Author Topic: Removal of p@yp@l entry for BlackSheep events. (Read 18173 times)

Veloman · « **Reply #50 on:** 09 February, 2016, 04:34:24 pm »

Surely by paying the non-gentleman you are admitting culpability?

Most disputes that go to the courts are disputed prior to handing-out any cash. Only matter I can think where cash is parted with and then attempted to be reclaimed involves a 14 day cooling-off period when those required to give a refund question the refund.

Veloman · « **Reply #51 on:** 09 February, 2016, 04:35:45 pm »

Quote from: Flaatuus on 09 February, 2016, 01:10:34 pm

His Facebook page suggests not

Give us a link then!

Delph Cyclist · « **Reply #52 on:** 09 February, 2016, 05:31:41 pm »

Quote from: mattc on 09 February, 2016, 04:28:21 pm

Pursue the "Gentleman" by civil means for breach of contract?

(the latter could be done by lawyers paid by AUK, to whom the fees would be negligible. A civil court claim would certainly send a message. Ideally the lawyers would take all the legwork away from the Org.).

I stress - this is not suggested as a feasible course of action right now for Mr Sheep! Just thinking of the future ...

The Board are considering the options, but I doubt legal recovery for a £5 debt would be high on my list (but we haven't had that discussion yet so you just never know). My own inclinations, as an Organiser, are to refuse refunds for DNSs, but I reserve the right to use my discretion as per 3peaker's post (but I'd be mindful of how it undermines AUK's no-refunds policy, so it would have to be good reason).

If a quick resolution wasn't possible I'd certainly return the fee paid as an interim measure if only to free up my PayPal account, but the entry fee still remains a debt, payable by some other means. No further entries would be accepted from that person EVER AGAIN for any of my Events or Perms until a satisfactory resolution had been reached.

With my Membership Secretary hat on, I'd be disappointed to learn that this behaviour was being carried out by an AUK member (which in this case I understand that it isn't) and I might be inclined to end that membership without compensation - but I need to think through the implications more thoroughly before I make that official policy.

I'd be favourable to having a list of unwelcome riders available to all other Organisers, but that could become messy - for a start we'd need to hear both sides, and I would have thought that there are legal implications in making public such a list.

What is sad is that I'm sure we're talking a trivial amount. If this person was planning to drive to the start, he's probably saved more than the entry fee in petrol/diesel not used.

BobScarle · « **Reply #53 on:** 09 February, 2016, 07:21:16 pm »

Quote from: Delph Cyclist on 09 February, 2016, 05:31:41 pm

What is sad is that I'm sure we're talking a trivial amount.

That is the sad thing about all of this. I hope that the refund request was made out of ignorance of the rules.

Mark, you have both my sympathy and my support. An organisers' job is difficult enough anyway without this sort of thing. I have put a cheque in the post to you for the March Madness. I for one really enjoy your events, both the routes and the organisation, and I would hate it if this made you consider stopping.

mattc · « **Reply #54 on:** 09 February, 2016, 07:34:54 pm »

Quote from: Delph Cyclist on 09 February, 2016, 05:31:41 pm

The Board are considering the options, but I doubt legal recovery for a £5 debt would be high on my list (but we haven't had that discussion yet so you just never know).

recovering a fiver wouldnt be my priority either! the key thing is freeing up the PP account.

( But as a general discussion, dont forget the much higher fees around; losing a few $30s on the morning of a 600 would be annoying, as would a few dozen LEL entries. Plus theres the message; word would get round that if its your first event, just enter early, you can always get a refund!
And I like the idea of AUK taking the financial pain away from the organiser.
)

A relevant saying:
If you lend someone a tenner and never see them again,
it was probably a tenner well-spent.

Ian H · « **Reply #55 on:** 09 February, 2016, 10:22:21 pm »

The fellow in question does belong to the AUK Facebook group, if anyone wishes to raise the matter there. He may not be a member for very long, though.

Veloman · « **Reply #56 on:** 09 February, 2016, 10:28:13 pm »

Quote from: Ian H on 09 February, 2016, 10:22:21 pm

The fellow in question does belong to the AUK Facebook group, if anyone wishes to raise the matter there. He may not be a member for very long, though.

An excellent idea to raise the point and see what happens.

Sadly, not a Facebook chap.

Hummers · « **Reply #57 on:** 09 February, 2016, 10:28:45 pm »

Interesting.

Will watch this space.

H

Ningishzidda · « **Reply #58 on:** 10 February, 2016, 06:52:09 am »

Cripes.

