Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yep, true to form, they are happy to just save a couple of quid... They invariably lose in court, so to them, that's a win. 😅
    • Your concern regarding the 14 days delivery is a common one. Not been on the forum that long, but I don't think the following thought has ever been challenged. My view is that they should have proof of when it was posted, not when they "issued", or printed it. Of course, they would never show any proof of postage, unless it went to court. Private parking companies are simply after money, and will just keep sending ever more threatening letters to intimidate you into paying up. It's not been mentioned yet, but DO NOT APPEAL! You could inadvertently give up useful legal protection and they will refuse any appeal, because they're just after the cash...  
    • The sign says "Parking conditions apply 24/7". Mind you, that's after a huge wall of text. The whole thing is massively confusing.  Goodness knows what you're meant to do if you spend only a fiver in Iceland or you stay a few minutes over the hour there.
    • Hi and thanks It looks like they ticked all the boxes to me but I'll try and upload the notice. I was wondering if a witness to late delivery might be considered proof - I'm assuming they posted it as normal but Royal Mail stuffed up delivery. If not then they're really saying it just has to be posted within 12 days of the incident, regardless of when it is received. Annoying! edit ok thanks Honeybee here's my 2nd (actually 3rd) attempt at anonymising, copying and uploading the notice! Sorry about the state of it - I sat on it while distracted by my dog 🙃 pcn front.pdf pcn back page.pdf
    • ROFL - dont get upset just because someone (quite a lot of someones) dont want smart meters - well unless you get paid for it .. in which case ...   I assume you haven't been with Octopus long enough to be on one of the very long fixed price tariffs they offered before the prices went bonkers .. and that you dont use your electricity in the evening/lunch time if you think the 'agile type tariffs are good value .. let alone worth installing a smart meter for - high price a good disincentive for an evening cuppa eh? Let alone all your computer/tv etc time in the peak price evening or lunch time. - and boy do those peak prices instantly hammer your bill when those Russian and middle eastern issues kick off.   I would only have considered a smart meter if solar panels had been an option for me - but roof is oriented completely the wrong way. Oh - and My opinion hasn't changed since the smart meter trials 40 years ago, because neither have the issues (well not enough) but I'm happy for you. Be happy for me.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

BA cancelled flight, booked via Tripsta


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2449 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Already emailed Mr Cruz last week to no avail, that's why I've now emailed Mr Walsh.

The fact BA and Iberia are the same company, sister companies or whatever you call two companies that have merged, makes this story a joke.

Probably it'll never go as far as court, but I wonder what a judge would think.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A judge would think that IAG have no liability under the Regulation for compensating you. But you could always try it if you don't believe me.

 

You're doing the right thing suing Iberia - they've not denied being the operating air carrier, as I understand you, but rather suggest it was BA's and not their fault - which is irrelevant. I hope you're right that they don't make you go to court, but so many of these airlines are still resisting the proper implementation of the Regulation, and the CAA - paid for by the airlines- does nothing to protect the passenger from this sharp practice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I won't sue IAG.

As you said, Iberia seems to be the air carrier for that flight, even though my ticket says BA.

The fact that they never denied being the operator reinforces the suspicion that it is their flight.

Looking at the same flight in future, all websites, including Iberia, state that it is operated by Iberia.

One question for the county courts experts: as I have no substantial proof that it was an Iberia flight and my ticket says "operated by British Airways", should I name BA as co-defendant or is that going to be unwise?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I won't sue IAG.

As you said, Iberia seems to be the air carrier for that flight, even though my ticket says BA.

The fact that they never denied being the operator reinforces the suspicion that it is their flight.

Looking at the same flight in future, all websites, including Iberia, state that it is operated by Iberia.

One question for the county courts experts: as I have no substantial proof that it was an Iberia flight and my ticket says "operated by British Airways", should I name BA as co-defendant or is that going to be unwise?

 

My ticket and boarding pass - both state (operated by Iberia)....

Link to post
Share on other sites

wont hurt to name them as co-defendants, a judge can decide if all of the liability lies with one or the ohter or either BA or Iberia can put their hands up and admit being liable. However, they will probably both say they are not liable, bigger boys did it and they had a stick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

wont hurt to name them as co-defendants, a judge can decide if all of the liability lies with one or the ohter or either BA or Iberia can put their hands up and admit being liable. However, they will probably both say they are not liable, bigger boys did it and they had a stick.

 

BA have already admitted liability for the IT outage....

Link to post
Share on other sites

wont hurt to name them as co-defendants, a judge can decide if all of the liability lies with one or the ohter or either BA or Iberia can put their hands up and admit being liable. However, they will probably both say they are not liable, bigger boys did it and they had a stick.

 

 

 

 

I don't know the answer to King's question. But one point and one query:

 

a) assuming it was an Iberia flight, neither BA nor IAG have any liability to the claimant (King). No court can find them liable for a 261/04 case brought by King. Of course they might be liable to Iberia, if Iberia sought compensation from them in turn (the regulation is explicit on this);

 

b) my query is this: if you name BA as a joint defendant, even after you've been told they are were not the operating air carrier (and Iberia don't contest this) could you be liable for any of BA's costs, for acting unreasonably? Your defence would be that your ticket indicated that BA were scheduled to operate the flight, which would be fair enough. But are you certain this is what it says?

Link to post
Share on other sites

100% certain my original ticket issued by tripsta says "operated by British airways".

 

Just now I was looking through all the screenshot that I usually take when doing something online and found the Iberia website where I entered the passports' details.

