Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
  • 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 2456 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

Hi caggers,

I was caught in the BA fiasco last week and need some advice.

I booked the flight Heathrow - Madrid - Menorca via Tripsta travel agent.

To complicate things further, the booking was done on an Iberia flight operated by BA.

My understanding of the EU regulation is that I should claim directly from BA.

What do you think?

Second question is: Heathrow to Menorca is listed as 1375km so I would be in the lower bracket compensation 250 euro).

However if I consider my planned route, Heathrow -Madrid and then Madrid-Menorca, it piles up to almost 2000km and so the higher bracket compensation (400 euro).

Should I claim the higher compensation based on my route?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved to the appropriate forum..please continue to post here to your thread.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - claim from BA. Fraid the distance is calculated by great circle first and last airport, on a through ticket. So less than 1500km.

 

Even if I deliberately booked a 2 leg flight to do shopping in Madrid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you booked this as two separate tickets then you would be entitled to €250 per leg, provided each flight arrived at its respective destination more than three hours late. Did you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you booked this as two separate tickets then you would be entitled to €250 per leg, provided each flight arrived at its respective destination more than three hours late. Did you?

 

No, I didn't.

You're right, I read the regulations and also about the German court case similar to mine, so I'll only be entitled to 250 eros.

Thanks for your input.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi guys, maybe I'm going mad, so please bear with an old man.

 

I booked a flight with the family via tripsta who issued tickets on an Iberia flight operated by British airways.

 

They had that system outage on 27/05 and we were caught right in the middle of it, so our flight from Heathrow terminal 5 was cancelled.

 

Only BA operates from terminal 5 and the terminal was shut on the day.

 

A BA rep gave us a leaflet explaining the situation and advising on how to claim compensation.

I put a claim through BA under the Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (250 euro per person).

 

Today I received an email from them saying:

 

...your claim for compensation has been denied because British airways didn't operate flight BA0518 on 27/05/2017.

If you contact Iberia airlines they'll be able to consider your claim.

 

This is pure lies because that flight was operated by BA as stated on my ticket and only BA operates from terminal 5.

 

Also, because it was a BA problem, if the flight was operated by Iberia, I would have got to Spain on the day, right?

 

Am I correct in thinking that it doesn't matter where you get your ticket when making a claim for compensation under the EC 261/2004?

 

I am reading point (7) and (8) of this legislation which makes it clear that it is the air carrier responsibility to pay compensation and they can claim their shortfalls to a third party if they wish.

 

(7) In order to ensure the effective application of this Regulation, the obligations that it creates should rest with the operating air carrier who performs or intends to perform a flight, whether with owned aircraft, under dry or wet lease, or on any other basis.

 

(8) This Regulation should not restrict the rights of the operating air carrier to seek compensation from any person, including third parties, in accordance with the law applicable.

 

Is my next move a strong worded letter to BA urging to pay or a fresh claim to Iberia?

 

Just checked online at flight stats and it now says that the flight is operated by Iberia on behalf of BA, but on my original ticket it clearly states "Operated by British Airways".

 

Where do I stand?

 

Is my ticket receipt enough proof that BA was the air carrier?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread moved to the appropriate forum...please continue to post here to your thread.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

My own opinion and nothing but my opinion the claim will be against the Airline who you booked and paid the ticket through.

 

It is that airline who you have a contract with, as in taking payment and who you claim against, not any third party carrier

 

Why not claim off your holiday insurance and let them deal with it??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the travel insurance rightly said that they cannot pay out compensation claims under EC 461/2004.

 

The air carrier is responsible for such claims.

 

The legislation seems to be clear about the air carrier being the airline that actually operates the aircraft, BA in this case, that's why I claimed from them.

 

Now I suppose I have to start another claim with Iberia and they will probably say that they were not the air carrier for that flight.

 

At which point I will have to start a county court claim against BA and Iberia (which have merged some time ago, so they are sisters airlines) and let them fight responsibility in court.

 

My ticket says that the flight is operated by BA and we didn't fly because of their system outage, I don't see what Iberia has got to do with this.

 

Only BA flights were affected, so if my flight was operated by Iberia, they would have not cancelled the flight.

 

It took me 12 hours on the phone to reschedule because BA system was down and neither BA and Iberia could amend the flight.