If Blacksheep has him and Philip had him, I might get him

What distances does he prefer?

( 0km after the shouting )

Cycling Daddy · « **Reply #59 on:** 10 February, 2016, 06:55:18 am »

I have done an enquiring post on FB. I would genuinely like to know what new riders find difficult to understand. When teaching I make children repeat back 'instructions' (especially if I think they were not 'listening') maybe that is what is needed until someone has got the hang of it.
L

Philip Whiteman · « **Reply #60 on:** 10 February, 2016, 08:10:33 am »

Quote from: Ningishzidda on 10 February, 2016, 06:52:09 am

Cripes.

If Blacksheep has him and Philip had him, I might get him

What distances does he prefer?

( 0km after the shouting )

We have swapped notes and they are not the same individuals. Mark's entrant was a member from Leicester and my entrant was a member of AUK. The latter individual has ceased riding audaxes since the dispute -- so no action required.

BlackSheep · « **Reply #61 on:** 10 February, 2016, 09:23:18 am »

Quote from: Philip Whiteman on 10 February, 2016, 08:10:33 am

We have swapped notes and they are not the same individuals. Mark's entrant was a member of ********* ******, my entrant was from North Birmingham CTC. In the latter instance, the individual has ceased riding audaxes since the dispute -- so no action required.

This is the second time it has happened to me, I have also suffered at the mouse click of a guy from the Nottingham CTC area.

So this isn't the same incident repeated three times, but three separate incidents. Each time it's been a non-AUK digressing.

I'd like to say a big thank you at this point to Jonbuoy (otp), for trying to diffuse this situation from the LFCC side.

TigaSefi · « **Reply #62 on:** 10 February, 2016, 09:56:31 am »

Been reading through this issue and can’t believe that someone could be so trivial over the sake of five fucking pounds. Hope this gets sorted out amicably and that in the future we have a robust system to deal with these johnny come latelys!

frankly frankie · « **Reply #63 on:** 10 February, 2016, 12:14:06 pm »

Quote from: Delph Cyclist on 09 February, 2016, 05:31:41 pm

What is sad is that I'm sure we're talking a trivial amount. If this person was planning to drive to the start, he's probably saved more than the entry fee in petrol/diesel not used.

Would anyone care to estimate, at say £10 per hour, the total cost so far of reading and responding to this thread??

Quote from: iddu on 09 February, 2016, 11:51:51 am

Vide "I understand that during the event I am on a private excursion on the public highway and that I am responsible for my
own conduct. I agree to abide by Audax UK Regulations for this ride. Entry fees are not refundable. I have relevant
insurance cover as above."

Expressly stated on paper (both blank and filled) and online, and agreed to by (i) signing form thereof, or (ii) ticking appropriate online box...

Quite. In fact I think it should say "Entry fees are not refundable or transferable" - I've got a distinct memory of being ~~asked~~ instructed to make that alteration, to all the entry forms. [scratches head]

Veloman · « **Reply #64 on:** 10 February, 2016, 12:38:30 pm »

Quote from: BlackSheep on 10 February, 2016, 09:23:18 am

I'd like to say a big thank you at this point to Jonbuoy (otp), for trying to diffuse this situation from the LFCC side.

It must be very embarrassing for both Jonbuoy and LFCC regarding the totally churlish behaviour of the individual and the way he is representing LFCC. I hope Chairman AUK will be sending an appropriate letter to Chairman LFCC informing them of the extremely dim view taken by AUK on such matters and reminding them that if riders from LFCC wish to participate in events organised by AUK members then they better read the AUK Regulations and desist from being so obtuse.

hellymedic · « **Reply #65 on:** 10 February, 2016, 12:49:55 pm »

The Facebook crowd have mostly been very supportive.
I have repeated in BLOCK CAPITALS that ENTRY FEES ARE NOT REFUNDABLE & had several 'Likes'.

Ningishzidda · « **Reply #66 on:** 10 February, 2016, 01:57:34 pm »

Quote from: Philip Whiteman on 10 February, 2016, 08:10:33 am

Quote from: Ningishzidda on 10 February, 2016, 06:52:09 am
Cripes.

If Blacksheep has him and Philip had him, I might get him

What distances does he prefer?

( 0km after the shouting )

We have swapped notes and they are not the same individuals. Mark's entrant was a member of Leicester Forest and my entrant was a member of AUK. The latter individual has ceased riding audaxes since the dispute -- so no action required.