 

Well, that page from Iberia website says "flight operated by Iberia" next to the flight details.

 

In light of this, should I leave BA alone and start a claim only against Iberia?

 

As mentioned, I don't want to end up paying BA costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BA have flat out refused all my claims for compensation (They could pay me whatever they like but they are only compensating customers under EU621 regulations - and they are sticking to this rule adamantly. Legally correct but not morally).

 

Iberia have also refused all claims.

 

Looks like I'll be going to court against Iberia too...

Link to post
Share on other sites

wonder if either of you paid by credit card?

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

wonder if either of you paid by credit card?

 

 

dx

 

I did, but the credit card company won't pay compensation under 461/2004 and I doubt I would be able to get the ticket refunded under section 75 because I accepted an alternative flight 2 days later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BA have flat out refused all my claims for compensation (They could pay me whatever they like but they are only compensating customers under EU621 regulations - and they are sticking to this rule adamantly. Legally correct but not morally).

 

Iberia have also refused all claims.

 

Looks like I'll be going to court against Iberia too...

 

I can't find EU621 regulation related to flight delays, what's that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

wonder if either of you paid by credit card?

 

 

dx

 

Credit card can only get you refunds not compensation.

 

BA refunded my flight, as they could only offer me a flight 5 days later !!, then refused my compensation....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Did you get any response from Iberia....

.... I've heard nothing. Court action I feel is looming....

 

Did you get any response from Iberia....

.... I've heard nothing. Court action I feel is looming....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

Following my complaint to ceo at British airways, Yesterday I received an email which states:

You were a passenger on the cancelled flight ba518 on 27/05/2017 so you are entitled to compensation under ec261/2004.

Lots of apologies and request for bank detail to make the payment.

 

30 minutes later, the same customer service agent emails back and states:

Please disregard my previous email, I see why my colleague initially denied your claim.

Flight ba518 was only delayed, not cancelled, so I would be grateful if you could explain why you didn't travel on this flight.

Also you said that you that you travelled on 27/05/2017 but also that you were delayed by 2 days, can you please clarify?

At this point she stated a couple of random flight numbers which would have not take me to Menorca.

 

Firstly all flights from terminal 5 on 27/05/2017 were cancelled and BA ceo video online confirms this.

Anyway, Looking at flight history, for some reason the flight ba518 appears to have been delayed by 4 and half hour, but never landed in Madrid.

The estimated arrival was 4 and half hours later than expected and too late to connect to any plane to Menorca, so even if we had taken that flight (which didn't depart anyway), we would have been delayed by more than 2 hours and still entitled to compensation.

I never said that I travelled on 27/05/2017, they just made that up and they know it because my reservation was amended following the flight cancellation.

 

I emailed this back to BA and because you can only email them with their online form which takes 21 days to be read, I emailed the customer service agent directly at [email protected].

My thought is that they're trying to mud the waters as much as they can to avoid paying compensation.

However, I need your advice: with the initial email accepting liability and validating my claim, has BA condemned themselves to pay up?

I ask this because if you read my previous posts it appears that the flight was in codeshare with Iberia and Iberia was the official air carrier, so they should pay compensation.

But ba has now accepted liability and soon after void my claim because their wrong record make the flight late and not cancelled which doesn't make any difference in terms of compensation.

What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

b) my query is this: if you name BA as a joint defendant, even after you've been told they are were not the operating air carrier (and Iberia don't contest this) could you be liable for any of BA's costs, for acting unreasonably? Your defence would be that your ticket indicated that BA were scheduled to operate the flight, which would be fair enough. But are you certain this is what it says?

 

Update:

Following my complaint to ceo at British airways, Yesterday I received an email which states:

You were a passenger on the cancelled flight ba518 on 27/05/2017 so you are entitled to compensation under ec261/2004.

 

............

30 minutes later, the same customer service agent emails back and states:

Please disregard my previous email, I see why my colleague initially denied your claim.

Flight ba518 was only delayed, not cancelled, so I would be grateful if you could explain why you didn't travel on this flight.

...........

What do you think?

 

I think it opens the door for you to put both as the defendants in the claim (at much less risk of being found liable for their costs) as as it will be much harder for either to say they have been added unreasonably.

 

Add to that that if you can keep it in small claims track, it is even less likely costs can be heaped on, and you can point out that they are subsidiaries of the same parent and are each pointing the figure at the other : I don't think it could be held to be unreasonable to name both on a claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi guys,

update:

After a lot of ignored emails, twitter rants, threats of court action etc, BA seems to have capitulated.

 

They informed me that my claim has been accepted fully (bar a £4.50 beer because they don't pay for alcoholic drinks)

Let's see if they will really pay within the next 7 days as promised.

 

BTW, I emailed CAA to gain information about this flight and they sent me the full monty.

It was highlighted that the flight is "operated by Iberia on behalf of BA".

BA is the official air carrier they let Iberia operate that flight.

 

Incidentally Iberia finally replied to my 2 months old claim saying that because these were exceptional circumstances they don't need to pay,

as a gesture of goodwill they would (really??? How generous!)

 

However they don't make it clear if the wanted to pay compensation and expenses or just the expenses.

 

They wanted the following to proceed:

Photocopies of all passports

Boarding passes

Birth certificates of all under 16

Original booking

Credit card evidence that we paid for the flight.

 

I think I just go with BA as they are the same company.

 

Please note: I never intended getting double compensation,

I claimed from both airlines because it wasn't clear who was responsible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...