The Royal Albert Hall is facing a legal claim from seat-holders over the number of performances they are excluded from each year.

Three seat-holders – Arthur George and father and son William and Alexander Stockler – have filed a claim at the High Court for an injunction that would prevent the charity from denying them access to their seats for more than is permitted in its constitution.

They are also claiming damages plus interest and costs from them being unable to use or sell tickets for performances they have been excluded from.

The hall’s construction was partly financed by selling 1,276 of its 5,272 seats to private investors in 1866.

Seat-holders can do what they like with tickets for their seats, including using them, giving them to friends or charities, returning them to the box office to be sold at face value, or selling them on the open market.

Ownership of seats initially provided access to all events at the hall but the charity’s constitution as amended in 1966 says it can exclude seatholders for up to 75 days per year for events other than a concert, recital or boxing or wrestling event, 12 further days for any event and one-third of a series of six or more events which are consecutive and substantially the same.

Ian McCulloch, president of the hall, admitted in evidence to parliament in April that the latest exclusion list stood at more than 100 days and 120 events, which he said helped the charity to attract “ high-end artists who might not otherwise come to the hall”.

Seatholders are compensated for the events they are excluded from by receiving a rebate on the annual fees they pay to the hall for their seats.

But the claimants, who own 16 seats between them, argue their exclusion from the hall infringes on their rights to access and to derive income from their seats and that the hall has “unjustly enriched itself” at their expense.

A private bill put before parliament in 2022 seeks to make changes to its constitution including increasing the number of events seatholders can be excluded from.

The bill, which has been strongly criticised by peers for failing to address a conflict of interest arising from the fact that the charity’s ruling council is made up of a majority of seatholders, remains in the parliamentary process.

The charity’s constitution can only be amended by an act of parliament because it was founded by royal charter.

A spokesperson for the Royal Albert Hall said they could not comment on a live case but added: “The Royal Albert Hall acts fully in accordance with the guidelines agreed by seat-holders annually at the annual general meeting regarding excluding members from performances.”