,

:01:58. > :01:59.are they then able to leave the venue? Could they go through that

:02:00. > :02:04.process and then leave with the tickets and give them to someone

:02:05. > :02:12.else? I don't want to go into too much detail about what we are doing.

:02:13. > :02:17.But there will be steps in place to prevent that happening. It won't be

:02:18. > :02:22.the same every evening, we will change our operation. You observed

:02:23. > :02:27.these tickets for sale, you've called Viagogo and they will be

:02:28. > :02:31.aware of the terms so they know they are selling tickets that are not

:02:32. > :02:36.supposed to be be sold. It was in the national press. And you have

:02:37. > :02:39.warned them of what will happen, virtually that is fraught? They are

:02:40. > :02:50.making money out of the fraudulent selling tickets. I would say so.

:02:51. > :03:00.The more we hear about Viagogo, it strikes me these people make Stan

:03:01. > :03:09.Flashman look like Mother Teresa! It's incredible. Surely, just to

:03:10. > :03:12.build on what the chair said, surely what you're experiencing, customers

:03:13. > :03:17.who want to go see one of the most hotly anticipated musicals ever,

:03:18. > :03:19.that you are putting on, surely fraud is being committed. Have you

:03:20. > :03:27.reported this to the authorities, the police? I'm still waiting for my

:03:28. > :03:35.reply. Taking thousands of pounds of people, knowing they are not going

:03:36. > :03:38.to be to get in and see the show, is effectively like selling a product

:03:39. > :03:45.that never existed. That surely is fraud. Clearly that's a matter for

:03:46. > :03:52.yourselves. This show is clearly going to run for a long time. What

:03:53. > :03:57.is your message to people around the country who are desperate to see

:03:58. > :04:01.this show? The first and they will do if they put in a search is they

:04:02. > :04:09.will probably find a Viagogo site listed as an official site. It

:04:10. > :04:14.appears above all of them. Maybe the search engines have some questions

:04:15. > :04:19.to answer on this. A great opportunity here, what do you say to

:04:20. > :04:23.genuine fans who want to come to your musical, what should they do if

:04:24. > :04:29.you want to come see your show? I would say the same to any fan of

:04:30. > :04:32.rock, pop or sports about, don't buy from secondary markets. In terms of

:04:33. > :04:39.Hamilton, we have released all of our tickets yet. This is a unique

:04:40. > :04:43.situation because Hamilton will open to the palace theatre down the road

:04:44. > :04:48.and we are in the middle of a refurbishment. We have helped some

:04:49. > :04:55.tickets back for those reasons. We have put in place late release

:04:56. > :05:00.tickets of the people... You can't book 80 months in advance for the

:05:01. > :05:08.show and there will be late opportunity to buy tickets. We are

:05:09. > :05:12.organising two lotteries which will take place the week before the show

:05:13. > :05:19.and on the day of the show and those tickets will be at the ?37 50 or

:05:20. > :05:23.?25. It's not a case that the tickets will get more and more

:05:24. > :05:26.expensive. We are holding back some lower-priced tickets for everybody.

:05:27. > :05:36.Don't panic, there will be more tickets and also,... Can I turn to

:05:37. > :05:42.Mr camp, Ed Sheeran Pozzo manager, one of the most popular artists in

:05:43. > :05:45.the world at the moment and Stuart as the promoter for some of his

:05:46. > :05:52.shows, I was fairly horrified when I heard about tickets for a charity

:05:53. > :05:59.gig that Ed Sheeran was doing for teenage cancer, going on resale for

:06:00. > :06:05.over ?1000. Could you tell the committee... It was a lot more than

:06:06. > :06:08.that. Next Tuesday, playing teenage cancer trust show at Royal Albert

:06:09. > :06:14.Hall and tickets range from ?40 to ?110. They were tickets going for

:06:15. > :06:18.over ?5,000. How much of that money was going to the cancer show? None

:06:19. > :06:33.of it. You clearly do other shows with Ed

:06:34. > :06:44.show at the O2, 22nd of June, could show at the O2, 22nd of June, could

:06:45. > :06:49.you tell the committee about your experiences with what will be a

:06:50. > :06:55.hotly anticipated show? We announce the show three weeks ago and is sold

:06:56. > :07:00.out instantly. We announced the O2 show quite late, just on Twitter at

:07:01. > :07:03.three o'clock and within 20 minutes some of the secondary sites were

:07:04. > :07:09.listing they would have tickets for that. Fair enough if that was

:07:10. > :07:19.permitted, but what are the conditions of sale? Knowing we would

:07:20. > :07:23.have such demands, we wrote to the main four secondary sites asking

:07:24. > :07:28.them not to miss the show and secondly informing them as part of

:07:29. > :07:32.our terms and conditions, resale was not allowed and if we found anyone

:07:33. > :07:38.who purchased tickets on the secondary market, they would not be

:07:39. > :07:43.allowed admittance to the shore. All four sides ignored our request and

:07:44. > :07:46.listed tickets at inflated prices, knowing it is our intention to

:07:47. > :07:52.cancel those tickets are not met their customers. Again like the

:07:53. > :08:01.viable ghost story with Hamilton, these secondary sites are ignoring

:08:02. > :08:07.your request. -- like the via Gogol story. They are relisting these talk

:08:08. > :08:12.-- tickets. In the full knowledge that fans will get turned away. As

:08:13. > :08:19.Keith has said they do not comply in Keith has said they do not comply in

:08:20. > :08:25.the main, some comply with an others know that pressure has been applied.

:08:26. > :08:28.Most of them do not comply with consumer law. It is impossible to

:08:29. > :08:34.work out in some cases what the face value was. It is possible to buy

:08:35. > :08:41.more tickets than we have set as a limit. We set the limit beforehand

:08:42. > :08:47.and those limits are ignored by second Diddy sites. I am puzzled by

:08:48. > :08:51.this because I have had conversations with Ticketmaster for

:08:52. > :08:53.example who told me that if an artist or promoter does not want any

:08:54. > :08:58.of their primary tickets to end up of their primary tickets to end up

:08:59. > :09:03.in the secondary market, they are happy to do that. That is the

:09:04. > :09:12.conversation we had that the evidence as to the contrary. We all

:09:13. > :09:18.identify Viagogo as the most aggressive secondary site sitting

:09:19. > :09:23.here, the problem with get me in and others is by being owned by a

:09:24. > :09:25.primary ticket seller, it is very difficult to keep that black and

:09:26. > :09:30.white. Ticketmaster do everything white. Ticketmaster do everything

:09:31. > :09:37.they can do on occasion to blur that margin so it is impossible to tell

:09:38. > :09:39.whether you are buying from a primary or secondary seller. There

:09:40. > :09:44.are people in the room, myself included, who would never dream of

:09:45. > :09:49.buying from the secondary site but we have bought from Ticketmaster. We

:09:50. > :09:55.regularly receive e-mails about shows going on sale now,

:09:56. > :10:00.recommending secondary sites to us so they are using their primary

:10:01. > :10:04.database to sell secondary tickets. That is their business choice. I

:10:05. > :10:09.have an issue with that when there is still an enormous volumes of

:10:10. > :10:15.primary tickets still available. When you had the opportunity to buy

:10:16. > :10:26.a ticket at ?75, to push people onto a site that the own where you will

:10:27. > :10:31.pay ten times that. So why would Ticketmaster listen to I made in's

:10:32. > :10:35.manager and comply with the request so that tickets do not go on the

:10:36. > :10:46.secondary market and ignore Ed Sheeran's request. You may ask. One

:10:47. > :10:50.day. I have asked the same question of Ticketmaster but not been given a

:10:51. > :10:54.satisfactory answers but the reality is they can do it when it suits

:10:55. > :10:59.them. They can do when this is them commercially. In the case of Cameron

:11:00. > :11:03.Mackintosh and Hamilton, if he had not agreed that deal, they would not

:11:04. > :11:07.have been given any primary tickets. In the case of iron maiden, they're

:11:08. > :11:14.promoting company happens to promote that band. So that is absolute

:11:15. > :11:17.collusion between primary ticket companies and the secondary market

:11:18. > :11:26.in terms of getting access to those tickets? Yes, absolutely. In the

:11:27. > :11:34.case of Ed Sheeran's show, the first sites to list it at 3:27pm, no other

:11:35. > :11:39.site was able to put up that quickly. They had that prior

:11:40. > :11:45.information with Ticketmaster who were selling primary allocations.