Cheers Philip.

Ningishzidda · « **Reply #67 on:** 10 February, 2016, 01:59:33 pm »

Quote from: frankly frankie on 10 February, 2016, 12:14:06 pm

Quote from: Delph Cyclist on 09 February, 2016, 05:31:41 pm
What is sad is that I'm sure we're talking a trivial amount. If this person was planning to drive to the start, he's probably saved more than the entry fee in petrol/diesel not used.

Would anyone care to estimate, at say £10 per hour, the total cost so far of reading and responding to this thread??

Quote from: iddu on 09 February, 2016, 11:51:51 am
Vide "I understand that during the event I am on a private excursion on the public highway and that I am responsible for my
own conduct. I agree to abide by Audax UK Regulations for this ride. Entry fees are not refundable. I have relevant
insurance cover as above."

Expressly stated on paper (both blank and filled) and online, and agreed to by (i) signing form thereof, or (ii) ticking appropriate online box...

Quite. In fact I think it should say "Entry fees are not refundable or transferable" - I've got a distinct memory of being ~~asked~~ instructed to make that alteration, to all the entry forms. [scratches head]

Ten quid an hour! Not worth getting out of bed for.

slohill · « **Reply #68 on:** 10 February, 2016, 04:31:41 pm »

Quote from: vorsprung on 08 February, 2016, 08:51:06 pm

entry fees being non refundable is part of the way that AUK events work

They are cheap, so as a rider I might decide to DNS before the event without a discouraging loss

As an organiser, I depend on the DNS people to reduce the cost for the people that do actually ride

Me too---to just about everyone's benefit

BlackSheep · « **Reply #69 on:** 10 February, 2016, 05:28:38 pm »

I have just received a polite communication from the secretary of the Leicester Forest CC (LFCC). All efforts are being made within the club to defuse the situation.

Within the letter it is mentioned that "....although the claimant is a member of Leicester Forest CC. He has entered your event under his own terms. With this in mind I find it disappointing that the name of the club has been dragged into this dispute and discredited on a cycling forum. We have a large number of members who regularly participate in Audax events without trouble and I know that they would be as equally disappointed as myself to find the club's name discussed in such a negative manner. I'd therefore be grateful if you could remove the references to the club, remove the thread/s or issue a statement on the thread/s exonerating the club from any implication in the dispute ...".

In an effort to make a positive move for all concerned, I'm willing to remove ANY direct reference to LFCC that I may have posted, and would be obliged if any postees would do the same.

I have no dispute per se with LFCC, it is unfortunate that LFCC has been dragged into the dispute by the actions of one of its members.

I too echo the fact that LFCC have a large number of members who regularly participate in Audax events without trouble, having hosted them on BlackSheep CC events and met them on Audax events run by other local organisers.

Cudzoziemiec · « **Reply #70 on:** 10 February, 2016, 06:12:37 pm »

FWIW, I didn't think the club had been mentioned in a manner that implicated them in any way, just that they were another method of communicating and arbitrating with the defaulter.

Brakeless · « **Reply #71 on:** 10 February, 2016, 06:20:13 pm »

Quote from: Cudzoziemiec on 10 February, 2016, 06:12:37 pm

FWIW, I didn't think the club had been mentioned in a manner that implicated them in any way, just that they were another method of communicating and arbitrating with the defaulter.

I'd second that. We all enter Audaxes as individuals but many of us list our Clubs on entry and very often ride in club colours.

I'm always aware that if I'm riding in club kit then I'm representing and promoting my club on the road. If I'd behaved as this rider seems to have done then I would not be at all surprised if it wasn't 'reported' to my club. The same as if any other individual was riding under our club name or in our club colours and essentially bringing our club into disrepute then it would be discussed with them.

Veloman · « **Reply #72 on:** 10 February, 2016, 06:31:03 pm »

I hope this event goes well:

http://www.aukweb.net/events/detail/16-40/

I also hope the organiser does not have to face the angst that Mark is currently suffering.

C-3PO · « **Reply #73 on:** 10 February, 2016, 07:03:19 pm »

I have attempted to remove any bad reference to LFCC.

Philip Whiteman · « **Reply #74 on:** 10 February, 2016, 07:09:33 pm »

A few members of the aforementioned club have attended my KK Audax and they were nothing less than a positive contribution to the event. They will be more than welcome at this year's bash in July.

I must quickly add that this miscreant at that heart of the PayPal problem is the exception. I rather suspect that his peers will be less than pleased with his behaviour.