distressingly Vauban, I've done more digging and at the moment, it does appear that code-sharing by a marketing EU carrier with a non-EU operating carrier absolves said marketing EU carrier from liability on any leg of the journey not operated by them.

(ie if you book a multi-trip with BA and a leg of the trip flown by American is delayed, BA is not liable and you are not protected by EU Reg 261/2004)

This flies in the face of good faith, reason and the spirit of consumer protection legislation in general as well as being arguably an unfair contract term.

Apologies Andrew for not having know this.

In my case the code-share multi-trip I had booked with BA was American Eagle flight connecting to BA flight and it was the BA flight that was delayed - hence my successful claim. It demonstrates a flaw in the drafting in this regulation though: if the American Eagle leg of the journey had made me miss the BA flight we were connecting to, I would have had no right to claim for my delay under EU Reg 261/2004 even though the whole thing was booked with BA.

On the plus side, there are 6 years during which you can claim.

There have already been protests by EU consumer groups to this loophole that is being exploited by the airlines to exclude liability that will hopefully, given some time, translate into case law giving the right to claim under 261/2004 for this type of situation.

I am going to investigate further and keep track of developments since I am a regular traveller and need to know. I will post additional information as I find it on this thread.

Were you advised specifically at any time before paying your money that by accepting the code-share aspect of your trip (flights operated by non-EU carriers) you were effectively waiving your right to be protected by EU Reg 261/2004?

Have look at this from the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

Unfair Terms

10 A term which has the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.

19 A term which has the object or effect of allowing the trader to transfer the trader’s rights and obligations under the contract, where this may reduce the guarantees for the consumer, without the consumer’s agreement.

72 Application of rules to secondary contracts

(1)This section applies if a term of a contract (“the secondary contract”) reduces the rights or remedies or increases the obligations of a person under another contract (“the main contract”).

(2)The term is subject to the provisions of this Part that would apply to the term if it were in the main contract.

(3)It does not matter for the purposes of this section—

(a)whether the parties to the secondary contract are the same as the parties to the main contract, or

(b)whether the secondary contract is a consumer contract.

Based on this and other legislation, as I said earlier, I believe there will be case law in the not too distant future to confirm the non-validity of current code-share practices which essentially give a get-out-of-jail-free card for EU carriers in relation to EU Reg 261/2004.

We don't encourage advising by PM, plato. There's no reason you can't post de-personalised information on the thread.

 

HB

No intent to advise without sharing Honeybee. Just impossible to send links on the forum.

it depends on his booking. If the flights were booked with BA, the ticket was a BA ticket and the single booking reference for the trip was a BA reference then the fact that any of the flights were actually flown by other airlines is not relevant.

His contract is with BA.

It's like buying a Dell computer from PC World. If there's a problem, it's PC World who has to compensate you, not Dell.

In this case, if all the above points are true then he has contracted with an EU (for the moment) based airline and qualifies for the compensation.

Vauban he has a BA booking - read my earlier post about reclaiming and getting compensation for delay on BA booking with a leg flown by AA.

PM me with an email so I can reply with links.

Going out now - will check messages upon return.

I THINK so, the only slight doubt I have is the agent booking rather than direct with the airline - did the cc payment go to the agent?

What did your 'receipt' say?

I'm 99% sure it doesn't disqualify you but it's essential to be sure before contacting these guys because even when you're absolutely sure of your ground they'll still try to wriggle.

I have the url to the form you send to BA to claim for the EU delay compensation but I cannot put it in a message.

They make this form almost impossible to find on the website (surprise, surprise).

If you pm me remember I don't have enough posts to pm you back. I can only post on the public forum until I have 20 posts apparently, so if you want the link, please include a reply email.

If you have a single BA ticket reference then it's not relevant that they sub-contracted out to American.

Andrew-P, 3 questions:

1. did you book just the flights with TravelUP or also accomodation at destination, airport hotels/transit/car rental or other?

2. did you have a single 'booking reference' for the trip or several?

3. did you pay in one payment and what did your invoice say in the description of the service being invoiced?

Depending on the answers, you should abolutely be entitled to the full compensation for delay at final destination.