:11:46. > :11:49.What action did you take, presumably got a paper trail of what was

:11:50. > :11:53.happening to those tickets, contravening the terms and

:11:54. > :11:58.conditions of sale, what action did you take or conversations did you

:11:59. > :12:05.have a Ticketmaster in terms of those tickets which will have gone

:12:06. > :12:10.on good faith to fans and the likelihood is that people will not

:12:11. > :12:16.get into the show? We have since spoken to Ticketmaster, indeed

:12:17. > :12:19.yesterday. They offered no explanation as to why this tickets

:12:20. > :12:24.were listed other than that they had told us they did not have control of

:12:25. > :12:30.the seats which I find strange when the board of directors have

:12:31. > :12:34.commonality across the two companies and indeed they can control those

:12:35. > :12:39.outlets when they choose to do so. It begs the question, does this make

:12:40. > :12:45.life incredibly difficult for promoters and artists because live

:12:46. > :12:50.nation is a great company, internationally successful as a

:12:51. > :13:01.business, it is my understanding they not only on the largest

:13:02. > :13:07.ticketing company but the own two of the largest secondary tickets in the

:13:08. > :13:12.world. They managed artists, some big artists I understand and the own

:13:13. > :13:18.and manage venues. That is a fairly tidy arrangement, is it not? Yes. I

:13:19. > :13:26.can announce that. There is a fair reach there. It is probably unfair

:13:27. > :13:31.of me to ask questions about them but does that make life difficult

:13:32. > :13:40.for you as artist? Not me personally. It can be awkward for

:13:41. > :13:46.other acts generally. Finally, do you have other examples perhaps were

:13:47. > :13:55.promoters are directly colluding and allowing secondary ticket market

:13:56. > :13:59.places access to tickets? I can only comment for our own company and we

:14:00. > :14:04.do not deal with the secondary market. I wrongly interaction is to

:14:05. > :14:11.ask them not to use their sites for our shoes. -- our only interaction.

:14:12. > :14:19.I think there was a Channel 4 programme which covered this, and

:14:20. > :14:22.this recent round of public conversation shows that is clearly

:14:23. > :14:28.some collusion between primary ticket owners and the second Diddy

:14:29. > :14:31.market. You have venues which have relationships with second Diddy

:14:32. > :14:37.outlets. John mentioned the Scottish Rugby Union deal with Viagogo but

:14:38. > :14:43.you also have venues in the UK. -- secondary outlets. Despite our

:14:44. > :14:50.request for those not to be used, we are ignored. One final point on

:14:51. > :14:56.being able to identify where a ticket was bought. Clearly if you

:14:57. > :15:00.have terms and conditions to CDs cannot be sold and they appear on a

:15:01. > :15:04.secondary site and bought in good faith, you want to be able to refer

:15:05. > :15:09.to the terms and conditions. It is to the terms and conditions. It is

:15:10. > :15:17.easy to identify a ticket because of the seat number but if I go to my

:15:18. > :15:22.Green Day cake, two thirds of the audience are standing. -- Green Day

:15:23. > :15:31.cake. They just had general access to the floor. Does that make things

:15:32. > :15:36.difficult for you, does the Consumer Rights Act need to amend the

:15:37. > :15:43.information on tickets? I don't think it is sufficient. First of

:15:44. > :15:45.whether that is sufficient consumer whether that is sufficient consumer

:15:46. > :15:50.protection or it is not being enforced. The answer is that is not

:15:51. > :15:59.enough protection and it is not being enforced. The sites are

:16:00. > :16:04.starting to comply with the Consumer Rights Act more and as Keith said,

:16:05. > :16:11.clearly in the act it states you have to list rule, blog and seat

:16:12. > :16:21.number. Where the listed for the 22nd of June Ed Sheeran gig? Know

:16:22. > :16:24.they were not. So every second Diddy site selling Ed Sheeran tickets as

:16:25. > :16:30.late as last week were breaking Consumer Rights Act yes, they were.

:16:31. > :16:34.Someone getting as close as they cute but without complying. They do

:16:35. > :16:41.not want to comply because we can identify the tickets, exactly as

:16:42. > :16:45.Keith is doing at Hamilton, we will cancel the tickets so there will be

:16:46. > :16:50.customer dissatisfaction even though we asked them not to sell them in

:16:51. > :16:55.the first place. The latest trend is, we would tell you the blog and

:16:56. > :17:01.of seats you will sit in. We will of seats you will sit in. We will

:17:02. > :17:06.not actually tell you the seat which is what we have to tell you by law.

:17:07. > :17:12.If I know that, I will cancel the tickets. So the law needs to change?

:17:13. > :17:19.Yes, the other problem with the Consumer Rights Act, even if that

:17:20. > :17:24.was complied with truly, when they come to sporting events, you have no

:17:25. > :17:30.way of tracking things. We believe it should have an amendment added so

:17:31. > :17:35.that has a unique booking reference added to it from primary sale and we

:17:36. > :17:41.can track that back to the source. Can I add to that, in my world

:17:42. > :17:44.because we are dealing with multiple ticket agencies, the reference

:17:45. > :17:49.number does not mean anything to me because I do not know what company

:17:50. > :17:56.it relates to and I would imagine there is a temptation to list seats

:17:57. > :18:04.incorrectly, technically they have complied with consumer rights. I

:18:05. > :18:10.think we as promoters should be able to challenge incorrectly listed

:18:11. > :18:14.information and if secondary agents do not have this information

:18:15. > :18:22.correctly, it should not be listed. It should not be for us to detect

:18:23. > :18:27.this. That makes perfect sense. So a small change to the current

:18:28. > :18:35.legislation in terms of identifiers. Standing events, which a lot of

:18:36. > :18:38.music events are... The other problem we have, you have asked

:18:39. > :18:48.people earlier, had you done anything about it? The fact is there

:18:49. > :18:53.is nobody that we can go to to bring a prosecution. Trading Standards

:18:54. > :18:56.around the country, the Consumer Rights Act has been in existence for

:18:57. > :19:07.two light years and there has not been a single prosecution under that

:19:08. > :19:10.legislation. There is no national Trading Standards body. It was

:19:11. > :19:15.pleasing to seeing the Budget there is money set aside for Trading

:19:16. > :19:22.Standards to be able to investigate and bring prosecutions on a national

:19:23. > :19:28.level. The other aspect of this, again you were talking to rob about

:19:29. > :19:34.this, is consumer education. You ask what would you advise a Hamilton

:19:35. > :19:40.customer to do? The answer for us is go to the source. If you are buying

:19:41. > :19:46.foreign Ed Sheeran tickets, go to Sheeran .com because from there you

:19:47. > :19:52.will only be directed to primary outlets. The problem with Google,

:19:53. > :19:56.the worst thing you can do is Google search because the Google adverts

:19:57. > :20:05.mean that the touts who spent an enormous amount of money on adverts

:20:06. > :20:09.are at the top of the page. Our fans guide was published yesterday and

:20:10. > :20:15.there are ten tips on there, readily available online at how to buy a

:20:16. > :20:19.ticket at primary value and avoid being ripped off. Interesting to

:20:20. > :20:27.know that when you search Hamilton on Google, you get a Google ad

:20:28. > :20:35.saying secure tickets on sale no, fast checkout stand no queues,

:20:36. > :20:45.lowest prices, instant download, save online 24/7 customer service.

:20:46. > :20:51.That is terrible on many levels. Some and searching will find it and

:20:52. > :20:55.not only are Viagogo delisting for Hamilton, even though they know

:20:56. > :21:02.people will not be admitted. They are proactively advertising, it

:21:03. > :21:08.seems to be more shocking. From what you said so far, presumably you

:21:09. > :21:12.would support the idea of pressure being put on the search engine sites

:21:13. > :21:19.in the same way they have been lobbied not to give high to sites

:21:20. > :21:25.they are known to have pirated content and giving high-ranking to

:21:26. > :21:33.sites which are fraudulently selling tickets? Absolutely. We have

:21:34. > :21:41.be 50p on a Google ad to be outbid be 50p on a Google ad to be outbid

:21:42. > :21:43.on a factor of ten by a tout who is selling a ticket we have told them

:21:44. > :21:49.they can't sell in the first place. They can do that because the margin

:21:50. > :22:02.is so much bigger I was going to ask, about what can

:22:03. > :22:04.be done regarding a booking reference number but is there

:22:05. > :22:11.anything else apart from, that could be added to a bill now, is anything

:22:12. > :22:16.else you could that legislators could do and also secondly, you said

:22:17. > :22:20.go to Ed Sheeran's website. I don't buy lottery tickets but if I do, I

:22:21. > :22:28.wouldn't have a clue what the official site of anybody was. So I

:22:29. > :22:32.would probably Google it. How do the orderly person who isn't steeped in

:22:33. > :22:37.this, which most people are not, particularly younger people who have

:22:38. > :22:41.got a lot of money or people with kids, where it is a big treat. You

:22:42. > :22:47.can imagine kids turning up to an event and not being allowed in, they

:22:48. > :22:54.would be distraught. How does the average person get around this?