 

Eventually I was re-booked on a Vueling flight by Iberia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok guys, I need your help please.

 

Iberia has officially replied to my compensation claim saying that the cancellation was due to BA system outage and I should claim from them.

 

They said that they do not hold past flight information so they can't say who operated my flight (really???)

 

As you know BA denied being the flight operator and blamed Iberia.

 

Next step is lba to Iberia and BA and if the don't pay up county court claim, correct?

 

Can I list two companies as co-defendant?

 

Thanks for your kind help

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are being fobbed they are trying to pass the buck to BA but irrespective your contract is with Iberia.

 

Yes BA had that major malfunction (due to human error) with many flight either cancelled or disrupted.

 

Your claim is with Iberia not BA, it is up to Iberia to get there money back from BA not you.

 

Now what I would suggest before you go down the LBA route is the CAA as this way your are also highlighting an issue to them due to this BA outage and the carriers attitude to claims: https://www.caa.co.uk/Passengers/Resolving-travel-problems/How-the-CAA-can-help/How-to-make-a-complaint/

Edited by stu007

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wouldn't bother with the CAA

- they claim to have no ability to force airlines to adhere to Regulation 261/04:

but as the UK's National Enforcement Body that is precisely what they should do (and don't).

 

Your claim, as you rightly say, is with the airline originally scheduled to operate your flight.

Whom you booked with is immaterial 261/04 claims.

From the flight number you give, that definitely sounds like a BA codeshare, so probably Iberia (you could try doing a dummy booking for that route/time to check)?

 

 

If it was Iberia, it is immaterial that the problem was BA's systems: the Regulation allows them to claim back from third parties if necessary, but their liability to you can't be shirked.

 

I agree you should send a letter before action giving them one last chance - and then start court action if they remain silly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input.

 

The flight is a codeshare BA518/IB3177 as you said.

 

Strange thing is that my original ticket emailed to me clearly says "Operated by British airways".

 

But when I try I dummy booking or flight stats it says operated by Iberia.

 

So should I forget British airways and just go after Iberia?

 

In reality I have no real evidence that they were operating that particular flight and surely they will not tell me, that's why i thought I name both of them in the possible court claim.

 

What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have the same issue with this flight.

 

BA are saying they were not the operator and to go to Iberia and claim compensation.

 

Iberia are saying they won't pay as it wasn't their fault.

 

i wouldn't mind but they are sister companies and they are refusing to talk to one another....

 

Had a long ding-dong dialog with BA and they say go to CEDR and raise a complaint about Iberia. Problem is that Iberia aren't covered under CEDR.

 

Is this going to take legal action to sort out?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've issued a lba to Iberia because it looks like they were the operator of that flight.

 

I pointed out in the lba that not only they are BA sister company, but as per EU 461/2007 they can request a refund from BA if they see fit.

 

I think they'll pay up before it gets to court because I can't see any way out for them.

 

Worse comes to worse and they provide proof that BA was the operator, I will sue BA and make them pay all the costs of taking Iberia to court because BA clearly said in writing that the flight was operated by Iberia.

 

I suggest everyone should do the same.

 

both are IAG company owned

 

Thanks!

Would an email to their ceo willie Walsh move things?

 

Unfortunately I can't access the email page on ceoemail. com, would some good soul check his email address for me?

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I can't access the email page on ceoemail. com, would some good soul check his email address for me?

 

International Airlines Group

 

Mr Willie Walsh Chief Executive

 

Email [email protected]

 

Telephone 020 8564 2800

Switchboard 020 8564 2800

Website http://www.iairgroup.com

 

Postal Address 2 World Business Centre Heathrow, Newall Road, Hounslow, TW6 2SF

 

 

Stigman

NEVER telephone a DCA

If a DCA rings you, refuse to go through the security questions & hang up!

 

If I have helped you, click on the star & say thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

BA refused my claim - said it was Iberia's fault.

Iberia refused claim - say its BA's fault.

 

BA advised to go to CDER - Iberia aren't covered under CEDR.

Went to CAA they said go through CDER. Aggghhhhh....

 

Can't even contact Iberia - they only speak Spanish or reply in bizarre email replies...

 

Is legal action the only real route here......?

 

 

 

 

 

I am not in aloop of nonsense

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...