If you take your ticket/card back to the ticket office, show it is in good clean condition, but no longer works, there surely there is no way they can charge you for a new one. Of course, if your card has been bent, split, cracked or otherwise damaged in some way, then it's hardly a suprise that they are going to charge you the full cost of a replacement is it?
I guess this might suggest a couple of things; Charging for a replacment card (when your existing card has stopped functioning) is a new policy since the 18th December or there has been some sort of misunderstanding in getting your new card*. Either way I think you need to challenge the Ticket office especially if it isn't your fault that the card stopped working ...
* Or the op is not being entirely open about the circumstances of the damage? In my experience with the ticket office over a long time, they've never been anything but helpful.
Went up to stadium yesterday to get my season ticket replaced because the little electronic chip had broken some how, so I went to to assuming the replacement would be free of very little money got up there they accused me of breaking it and charged me £25 and they said sorry its not us that sets the rules it's Paul Barber this is a digrace I've been a season ticket holder for 5 years and considering I'm only 17 I can hardly afford it any barber is a joke get him out now!
Isn't it sad that this board has become so cinical that people automatically assume that someone who appears to have a grievance is immediately assumed to be a liar.
I am sure it wasn't always like this.
Isn't it sad that this board has become so cinical that people automatically assume that someone who appears to have a grievance is immediately assumed to be a liar.
I am sure it wasn't always like this.
Well, I think there is a little context here. The "Barber is a w@nker" brigade are pretty voicferous right now and this seems to play to their prejudices. It is also semi literate and seems pretty implausible. I think even years ago, and argument that was presented in such a one sided way would have been treated with scepticism.