:22:55. > :22:59.Every advert, e-mail, Twitter posts we do, it always says the same

:23:00. > :23:04.thing, do not go to these secondary sites, go to the main website.

:23:05. > :23:10.People go to Viagogo in particular and it looks like an official Ed

:23:11. > :23:16.Sheeran outlet. Their website is all built around a sense of urgency and

:23:17. > :23:20.panic. There are five other people looking at these tickets, the prices

:23:21. > :23:25.going up! That is why you have the situations where the terms and

:23:26. > :23:33.conditions are buried the bottom. People's gut reaction is to do it

:23:34. > :23:38.quickly. I would like to see a contract between secondary... In my

:23:39. > :23:43.world, we have a contract with every single primary agent we deal with.

:23:44. > :23:49.It sets a standard customer services terms. All the things you would

:23:50. > :23:55.expect, we have a relationship with his people and we know who to talk

:23:56. > :24:02.to. Viagogo are indivisible. I'd like to see a contract, I'd like to

:24:03. > :24:19.see the consumer rights act in force. -- Viagogo are invisible.

:24:20. > :24:33.If they are selling a ticket for ?7,500, it'd say next to it, face

:24:34. > :24:38.value, ?59 50. Not as they do now in a small font on page six, it is the

:24:39. > :24:44.face value of this ticket ranges between ?20 and ?200 and that

:24:45. > :24:47.doesn't mean anything. They need to list the full inclusive price of

:24:48. > :24:51.tickets, the exact location, face value of the ticket and also any

:24:52. > :24:58.risks associated with purchasing that ticket. Our terms and

:24:59. > :25:04.conditions that if you resell a ticket, the buyers of this ticket

:25:05. > :25:07.won't be admitted into the show. Some people must be admitted into

:25:08. > :25:12.shows events buying these tickets or nobody would buy them. If we can

:25:13. > :25:18.identify them, we will turn them away. What percentage are you

:25:19. > :25:25.identifying? This is the problem because we lack of transparency in

:25:26. > :25:32.this market. It's why the four sites are not combined with the Human

:25:33. > :25:35.Rights Act. When we sell a primary ticket, we are obliged to comply

:25:36. > :25:41.with the consumer rights act. You have to list all the information but

:25:42. > :25:50.the secondary market feel they don't have to. That's where the customer

:25:51. > :25:55.then encounters a problem and end up paying over the odds. Everything is

:25:56. > :26:01.there on our primary sites on the first page. Presumably, the reason

:26:02. > :26:04.sites don't comply with the consumer urges Laotian is because they feel

:26:05. > :26:09.if they do, their business will be driven elsewhere? So they're more

:26:10. > :26:12.interested in making money from the transaction and they are than

:26:13. > :26:21.protecting consumers? Yes, absolutely. Your comment about the

:26:22. > :26:26.Viagogo ad struck me because you may be aware that the Viagogo said they

:26:27. > :26:33.couldn't come in front of the committee because they said Viagogo

:26:34. > :26:40.does not sell tickets. Yet there is a ad and what comes up, Hamilton

:26:41. > :26:43.tickets, on sale today, by now, secure your tickets. Last-minute

:26:44. > :26:49.tickets. But apparently Viagogo don't sell tickets. It would be

:26:50. > :26:54.easier for the public not to quite understand what they do. I don't

:26:55. > :26:59.understand it. They are a platform which is their excuse. Can any of

:27:00. > :27:07.you think of any redeeming characteristics of the secondary

:27:08. > :27:10.market? Yes, if you are unable to go to an event, you should have a

:27:11. > :27:16.platform where you can then dispose of that ticket but our belief is

:27:17. > :27:20.that you should be up to dispose of it at a similar price you bought it.

:27:21. > :27:23.So there is a reason for the secondary market with this but it

:27:24. > :27:30.should be an exchange rather than a secondary market, it should be at

:27:31. > :27:32.face value or just above. This is an issue we addressed when we thought

:27:33. > :27:39.about putting Hamilton tickets on sale. We realise we put some pretty

:27:40. > :27:43.Draconian terms and conditions in place and we asked people to commit

:27:44. > :27:46.a substantial amount of money in advance and the situation of people

:27:47. > :27:49.have changed several Hamilton tickets, if you can't use your

:27:50. > :27:55.ticket, we will take it back from you. We will refund tickets up to 48

:27:56. > :27:58.hours before the performance. We will change into a different

:27:59. > :28:04.performance if possible subject to availability. Because we have

:28:05. > :28:09.offered that, and there is a small advent fee, we don't seem any reason

:28:10. > :28:15.why do people should be able to resell tickets on a secondary

:28:16. > :28:21.platform. That's the purpose of the Genesis of the secondary market to

:28:22. > :28:31.fulfil those kind of thing, consequences when people have got

:28:32. > :28:37.ill and can't use a tickets or whatever. We say that if customers

:28:38. > :28:42.didn't want to do this, they wouldn't participate. Customers are

:28:43. > :28:44.quite happy with the service they are getting and they are arguing

:28:45. > :28:48.that they are providing the service and if people are willing to pay

:28:49. > :28:55.then that's up to the public. I think that depends on the customer.

:28:56. > :28:56.If a customer sold a Hamilton tickets for a ?7,000 profit, I'm

:28:57. > :29:15.sure they would be delighted. Everyday, easy stories of

:29:16. > :29:27.disappointment with people have been turned away from venues. There was a

:29:28. > :29:31.story about Catfish And The Bottlemen who I think played at

:29:32. > :29:35.Wembley last November and they had terms and conditions where no

:29:36. > :29:42.admission of resell tickets. People were turned away on the door. How

:29:43. > :29:50.did Viagogo deal with this? They reflect the blame back onto the

:29:51. > :29:54.promoters and the venues. In that case, we wrote all four platforms

:29:55. > :29:59.again and told them we would not be admitting secondary tickets and made

:30:00. > :30:03.it very clear in the terms and conditions, very clear, to the point

:30:04. > :30:06.that you had to tick a box to say you had read it and accepted it

:30:07. > :30:12.before you proceeded to the checkout. Three platforms complied

:30:13. > :30:16.but the Swiss one did not. We had 450 customers turn up, all of whom

:30:17. > :30:22.we unfortunately diverted back to the box office and said, sorry, your

:30:23. > :30:26.ticket is not valid, you did tick the box, it's printed, you shouldn't

:30:27. > :30:29.have bought the ticket elsewhere. We sold etiquette at face value and

:30:30. > :30:39.they were admitted and we told them to claim their at Viagogo. Viagogo

:30:40. > :30:43.blamed us. So this argument they are providing the service isn't stacking

:30:44. > :30:53.up. It's smelling of exploitation and deception at every level. The

:30:54. > :30:57.customer education is key in this. Explaining things that this are

:30:58. > :31:00.available online. Unfortunately, customers will earn only by

:31:01. > :31:08.continuing to have lessons that they are experiencing themselves or about

:31:09. > :31:15.elsewhere. No self-respecting Catfish And The Bottlemen fan would

:31:16. > :31:18.ever buy tickets from a secondary platform again. When Hamilton does

:31:19. > :31:23.open and customers are turned away, it will all add up and that comes

:31:24. > :31:26.back to your point, Julian, is that customers will then start to learn

:31:27. > :31:30.that they have to go to the source if they are to buy a ticket. They

:31:31. > :31:36.have to do to the owner of that ticket or the registered outlet.

:31:37. > :31:42.It's just a word of mouth thing and does prosecution start to be brought

:31:43. > :31:47.under the CRO, again, that will add to the customer education process.

