I tried to sell on Taylor Swift tickets to buy my daughter a car

My daughter and I listed six Taylor Swift tickets on Viagogo’s website in July after buying them early before general release. We were trying to raise money for my daughter’s first car. They sold within a couple of days. The news then came out that the Eras tour would be a “lead booker” event (where the person whose name appears on the card used to buy tickets must attend the show), and that tickets could only be sold via an official agent — AXS in our case.

On hearing this, we listed them on AXS and sold them. We did not cancel them on Viagogo, wrongly assuming that it would take them down and cancel the sale because they would not now be valid. We should have acted sooner, but I’m not sure it would have made a difference as the tickets had already been sold at this point.

We got an email from Viagogo this week asking us to upload the tickets. I contacted it to say we can’t do this. I have spent a long time on the phone with Viagogo trying to discuss the issue, asking it to waive the seller fees and not charge us as this issue was not known to us at the time of the sale, but have had no luck. Viagogo said that according to its terms and conditions, it will charge us both the seller’s fees and the full sale price so it can provide replacement tickets for the buyers. This could cost me £3,000 for the six tickets we listed.

We have had no money from Viagogo so effectively I would be paying it to find new tickets for the buyers. The buyers have already paid Viagogo, so surely it would just be fairer for it to give them their money back?

Jill replies

Reselling concert tickets for profit is a horrible and tricky business and not one to encourage your daughter to take up. I also think you were unwise to sell your tickets a second time without telling Viagogo, although your daughter did try — unsuccessfully — to ask the company about the implication of Eras being a “lead booker” event. But I also agree that Viagogo could simply refund your ticket buyers and charge you the seller’s fee.

The “lead booker” requirement for Taylor Swift’s UK and Irish concerts was removed on April 3, but it still applied when you were trying to sell your tickets last July. Eras ticket holders who want to sell are being encouraged to use the official resale sites Ticketmaster and AXS in an effort to cap prices and put a stop to ticket touting and bots. Ticketmaster said: “As set out in the terms and conditions of sale, any tickets found to be purchased via resale on the non-official secondary market will not be valid for entry into the concerts and will be cancelled. Therefore, we strongly advise that you sell and purchase your tickets via the official ticket agents.”

Last week Viagogo was listing Eras tickets at Wembley for as much as £5,000. However, the website states: “Please note your ticket may be invalid for entry to the event. You will be protected by our guarantee if you attempt entry and are refused. That’s our promise — enjoy the event.” Even if you are left standing outside the venue.

Viagogo told me that it opposes “anti-competitive actions taken by event organisers to restrict purchasing and resale options to certain platforms in a transparent attempt to control the market as they ultimately harm fans by limiting their choice, flexibility and access”. It claims that resale restrictions for the Australian leg of Taylor Swift’s tour led to fans being conned out of hundreds of thousands of dollars for fake tickets.

In the past two weeks, Viagogo tried to take the money for four tickets from your daughter’s bank account, but these attempts failed because there were insufficient funds. Viagogo has now agreed to waive these charges, but there are still another two tickets for which it hasn’t tried to take money, so I can’t promise she won’t end up out of pocket.

• ‘Scammer left me with £23,000 Monzo loan’
• Consumer rights UK: How to fight back

I want to be with Octopus but Ovo won’t let me go

After moving into a new rental property I chose Octopus for my energy but, unbeknown to me, the letting agent Dexters had signed me up to Ovo. The energy company is now holding me hostage — there is no other word for it. How is it possible that Dexters can share my details with a third party and sign me up, without my permission, to an energy contract?

Ovo is demanding £455 in the latest bill dated February 6. I get daily calls from its accounts department harassing me for payment, and emails and texts threatening late payment charges, debt collection agencies and damage to my (impeccable) credit score.

Even if I pay up, I won’t be free to leave Ovo because it claims that I am contractually tied to it by virtue of Dexters’ partnership contract terms. In the meantime, Octopus has been taking direct debit payments. So far it has taken £311 and is due to take another £105 on March 15, bringing the total to £416.

Can you please help me untangle this mess? I am at the end of my tether. I don’t want to ruin my credit score but I also can’t be paying twice for the same energy.

Jill replies

Your problem revealed a practice that I had not come across before: landlords or agents signing rental properties up to a contract with a new energy provider after a tenant moves out. Ovo told me this is common and that it does not pay commission or any other kind of inducement to the landlords and agents involved.

