Man embarrassed when denied entry at KL Tower as tickets he bought online not valid
A man was left embarrassed in front of his guests when the tickets he bought online for KL Tower were not valid and they were not allowed to enter the observation deck.
Stomper Nikhil had bought four adult tickets via Pelago for a total of $83.28 on Dec 28, 2025, at around 3pm.
Owned by Singapore Airlines, Pelago is a travel experience booking platform similar to Klook.
“I selected the date and booked what looked like a standard entry ticket. There was no clear restriction at the point of purchase that would prevent same-day afternoon use,” said Nikhil.
On the Pelago app, the ticket said: “Observation Deck Morning Hours - Non-Malaysian.”
The Stomper and his guests arrived at KL Tower on the same afternoon, and after queueing for about 30 minutes, they were denied entry as their tickets were valid only for “morning hours”.
“I had family friends visiting, including a two-year-old toddler, and I recommended Pelago to them,” said Nikhil, who felt he had no choice but to purchase another four tickets.
“We stepped out of the queue, bought new tickets on the spot for RM320 (S$103), queued again, and finally entered. The entire ordeal took over an hour. Because of this, we missed our dinner reservation.”
He told Stomp the experience “left me out of pocket and frankly embarrassed in front of my guests”.
But what made it worse was what happened when he requested a refund from Pelago. “Instead of resolving it, a dispute was raised without my consent and then denied without explanation,” said the Stomper.
Frustrated, Nikhil posted about his experience on his LinkedIn account in January and tagged Pelago as well as its chief product and technology officer.
The Stomper, who works in product management, wrote in the post: “This is not a fringe edge case. Selling expired or already elapsed time slots points to broken validation at checkout and poor consumer safeguards.”
On Jan 27, he received an email from a Pelago Customer Care team lead, who said she was reaching out to him because of his LinkedIn post. She apologised for the “less-than-seamless experience” Nikhil had with his refund request.
She added: “Although the ‘Observation Deck - Morning Hours’ tickets were non-cancellable and thus non-refundable, we advocated for an exception by submitting an appeal to our ticketing partner. While the initial appeal was declined, I am reopening your case for a secondary review.”
The Stomper was offered reimbursement for the four tickets he bought at KL Tower for RM320, which was good news — except that was not the end of it.
On Feb 27, Nikhil received another Pelago email from a different person, stating that the ticketing partner did not approve of the request.
The email continued: “Based on your latest confirmation, we understand that you are accepting our goodwill reimbursement of RM320. Please note that this remains our final goodwill offer in the resolution of this matter.”
The Stomper was then asked to complete a reimbursement form.
Nikhil said he submitted the reimbursement form on March 2.
“Since then, nothing. No confirmation. No update. No refund,” he said. “I followed up on March 11, March 14 and March 28. No response at all.”
He told Stomp on March 30 that at that point, it was no longer just about the money.
“It is about how a customer is treated after a clear service failure,” explained the Stomper. “Pelago positions itself under Singapore Airlines. I trusted the brand because of that. This experience does not match that standard.”
In response to a Stomp query, a Pelago spokesperson said on March 31 that Pelago was processing the reimbursement and was in touch with Nikhil.
The delay occurred because cross-currency refund was involved, explained the spokesperson. The Stomper had requested the reimbursement to be in ringgit, but the bank account he provided was based in Singapore.
“This required additional financial checks during processing, which extended the timeline,” said the spokesperson, who added that refund requests are assessed on a case-by-case basis.
“In this instance, we identified a gap in the customer experience and have made the decision to proceed with the reimbursement.”
Nikhil told Stomp on April 8 that he has yet to receive his reimbursement.
See something interesting? Contribute your story to us.