:31:48. > :31:51.The very fact some of these tickets have been listed against our terms

:31:52. > :31:55.and conditions and nobody is doing anything about it, is temptation for

:31:56. > :32:04.other people to join the club. Rather than returning to the box

:32:05. > :32:10.office. I took on Miss Elliott's challenge to see how you would buy a

:32:11. > :32:17.ticket Ed Sheeran by googling. Viagogo pops up right at the top.

:32:18. > :32:21.It's interesting given what you said, Viagogo, world's 's largest

:32:22. > :32:31.ticket marketplace, all tickets for Ed Sheeran, 100% guaranteed. That's

:32:32. > :32:35.fraud. That's just naked fraudulent mis-selling. Because you are saying

:32:36. > :32:39.to us at the committee today, you don't guarantee the tickets, in

:32:40. > :32:46.fact, the absolute opposite, tickets are not guaranteed, they are

:32:47. > :32:51.invalid. Let's call it out for what it is, Viagogo is lying. Lying to

:32:52. > :32:55.the public. And it's doing so right at the top of the Google search

:32:56. > :33:02.engine. Google should do something about this as well? They should not

:33:03. > :33:08.allow people, because we know at the moment, a number of organisations

:33:09. > :33:16.are very worried about where adverts pop up and who they pop up beside.

:33:17. > :33:20.If you are going through Google and you are advertising, you could pop

:33:21. > :33:26.up next to the very unsavoury Viagogo, which is selling fraudulent

:33:27. > :33:34.tickets online to the public. The example you have with the search

:33:35. > :33:37.engine word is agreeing not to list pirate sites, that's a good thing.

:33:38. > :33:42.If there was agreement or legislation of a similar nature

:33:43. > :33:47.regarding selling tickets, it would benefit customer experience and aid

:33:48. > :33:53.transparency. Why is Google in your opinion, allowing Viagogo to

:33:54. > :33:56.advertise in this way and sell fraudulent tickets? Because I'm

:33:57. > :34:03.offering 50p per click and they are offering up to ?10 a click. That's

:34:04. > :34:12.pretty clear. They basically, it's because they more cash. That's how

:34:13. > :34:20.Google ads work all over the world. Not everybody knows how Google

:34:21. > :34:25.works. Google is colluding in the fraudulent mis-selling of tickets. I

:34:26. > :34:29.wouldn't say they are colluding. They are now because they have heard

:34:30. > :34:32.you today and they know this is fraud so Google cannot say after

:34:33. > :34:44.today's hearing they don't know what's going on. Correct. Let's hear

:34:45. > :34:54.from Google shortly. About what they are going to do about this. I'm

:34:55. > :34:59.interested to know, this must be horrible for you and also horrible

:35:00. > :35:02.for the customers. I'm trying to imagine if you are excited about the

:35:03. > :35:05.performance or event and you turn up and you paid this kind of money and

:35:06. > :35:11.you were turned away, it must be very upsetting. The unseen element

:35:12. > :35:15.of this, all of these online traders, is the actual human element

:35:16. > :35:20.of it on the night of the show. There are several of us in the room

:35:21. > :35:24.that have stood there and indeed, Catfish And The Bottlemen at Wembley

:35:25. > :35:29.arena was one such example. We literally had a Q 100 yards long of

:35:30. > :35:33.450 people, half of which were in tears, the other half didn't have

:35:34. > :35:36.another credit cards are they couldn't go to the box office and

:35:37. > :35:43.repurchase. We applied some element of humanity to it but to actually

:35:44. > :35:49.stick to the point, we turned away a good 80% of that queue. You see

:35:50. > :35:55.people in tears, it must be very hard not to just say to them, you've

:35:56. > :36:01.got a ticket, just come in. But the problem is, they then go, oh, it's

:36:02. > :36:05.OK, it worked. I'll go back to Viagogo again because I actually did

:36:06. > :36:11.get in. They said I wouldn't but I did. Unfortunately, I think there

:36:12. > :36:15.has to be more examples of what Catfish And The Bottlemen did, or

:36:16. > :36:21.indeed what Hamilton dead or Harry Potter in the West End, when the

:36:22. > :36:25.customer has to be understood that they won't get in if they buy a

:36:26. > :36:31.secondary ticket. It's a difficult point because artists live eat and

:36:32. > :36:35.breathe because of their fans. The people that have bought tickets in

:36:36. > :36:38.the secondary market still fans. They just ones that have a lot more

:36:39. > :36:42.money and perhaps not as much sense than the ones who bought it for face

:36:43. > :36:47.value in the primary market. But they still fans.

:36:48. > :36:56.If they turn up in tears, and obviously they have the ticket for

:36:57. > :37:03.receipt and you are only thing that seek for all the good reasons, that

:37:04. > :37:09.seat will be empty... It is not. Because in the case of the weekend,

:37:10. > :37:14.they are identifying those tickets in advance and having them readily

:37:15. > :37:20.available to sell. Somebody will sit in the seats if you have the demand.

:37:21. > :37:23.The customer can go to the box office and repurchase that seat

:37:24. > :37:29.themselves. Does that mean you make money twice for the same seat? No,

:37:30. > :37:37.it does not because we refund the original purchase. I see. I am

:37:38. > :37:43.curious, finally to finish, we are pinching ourselves when we hear

:37:44. > :37:49.about these 5000, ?7,000 tickets for Hamilton. Everyone knows it will be

:37:50. > :37:57.a great short but who is spending seven grand on a tickets? Who are

:37:58. > :38:05.these people? The example that was on the BBC programme was a man who

:38:06. > :38:10.was trying to buy tickets for his daughter, looking for four tickets,

:38:11. > :38:15.they went on sale at 12 o'clock. Thousands of people run the website

:38:16. > :38:20.and it crashed. They couldn't find tickets on the day they wanted to

:38:21. > :38:29.go. His daughter contacted him and said I have found some tickets. She

:38:30. > :38:34.used his credit card ticket. They were only three, not four and she

:38:35. > :38:39.was horrified when this final price of ?7,500 came up when she bought

:38:40. > :38:46.those tickets. Not as horrified as he would be when he got the bill! He

:38:47. > :38:50.immediately contacted Viagogo to say cancel these tickets and they said

:38:51. > :38:58.no. He went to the bank. The bank said they could do nothing. He went

:38:59. > :39:04.into a Limbaugh process for 45 days. I do not want into -- I don't know

:39:05. > :39:14.what happened after that. -- into a Limbaugh process. I have no contact

:39:15. > :39:19.details for him so I do not know. Did we hear that shadow of relief

:39:20. > :39:30.when we heard he got a refund. The nature of these events, ... Hamilton

:39:31. > :39:34.does not begin until November of this year, so if we are dealing with

:39:35. > :39:38.these problems in February and March, I dread to think what will

:39:39. > :39:47.happen when we do advertising for the events. It is a great position

:39:48. > :39:52.to BN but the only blot on the landscape for me is set -- secondary

:39:53. > :39:59.markets and Viagogo. Chairman, this is fairly new to me. I went on the

:40:00. > :40:08.Viagogo site on Sunday. I picked something at random, steps at

:40:09. > :40:12.Odyssey Arena. I forget the amount I was quoted. I was then bombarded

:40:13. > :40:17.with messages of pressure that the tickets were selling out. On a

:40:18. > :40:25.Sunday morning, 10,400 people were looking at the same tickets I was

:40:26. > :40:31.looking out four steps. It was probably you, Andrew. This is

:40:32. > :40:36.tantamount to the kind of pressure selling that the door-to-door double

:40:37. > :40:40.glazing salesmen used to use. He went into elderly people's home and

:40:41. > :40:45.said your House will fall down if you do not sign up for these

:40:46. > :40:54.windows. This is an appalling level of pleasure -- pressure. You do not

:40:55. > :41:00.say this on primary sites. Yes, I had just been looking at that and I

:41:01. > :41:07.went on edit shearing .com for the first time. There was no pressure. I

:41:08. > :41:21.googled Ed Sheeran at Manchester and I can buy two ?77 tickets for ?990.