Normally when a tenant moves out, they inform their energy supplier about the change and provide meter readings on the day of departure. The supplier then continues supplying energy to that property (which the landlord pays for) until the new tenant moves in and decides which company they want to use.

Instead, Ovo says its partnerships team works with letting agents to supply properties in a void period, when there is no tenant. “The letting agent instructs us on day one of the void period, which is when we take over supply, until the end date, which is when a new tenant is found. After the void period, we’re the incumbent supplier of the property and it is the responsibility of the tenant to either set up an account with us or switch suppliers. This partnership provides an essential service for the market.”

The energy regulator Ofgem told me that this practice is legitimate, but if the tenant makes payments direct to the energy supplier rather than via the landlord or agent, they are perfectly entitled to switch suppliers. They must wait five days after the unwanted switch, but are then free to move to whichever company they want without penalty.

I read your tenancy agreement (which you signed) and this does allow for the agent to give your name and contact details to the agent’s chosen energy supplier, Ovo, to “aid the set-up of an account in the tenant’s name”. The terms went on to say: “This will not prevent the tenant from changing to a different energy provider if desired.”

You are responsible for paying your own utilities, meaning you should have been able to switch without problem. Unfortunately the switch to Ovo took place at the end of a six-week void period and on the day before you moved in — I’m not sure why as Dexters ignored my invitation to discuss your situation. You tried to switch to Octopus the day you moved in and therefore within five days of Ovo taking over, so your first attempt failed.

Octopus mistakenly started taking £105 a month from your account two weeks later even though it wasn’t supplying you with energy, and these payments have been building up in your Octopus account ever since. You did not set up a direct debit to pay Ovo, which was supplying your gas and electricity, and this is why it harassed you to pay your ever-increasing bill.

Despite owing Ovo £455 you managed to switch your electricity supply to Octopus on February 6, but Ovo refused to release your gas supply. I suggested you pay the £455 bill, while I asked Ovo to release you. As soon as you paid the bill, Ovo was happy to let you go, waiving a further bill to make the process easier. You have now switched to Octopus for both gas and electricity. Octopus has refunded you £350 and credited a further £100 to your account for its part in creating the confusion.

• Hastings Direct: two customers, same car repair merry-go-round

I paid £9,000 for an unfinished drive. Thanks Barclays

I called into the Leeds branch of Barclays in August last year to stop a cheque for £5,000 that I had written the day before. I was told that it could be stopped, the necessary entries were made on the computer in my presence and I was assured that the cheque would not be cashed.

But the cheque was cashed. On querying this, I was told that I had been misinformed, that a complaint process had to be followed and that I would be informed of the bank’s decision.

In a letter dated October 18, I was told that I should try to get the £5,000 from the payee, which wasn’t possible, and Barclays offered £200 as an “inconvenience” payment. I wrote back, rejecting the decision, saying that as the bank made the mistake it should credit my account with the £5,000. Barclays got my letter on October 30 but I still haven’t had a reply.

Jill replies

You needed to cancel the £5,000 cheque because you had given it to a workman who was meant to be laying a new drive for you. After being handed the cheque he refused to finish the job, so you decided £4,000 was a fairer price.

After the Barclays staff member told you the £5,000 cheque had been stopped, you made a £4,000 direct payment from your account to the workman. As Barclays honoured the cheque, the workman received a total of £9,000 for a job he didn’t complete, and you were £5,000 out of pocket.

I asked Barclays to refund you £5,000 straight away. It told me it had reviewed the workman’s website which looked reputable, so it was going to try getting the money back from the workman via his bank, Lloyds. I doubted this would work as the process is reliant on the goodwill of the recipient. If they refuse to co-operate there is very little their bank can do to help.

I also didn’t see why you should have to wait for your money as there was no way you would have paid a further £4,000 if you had not been misinformed by Barclays staff. However, Barclays estimated it would take just five days to get a response.

Six weeks later Barclays said recalling the payment had not worked, so it was going to refund you the full £5,000. It has also paid you an extra £500 for distress and inconvenience.

Can we help you?

Please email your questions to [email protected] or write to Question of Money, The Sunday Times, 1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF. Please send only copies of original documents. Letters should be exclusive to The Sunday Times. Advice is offered without legal responsibility. We regret we cannot reply to everyone who contacts us.