:41:22. > :41:25.The website will get a process fee hundred and ?79.50 so that is good

:41:26. > :41:39.for them but three is the vanguard guarantee. -- ?179.50. So your

:41:40. > :41:46.website says it is all sold out but there is plenty of availability fire

:41:47. > :41:47.all those other websites? What is the capacity at Manchester

:41:48. > :42:00.roughly? 16,000 500. So the roughly? 16,000 500. So the

:42:01. > :42:09.percentage of tickets to you could be 10% yet all these other websites

:42:10. > :42:13.could be making 90%? Yes. It is not about the money we're missing out

:42:14. > :42:16.on, it is about our relationship. Some people don't know the

:42:17. > :42:22.difference between primary and secondary which is the hard thing

:42:23. > :42:26.which annoys us. It is about people not being ripped off. Unfortunately,

:42:27. > :42:33.if there is demand, that is the situation. We have a big job on our

:42:34. > :42:39.report to find a way forward and make sure genuine fans have access?

:42:40. > :42:45.Yes. Unfortunately we were sitting here today and in 2007. I have sat

:42:46. > :42:52.with government departments and ministers all the way back to 2007

:42:53. > :42:58.when Tessa Jowell was the Minister. We spent two years as a fledgling

:42:59. > :43:07.industry, across theatre and music, after two years of meeting on the

:43:08. > :43:12.subject, we were sent to me saying, go and self regulate. That is fine

:43:13. > :43:17.but now we have lost control of our own industry. There are two

:43:18. > :43:22.industries which are nothing to do with those. Primary ticketing, we

:43:23. > :43:27.have some control but not complete control. Secondary control is

:43:28. > :43:32.nothing to do with us as tickets or an art form and it needs regulated,

:43:33. > :43:35.very very quickly because of all the examples you are fired. The

:43:36. > :43:42.instruction we were given ten years ago to go and self regulate has come

:43:43. > :43:46.back, as we predicted, and said we will lose control of their own

:43:47. > :43:54.ticketing and some gamekeepers will turn poachers and that is exactly

:43:55. > :44:07.what has happened. Thank you. For the record, I just looked at

:44:08. > :44:20.being... -- Bing. I tend to agree with you. Obviously tickets are now

:44:21. > :44:29.being prostituted. On your site, how clear do you make it that we will

:44:30. > :44:34.not admit you? What you said about the 400 people you would not let him

:44:35. > :44:39.at the gig, that is the message you need to get across, you will not get

:44:40. > :44:45.in with a ticket bought from Viagogo or whoever might be. Can you make

:44:46. > :44:49.that message is clear on your websites so that people will

:44:50. > :44:55.understand you will enforce that? I will support you with this. I

:44:56. > :45:01.understand it is difficult for you when people are stopped at the door.

:45:02. > :45:08.Especially for children who want to go to the steps concert. It is just

:45:09. > :45:15.his children who want to go. I am not going! Seriously, it is a very

:45:16. > :45:20.difficult message for you having to police but is there anything you can

:45:21. > :45:29.do to prevent them getting to the door, to make it clear from the

:45:30. > :45:38.outset. For an artist, Stuart's view is very straightforward, they do not

:45:39. > :45:42.agree with second delay to the extent that Catfish And The

:45:43. > :45:46.Bottlemen's Management and banned... It is a fine line, you do not want

:45:47. > :45:51.to make a hideous experience for these people, they are still fans.

:45:52. > :45:58.We need support to be able to clamp down. I do not want to be standing

:45:59. > :46:03.and turning people away. Turning a wee experience can be farm less

:46:04. > :46:07.dramatic if it is done in advance. -- turning away. If we could

:46:08. > :46:13.identify tickets purchased on the secondary market and dealt with in

:46:14. > :46:17.advance, you would find a lot more artists willing to do that to avoid

:46:18. > :46:27.the tears and confrontation at the front door. Identifying seats in

:46:28. > :46:33.advance is absolutely crucial. I have just looked at the websites,

:46:34. > :46:39.you are correct, it is a blog. It shows a map of the arena and the row

:46:40. > :46:47.of seats. It is designed purely to prevent you jumping on them. At the

:46:48. > :46:54.original seal point on Ed Sheeran's official site, can you not reinforce

:46:55. > :47:08.the view? -- seal point. It was clear on every banner, do not use

:47:09. > :47:15.these sites. I have the Twitter tap on my phone, you accept resell

:47:16. > :47:20.tickets? Other than that, that was that, they read the official

:47:21. > :47:27.reseller but other than that, it was very clear, do not go to any other

:47:28. > :47:35.site. So you have an app for that? Yes. And we are treading tickets on

:47:36. > :47:45.that site. So genuine people, they are placing tickets there and other

:47:46. > :47:54.customers are buying at face value. Keith, you said at Hamilton new

:47:55. > :48:01.offer in exchange? They went on sale for weeks ago? In January. Have you

:48:02. > :48:08.had many exchanged already? We have had a few. I think this should be

:48:09. > :48:12.static because we have sold out but I do say some movement. It seems to

:48:13. > :48:18.be people who bought tickets and did be people who bought tickets and did

:48:19. > :48:25.not rate -- realise that Prentice bought tickets so they have too

:48:26. > :48:31.many. Or some people who realised it would not be easy to resell tickets

:48:32. > :48:43.so they have offered them back for exchanges. If they are genuine, that

:48:44. > :48:49.is fine. Thank you. Why don't we just say, you are putting your

:48:50. > :48:55.tickets up for sale because you cannot go so it is face value plus

:48:56. > :49:01.10% and that is it, that would sell -- solve all their problems. That is

:49:02. > :49:06.it. So it stops profiteering. Websites can provide a service and

:49:07. > :49:11.get a little commission. These sites will not be happy making a little

:49:12. > :49:20.commission. The only exist because they are making such a huge margins.

:49:21. > :49:25.As Rob said earlier, the regulation in France, tickets and France can

:49:26. > :49:29.ticket gives that permission so we ticket gives that permission so we

:49:30. > :49:31.would be more than happy to give permission for the tickets to be

:49:32. > :49:39.resold at a maximum of 10% which is resold at a maximum of 10% which is

:49:40. > :49:42.what we are doing with this site we discussed. You are paying

:49:43. > :49:45.effectively what you would have paid if you bought on the primary market

:49:46. > :49:52.place if you take into account booking fees exert. If that is an

:49:53. > :49:53.amount we have talked about, sorry I went to the chamber quickly I may

:49:54. > :50:00.have missed that. Was the 10% level have missed that. Was the 10% level

:50:01. > :50:04.talked about? When we were previously meeting with various

:50:05. > :50:09.government representations, we suggested as an industry that we

:50:10. > :50:14.fell 10% with an acceptable level so if there was legislation that

:50:15. > :50:21.prevented resell at over 10% we would be very happy with that. All

:50:22. > :50:25.right, thank you. A quick question. I suspect the rest of the secondary

:50:26. > :50:33.market would not be happy with that level of restriction in legislation

:50:34. > :50:39.but took it seems to be a company which is doing the right thing in

:50:40. > :50:49.offering tickets at face value. -- Twicket. It strikes me if I was as

:50:50. > :50:54.Stan Flashman character, I would go straight -- Twicket. To then I would

:50:55. > :51:00.go to be a go go and sell them. Are go to be a go go and sell them. Are

:51:01. > :51:04.you aware of this? We are not aware of this. If someone does do that and

:51:05. > :51:10.the ticket arrives on the second market, we will still be able to

:51:11. > :51:18.identify that ticket and trailer back but we cannot.

:51:19. > :51:26.We've heard evidence today that all four major secondary ticket resale

:51:27. > :51:29.companies are flouting the law, despite reassurances in here that

:51:30. > :51:38.they are not flouting existing consumer rights law. That's not new

:51:39. > :51:44.information. That was one of Professor Waterson's recommendations

:51:45. > :51:49.and it's in his report and I think all four are being investigated on

:51:50. > :51:53.that basis. There is irrefutable evidence they have been breaking the

:51:54. > :51:56.law and have been for months. The message is fairly clear I think the

:51:57. > :52:07.general music fans. Thank you for joining us, this

:52:08. > :52:15.afternoon, for the final panel on our session today on abuse of

:52:16. > :52:19.ticketing market. You represent victims of tickets bought from

:52:20. > :52:26.Viagogo. We've heard a lot of damning evidence today about the way

:52:27. > :52:32.the site performs, the weight it's warned about tickets sold on it.

:52:33. > :52:37.What do you think we should be looking at now in terms of further

:52:38. > :52:43.strengthening the consumer protection legislation? Should be a

:52:44. > :52:48.question of being rigorously and forced for sellers who don't comply?

:52:49. > :52:53.I think it's definitely enforcement. I'm here to represent 420 by people

:52:54. > :52:57.who are personally contacted me in the last six weeks, all of whom have

:52:58. > :53:02.had negative experiences on the website but also subsequently to

:53:03. > :53:06.their perches, contacting Viagogo has been a frustrating experience

:53:07. > :53:10.for most of them. What it seems to us is that as well as enforcement,

:53:11. > :53:16.we need to see some extra protection put in place for the consumer and I

:53:17. > :53:23.think they're never has before been a connected consumer voice as we've

:53:24. > :53:27.got currently. All of us speak with the same voice which is very strong.

:53:28. > :53:35.One of the things that has occurred to us, is that, and certainly from a

:53:36. > :53:40.experience buying tickets, the costs were simply not displayed clearly.

:53:41. > :53:45.People were unaware of how much they were actually spending. It was just

:53:46. > :53:51.a case of expensive or inflated prices, but the fact they didn't

:53:52. > :53:55.know that other costs were going to be charged to them. I think there

:53:56. > :53:58.should be a cooling off period and people should be allowed,

:53:59. > :54:04.particularly under this precious selling -- pressure selling

:54:05. > :54:08.situation, to have the protection of the law which states that if you are

:54:09. > :54:12.in a situation, you have a right to cancel your purchase within a

:54:13. > :54:16.certain time period. What we are seeing is that for every customer

:54:17. > :54:22.who has had a negative experience with Viagogo, they have all asked

:54:23. > :54:27.for refunds, and they have all been told they simply cannot have one.

:54:28. > :54:30.Initially, they are told they can't have everything, it's impossible to

:54:31. > :54:36.cancel their perches but what they can do is relist. If those people

:54:37. > :54:43.then relist their tickets, what they are not told is that they will then

:54:44. > :54:49.incur more fees, more selling fees and they will not see their money

:54:50. > :54:54.back again until after the event. For some customers, that can be up

:54:55. > :55:02.to a year in advance. If you imagine that this process could actually

:55:03. > :55:07.happen, many times, because what happens in the circumstances, is if

:55:08. > :55:14.a customer is charged an excessive amount of money and they panic and

:55:15. > :55:22.they do what Viagogo tells them to do and relist, that person will just

:55:23. > :55:27.have to keep recurring. When that ticket is presented at the event,

:55:28. > :55:31.that person may not get in. If that person doesn't get in at the end,

:55:32. > :55:35.none of those people through the whole process will be refunded. The

:55:36. > :55:45.only company that has made any money on it is Viagogo. You said the

:55:46. > :55:54.gentleman who bought the Hamilton tickets was refunded. We now have

:55:55. > :55:59.within our group, 150 members within the last six weeks, we have received

:56:00. > :56:03.or reclaimed refunds of over ?41,000. Each refund have not come

:56:04. > :56:09.easily, they've been fought for and his was one of them. He's a member

:56:10. > :56:13.our group. We are seeing a pattern of refunds, they generally come from

:56:14. > :56:20.people who make a lot of noise, people who take to social media and

:56:21. > :56:26.contact the media and in fact, before the money-saving expert

:56:27. > :56:30.article and the guardian article, that is when we have seen a flurry

:56:31. > :56:34.of refunds. That seems very unfair as well because there are a lot of

:56:35. > :56:37.people who don't feel they are able to do that or feel strong enough and

:56:38. > :56:42.you have to be incredibly strong to be to do this. Like any other form

:56:43. > :56:50.of abuse, it relies on people being silenced and it relies on people

:56:51. > :56:56.being isolated. Could you explain, freighter buckle buyer, what the

:56:57. > :56:59.complaints process is, because a general criticism with web platforms

:57:00. > :57:03.is often that the process of complaint or flagging concerns is

:57:04. > :57:09.not always very clear. Everybody in our group who has had this very

:57:10. > :57:15.distressing experience, will try to contact Viagogo. If you can

:57:16. > :57:21.understand they are very quick to take money, but not quick to answer

:57:22. > :57:30.concerns. Customers may try to contact them by mail, e-mail,

:57:31. > :57:34.telephone, Twitter, direct message and by tweeting. Sometimes they

:57:35. > :57:38.don't get any response at all. When they do, it's often automated so not

:57:39. > :57:44.actually a response to their concern. They are told repeatedly

:57:45. > :57:48.that they are not due for a refund. All they are not able to get one.

:57:49. > :57:52.Because of our group and because so many of us have been this process,

:57:53. > :57:56.we understand how it works in the sense that it's only those people

:57:57. > :58:01.who keep on keeping on, continuously, who actually are

:58:02. > :58:08.likely to see their money back. When do you get to talk to a human being?

:58:09. > :58:12.I seem to be in the unique situation that Viagogo have first of all

:58:13. > :58:17.contacted me personally and secondly, they do respond relatively

:58:18. > :58:21.quickly when I direct methods. Individuals within our group will

:58:22. > :58:25.write to Viagogo or try to contact them or phone them, and I will take

:58:26. > :58:29.all of those letters and I will send them as a direct message as well.

:58:30. > :58:35.They often reply sometimes within a couple of minutes to my direct

:58:36. > :58:39.messaging. I would also like to say, I heard at the beginning from you

:58:40. > :58:42.all how disappointed you are that Viagogo is not here. I'd say on

:58:43. > :58:47.behalf of their customers, how disappointed we feel because they

:58:48. > :58:52.have shown contempt I think for their customers and a certain lack

:58:53. > :59:00.of care and respect and it would have been nice to have faced us

:59:01. > :59:05.today. Thank you for coming. Could you just explain your particular

:59:06. > :59:12.circumstance and the experience you had, buying I believe Ed Sheeran

:59:13. > :59:23.tickets. He's getting a lot of publicity today!

:59:24. > :59:31.Could you just walk you through your experience for the benefit of the

:59:32. > :59:37.committee? And Viagogo will be watching. I have four children,

:59:38. > :59:43.three of them are massive Ed Sheeran fans. This year, we have a

:59:44. > :59:46.combination of very big birthdays. So as their mother, I thought it

:59:47. > :59:53.would be an amazing experience for us to have this and go to Ed Sheeran

:59:54. > :59:58.together. My son is about to turn 16 and it's his 16th birthday on the

:59:59. > :00:02.12th of April, the date Ed Sheeran is playing in Dublin. I thought as a

:00:03. > :00:06.surprise, I would try to get tickets. The last time I bought

:00:07. > :00:10.tickets was ten years ago to Rod Stewart and I'm not familiar with

:00:11. > :00:16.the secondary market, or I wasn't until six weeks ago. I researched, I

:00:17. > :00:20.did all the things I think as a consumer, we are advised to do. I

:00:21. > :00:29.went on to Ed Sheeran's own website and a new, to go to an official

:00:30. > :00:34.site, I looked at all the official sites and I went to Ticketmaster but

:00:35. > :00:42.I was looking at the 31st of January and this was the presale. In my

:00:43. > :00:44.mind, I thought, none of these tickets would be resold tickets

:00:45. > :00:51.because they haven't actually been released yet, they are presale. I

:00:52. > :00:56.went on to both Ed Sheeran's site and Ticketmaster and had no luck.

:00:57. > :01:01.Ticketmaster said error and went completely down. I went back onto

:01:02. > :01:05.Google and found Viagogo at the top of Google listings which said, we

:01:06. > :01:11.have tickets today, official site and I went with that. It was a very

:01:12. > :01:15.panic situation again because I had all of those manipulations and sales

:01:16. > :01:20.coming at me so I was, next one in the queue but there were thousands

:01:21. > :01:30.of people looking, it was all sold, sold, sold and finally, last four

:01:31. > :01:35.tickets and I was so excited I would be getting. I knew from my research

:01:36. > :01:44.that the face value of the ticket was likely to be ?50 and ?75. I saw

:01:45. > :01:49.four tickets, ?260 and a quick mental calculation and I pushed the

:01:50. > :01:53.buying button. I didn't know to any of that process that the price was

:01:54. > :02:04.per ticket and they would be fees on top of that. So what it ended up

:02:05. > :02:07.being was ?1421. The day after, my rent was due so I'd already been

:02:08. > :02:14.onto my bank account to see how much money I had and I knew I didn't have

:02:15. > :02:21.that much in my account. My own experience is quite unique in the

:02:22. > :02:28.sense that when I pushed by, the verification by these window opened

:02:29. > :02:32.on the website, I was fast and putting in my information quickly.

:02:33. > :02:36.For whatever reason, it wouldn't let me put in my birth date so that

:02:37. > :02:40.process didn't complete. The first e-mail I got from Viagogo was to say

:02:41. > :02:48.the transaction had failed. I'd gone through a halt lots of emotions to

:02:49. > :02:55.be from excited to panicking and then relief that my transaction had

:02:56. > :02:58.failed. I thought the bank or decline the payment knowing I didn't

:02:59. > :03:05.have that money in my bank account. I then got a confirmation message to

:03:06. > :03:10.say, it had gone through. Since then, the bank has launched a

:03:11. > :03:15.security investigation and this is one of my concerns as a consumer,

:03:16. > :03:24.what are they doing with the data? Because it seems from the... Sorry

:03:25. > :03:26.to interrupt, can I go back a step? You thought your transaction had

:03:27. > :03:33.been cancelled because you didn't have the money. It said it had

:03:34. > :03:38.failed? Then you got an e-mail saying you'd got tickets? In the

:03:39. > :03:42.first e-mail, it said it had failed and unless I did one of five

:03:43. > :03:45.different things which was use another card or present a different

:03:46. > :03:50.way of paying, I would lose the tickets. So I was relieved at that

:03:51. > :03:56.point that actually the transaction would cancel and I would be charged.

:03:57. > :04:01.What the bank had told me think I've provided this as evidence to you,

:04:02. > :04:07.it's true, my first transaction did fail and the bank had registered it

:04:08. > :04:11.on their side as an online transaction, e-commerce transaction.

:04:12. > :04:14.Four minutes later, a second transaction was presented and it was

:04:15. > :04:19.presented at the bank in a completely different way. I didn't

:04:20. > :04:25.authorise a second payment but somebody else has used my details to

:04:26. > :04:28.make that transaction happen. So I have great concerns that actually my

:04:29. > :04:33.data was unprotected and I think this is as a consumer, making an

:04:34. > :04:40.online purchase, something that needs to be investigated. It sounds

:04:41. > :04:44.serious. Are you saying that potentially Viagogo transacted the

:04:45. > :04:46.second payment without your authorisation? I'm saying it was

:04:47. > :04:54.definitely somebody else and it wasn't me. Who did the payment go

:04:55. > :04:58.to? Viagogo. The bank also said to me when I first contacted them that

:04:59. > :05:02.it was registered as a completely different way of paying on their

:05:03. > :05:07.side and look to them as if I had rung them and used my details over

:05:08. > :05:12.the phone. And you definitely didn't do that? I definitely did not.

:05:13. > :05:19.Certainly questions for Viagogo to answer if they'd been here but also

:05:20. > :05:23.for your bank perhaps. Throughout this whole process, all of us are

:05:24. > :05:26.learning very quickly. One of the things happening as people are going

:05:27. > :05:35.to their banks to see if there is any way the bank can have a charge

:05:36. > :05:39.back because the tickets are not as they were misleading, in lots of

:05:40. > :05:44.cases. The banks have not been very helpful in this process either. They

:05:45. > :05:50.say no fraud has been committed because people have authorised the

:05:51. > :05:52.tickets to be bought but no one within our group has ever authorised

:05:53. > :05:57.for the amount of money to go because they simply were not aware

:05:58. > :06:01.of the costs. The costs were not clearly displayed and when Viagogo

:06:02. > :06:05.rang me to offer me a refund, and I was very appreciative of their phone

:06:06. > :06:10.call, it came a day before money saving expert publish their article,

:06:11. > :06:14.I was very appreciative of the stone call. They said they wished to be

:06:15. > :06:19.clear and transparent and they can only imagine stressed it's caused.

:06:20. > :06:22.They said they had researched and were aware there had been an error

:06:23. > :06:27.on this system which had caused these prices not to be displayed.

:06:28. > :06:33.They were also where it affected possibly one other person.

:06:34. > :06:41.I took that at face value and I believed then, I am trusting person

:06:42. > :06:45.but since then it has come to our attention there are many people

:06:46. > :06:52.within our group know, and I have been contacted by 425 people. We

:06:53. > :06:58.have had people from 26 countries so it is affecting people worldwide. It

:06:59. > :07:06.is growing all the time. I suspect also there will be people who fall

:07:07. > :07:13.victim to what is quite underhand in not displaying the correct price.

:07:14. > :07:20.You think you're spending ?243 and you end up spending ?1400. I have a

:07:21. > :07:24.file full of e-mails from people who had similar experiences with viable

:07:25. > :07:28.goal. Do you think there are potentially thousands of other

:07:29. > :07:31.people out there who do not realise they have been turned over, they are

:07:32. > :07:36.embarrassed and do not want to tell embarrassed and do not want to tell

:07:37. > :07:42.their family perhaps? -- with Viagogo. I feel a personal

:07:43. > :07:49.responsibility to acknowledge everybody who contacts me. People

:07:50. > :07:54.are too embarrassed to tell their partner, sometimes they are elderly.

:07:55. > :07:59.We are people aged from 18 up to mid-70s who bought tickets from all

:08:00. > :08:07.sectors of society. As with any other kind of abuse, one tactic is

:08:08. > :08:14.to blame the victim when actually it was not the fault of the victim

:08:15. > :08:20.ever. This is a way that people are made to feel embarrassed when

:08:21. > :08:24.actually they had no control. In my experience, and for many of the

:08:25. > :08:28.people in my group, they did not have seat numbers and the Consumer

:08:29. > :08:38.Rights Act has not been complied with. Sometimes restrictions,

:08:39. > :08:44.sometimes people are buying tickets and perhaps buying VIP tickets for a

:08:45. > :08:48.particular area when actually the ticket that I'd be out for a

:08:49. > :08:57.completely different area. In my own case because the Ed Sheeran tickets

:08:58. > :09:05.were presale, I spent ?1421 but what did I actually buy for that because

:09:06. > :09:12.there was not actually a ticket? Had I tried to resell that ticket as

:09:13. > :09:17.some people do, I would then be selling something that actually I

:09:18. > :09:28.could not provide those details for either. What effect has all this

:09:29. > :09:33.experience had on you and your life? Personally on my long life it has

:09:34. > :09:38.had a massive effect. When I was offered my refund, I was very glad

:09:39. > :09:41.people had been affected and were people had been affected and were

:09:42. > :09:46.not receiving refunds so I started to try and help them personally by

:09:47. > :09:51.e-mailing them individually. Within a few days I realised I could not

:09:52. > :09:58.keep up with that so I started a Facebook group. It has just

:09:59. > :10:02.become... It is almost an all-consuming thing. People are

:10:03. > :10:03.contacting me all the time and they are very distressed. I do not know

:10:04. > :10:08.if I can share their letters here if I can share their letters here

:10:09. > :10:12.but I do have some with me... It is not even just about the money,

:10:13. > :10:17.although the money is huge for these ticket sales, there are other costs

:10:18. > :10:21.as well. Sometimes people are travelling overseas, travelling to

:10:22. > :10:26.the event and they have hotel costs or other types of costs. Although

:10:27. > :10:29.the people who have tried to buy them are ordinary people who have

:10:30. > :10:35.tried to do something very special for their families. The cost of it

:10:36. > :10:43.are immense and it is causing not only emotional and financial

:10:44. > :10:49.effects. What I'm hearing from people is that they are physically

:10:50. > :10:55.attacks, breaking out in rashes, attacks, breaking out in rashes,

:10:56. > :11:01.the money issues and the fear of the money issues and the fear of

:11:02. > :11:06.hope they will pay for it, there is the fear of the ticket is valid. As

:11:07. > :11:11.we hear today, these people who are paid excess places for Ed Sheeran

:11:12. > :11:15.tickets may not be able to get in. They are waiting for this tickets to

:11:16. > :11:21.arrive and they wonder if they will be allowed in the venue. I do not

:11:22. > :11:29.think that can be under estimated. As consumers and people, because it

:11:30. > :11:33.affects everyone so much, just the human cost. So for all the talk that

:11:34. > :11:37.goes on about these things, these things, these people have real

:11:38. > :11:41.problems right now and it is seriously affecting them. I would

:11:42. > :11:48.like to say to the committee, I just one person, I set up the group and

:11:49. > :11:52.all the people who came to me are very thankful the group is so

:11:53. > :11:57.supportive and we are helping each other through the process, but

:11:58. > :12:02.actually, it is so huge and on such a scale that I would like to say a

:12:03. > :12:06.ticketing ombudsmen put in place to deal with these issues because who

:12:07. > :12:11.else is going to do its? Where other people are meant to be dealing with

:12:12. > :12:19.the issue and why are being left to as the consumers? It is only because

:12:20. > :12:22.we have connected with each other in fighting back that we have secured

:12:23. > :12:28.this money from the company. Thank you. You have helped hundreds of

:12:29. > :12:34.people who have been in the same position. I do hope you get to see

:12:35. > :12:42.point of view, my own work that I do point of view, my own work that I do

:12:43. > :12:46.is around grief and loss. I am used to holding space for people and I

:12:47. > :12:51.would say those skills are very much coming into play with this because

:12:52. > :12:57.what I am shouldering and holding is grief and loss for 425 people right

:12:58. > :13:03.now and I'm sure there are many other people who will be coming

:13:04. > :13:09.forward. I am sure there are and we will be able to point in the right

:13:10. > :13:16.direction for Ed tickets as well. I will return to in a moment. You are

:13:17. > :13:24.great Consumer Rights Act in and we appreciate what you're doing. I used

:13:25. > :13:29.to work for Google so I am fairly familiar with website development

:13:30. > :13:34.and advertising. My colleague mentioned the advertising and I

:13:35. > :13:36.think we probably should go back to Google because they are actually

:13:37. > :13:41.breaching their own procedures in breaching their own procedures in

:13:42. > :13:45.terms of advertising should not go into invalid or illegal sales so I

:13:46. > :13:51.pursue but in terms of the website pursue but in terms of the website

:13:52. > :13:52.and all the things we have talked about, thank you for providing

:13:53. > :13:57.evidence. You use the word evidence. You use the word

:13:58. > :14:01.manipulative to describe the website, others may look at it and

:14:02. > :14:06.say it is very effective because if you look at the way it is designed,

:14:07. > :14:13.to get the consumer onto the website then transact, it is one of the most

:14:14. > :14:16.effective websites I have seen. Because you have this information

:14:17. > :14:23.and it is constantly bombarding you with information, the example I gave

:14:24. > :14:28.earlier on about buying tickets for Little Mix, it said there were over

:14:29. > :14:34.6000 other people viewing these tickets, tickets are likely to sell

:14:35. > :14:38.out soon, the website is experiencing heavy traffic. Every

:14:39. > :14:45.time you go through a sieve of the process you get sucked into this,

:14:46. > :14:47.you have to do it now. In certain circumstances that is quite

:14:48. > :14:52.interesting but there is a fundamental difference in website

:14:53. > :14:55.development between informing and educating a customer and

:14:56. > :14:59.deliberately deceiving or panicking them. I think this website is

:15:00. > :15:02.effective, I am not condoning that because it is one of the most

:15:03. > :15:08.psychologically manipulative websites I have seen in my time. I

:15:09. > :15:13.think it is quite extraordinary. In every single step that is this

:15:14. > :15:18.panic. You get minute detail about how many people are on the website.

:15:19. > :15:23.You get this feeling to hurry up, people are viewing this site now.

:15:24. > :15:30.Bizarrely the website does not mention what the handling fees will

:15:31. > :15:34.be. Your credit -- one ship out your credit card details in, before you

:15:35. > :15:41.are aware of what those costs are. In my own situation it was ?1421 but

:15:42. > :15:48.the fees I did not know I would have to be were about ?350 but -- which

:15:49. > :15:58.is more than the cost of the ticket. It is what it is, it... Injury

:15:59. > :16:03.experience, your professional career, this psychological

:16:04. > :16:06.manipulation is very ruthless. They feel deceived and embarrassed when

:16:07. > :16:12.they go through that process, they feel manipulated. Yes, and I

:16:13. > :16:16.understand this and I understand how that works. You take all of that and

:16:17. > :16:21.when you try to contact them, they do not and you or they say you were

:16:22. > :16:25.not entitled to a refund. Or they try and frustrate the process to

:16:26. > :16:32.such an extent that people give up. I'm now wondering if that is another

:16:33. > :16:38.point I have not made is that the point I have not made is that the

:16:39. > :16:42.refund that our group have been offered have been very inconsistent.

:16:43. > :16:47.For example, on the 31st of January, which is the date I was offered my

:16:48. > :16:52.refund, we have another 12 refunds which have been received but four

:16:53. > :16:57.people are waiting and they have been told they are not entitled to

:16:58. > :17:03.one. So that is one customer actually, I really feel for her, she

:17:04. > :17:10.is grieving the loss of our partner so this is grief upon grief. She

:17:11. > :17:14.bought her ticket one minute before I did and she bought four tickets

:17:15. > :17:19.for the same amount as I did and she has been told she is not entitled to

:17:20. > :17:24.a refund. All we can say as a group is that we know that is not correct

:17:25. > :17:28.because other people got a refund but people are isolated and do not

:17:29. > :17:32.know this. It takes an extraordinary amount of strength to keep on going

:17:33. > :17:37.back which is what this process relies on. On the 2nd of February

:17:38. > :17:42.which was the Ed Sheeran general release date, we had nine refunds on

:17:43. > :17:46.that date but 12 are still waiting. So there does not seem to be any

:17:47. > :17:49.rhyme or reason to the funds other rhyme or reason to the funds other

:17:50. > :17:56.than that those people did not make enough noise. In Australia, in the

:17:57. > :18:00.last few weeks, Adele has been playing in Australia, I have been

:18:01. > :18:07.been able to get in but also to the been able to get in but also to the

:18:08. > :18:14.book of Mormon in Melbourne and midnight oil, people have had the

:18:15. > :18:19.same experience. With a young boy who brought his tickets for the book

:18:20. > :18:24.of Mormon, an 18-year-old student, saved up, desperate to go and speed

:18:25. > :18:29.but when he got to the event and was told he could not going because his

:18:30. > :18:34.ticket was invalid, he went outside and tried the sixth phone numbers he

:18:35. > :18:39.had been given and all of them were disconnected. It was only through

:18:40. > :18:43.coming to us, 12,000 miles away, and his mother who contacted the media

:18:44. > :18:51.in Australia, and we have linked up with consumer goods in Australia as

:18:52. > :18:55.well, by taking two social media, he has been helped. Another customer

:18:56. > :18:59.who went to Adele in Brisbane, the same thing. Within half an air of me

:19:00. > :19:05.treating the fact he had been refused entry to Adele, and his

:19:06. > :19:10.three friends who had flown over from New Zealand to attend the event

:19:11. > :19:17.had all been told they could not enter, they had bought tickets to

:19:18. > :19:25.go. -- tweeting. It was only by taking two social media that he got

:19:26. > :19:29.a refund. Or any company worth their salt, their focus should be on their

:19:30. > :19:38.customer and it should be on good service and we are not saying that

:19:39. > :19:48.-- seen that from viable goal. -- Viagogo. Just be clear, where people

:19:49. > :19:53.are not being offered refunds, some of these examples you quoted, they

:19:54. > :20:05.have not been given Alan tickets. So the Viagogo guaranteed, if a problem

:20:06. > :20:10.arises, via Google will step in to provide replacement tickets or a

:20:11. > :20:14.refund. -- Viagogo. So if the guarantee was worth anything people

:20:15. > :20:18.would get an automatic refund if tickets were not valid but what

:20:19. > :20:24.you're saying is that not happen? Absolutely. If you are flown from

:20:25. > :20:29.New Zealand to Australia to the venue for example or even in the UK.

:20:30. > :20:34.We have a case for a customer who bought tickets to the six Nations

:20:35. > :20:41.Rugby England versus Scotland. She was not allowed in either. Tickets

:20:42. > :20:46.were invalid. It is not just because of the tickets, it is other costs.

:20:47. > :20:52.There are guarantee suggest the refund would be automatic and you're

:20:53. > :20:57.saying it is not? It is not. It is not happening. In terms of

:20:58. > :21:01.integrity, there is no integrity. The words do not match. Thank you

:21:02. > :21:05.for that.