For the text of the legislation Put:e

ur-lex 32004r0261

into google - it should be the first answer you get. Open the link and scroll down to text.

part of what concerns you is:

© "Community carrier" means an air carrier with a valid operating licence granted by a Member State in accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 of 23 July 1992 on licensing of air carriers(5);

(d) "tour operator" means, with the exception of an air carrier, an organiser within the meaning of Article 2, point 2, of Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours(6);

(e) "package" means those services defined in Article 2, point 1, of Directive 90/314/EEC;

(f) "ticket" means a valid document giving entitlement to transport, or something equivalent in paperless form, including electronic form, issued or authorised by the air carrier or its authorised agent;

(g) "reservation" means the fact that the passenger has a ticket, or other proof, which indicates that the reservation has been accepted and registered by the air carrier or tour operator;

(h) "final destination" means the destination on the ticket presented at the check-in counter or, in the case of directly connecting flights, the destination of the last flight; alternative connecting flights available shall not be taken into account if the original planned arrival time is respected;

My understanding is that you do have the right to the maximum compensation (600eur per passenger) as well as extra costs incurred for transit fm LGW to LHR. The fact that the booking was made through Iberia also puts you in the qualifying category, even if the flight itself was operated by American Airlines.

I am not 100% sure re the agent but think again that this does not disqualify from claiming - the question would only be whether you make the claim with IBERIA or the agent. It is essential though, that you had 'one booking' reference for the whole trip - otherwise the application for delay compensation will be rejected unless your initial delay on the first leg was more than 3 hours. You should still have the right to claim for your lGW to LHR transit though.

Do pursue this. I had a huge mess-up with BA on connecting flights back via the US (also booked on an American Airlines flight on a BA ticket) and they paid up - 1,200 for 2 of us BUT (and it's a big BUT) don't expect them to be helpful or make it easy for your to actually claim and send you the right info/link to the forms.

PM me if you need more info.

Good luck.

Exactly, king12345.

This kind of thing must be an increasingly frequent issue in disputes.

This whole thing started for me 5 years ago when a bank (my bank........) gave a rate for a forex transaction that I agreed to over the phone and that was then 'not used' (to my detriment, obviously).

It was all 'deny, deny, deny' with the bank; long story short, I knew exactly what had been said but when I asked for the copy of the recording it had been 'lost'.

You don't want to hear the rest of the story, it went on for 8 months, but what it truly brought home to me was the absolute helplessness of the customer/client/consumer in the face of institutionalised bad faith. It's not the exception - it's the new normal.

Therefore I systematically record my calls, both inbound and outbound. However, the issue of 'usability' has always been there as a stress factor. The simple solution of announcing that you (also) are recording the call can work against you also, as I and others have experienced.

Both the discussion with the ICO and your very pertinent and useful post help confirm my belief that recording ones calls is an essential precaution to take.

Thanks very much for your relevant and interesting post.

Late to be contributing to this thread but have just had surprising and fascinating webchat with ICO regarding this.

The reason I contacted them was because a retailer who sold me dud product got difficult when I mentioned that I was recording the call. They refused to speak to me.

Since I was recording the call in order to be able to use the contents in what promises to be a future dispute, I didn't want to be hampered in my use of the content of the conversation so I went to the ICO in order to ask whether they had the right to 'refuse' to talk to me if I was recording (as they do) the conversation.

I use an app on Skype which is simple and saves the agony and time spent on SAR.

It turns out that this kind of issue falls under the domestic purposes exemption of the DP act.

If you, as a consumer, record a conversation with a retailer's customer service dept for use in dispute resolution (ie to prove what was said) you are entitled

a) to do it without informing the other side, on the assumption that they have already advised you that the call is being recorded by them.

b) use its contents in negotiations with the company in question and with any legal adviser/court the dispute goes forward to.

This was a revelation for me and I believe a lot of us have been ignorant of this.

If you want a copy of the web chat, please pm me.

All the best,

Late to be contributing to this thread but have just had surprising and fascinating webchat with ICO regarding this.

The reason I contacted them was because a retailer who sold me dud product got difficult when I mentioned that I was recording the call. They refused to speak to me.

Since I was recording the call in order to be able to use the contents in what promises to be a future dispute, I didn't want to be hampered in my use of the content of the conversation so I went to the ICO in order to ask whether they had the right to 'refuse' to talk to me if I was recording (as they do) the conversation.

I use an app on Skype which is simple and saves the agony and time spent on SAR.

It turns out that this kind of issue falls under the domestic purposes exemption of the DP act. If you, as a consumer, record a conversation with a retailer's customer service dept for use in dispute resolution (ie to prove what was said) you are entitled

a) to do it without informing the other side, on the assumption that they have already advised you that the call is being recorded by them.

b) use its contents in negotiations with the company in question and with any legal adviser/court the dispute goes forward to.

This was a revelation for me and I believe a lot of us have been ignorant of this.

If you want a copy of the web chat, please pm me.

All the best,

oh please! It sounded like you had them cold and you were hot!

I want to hear stories of grizzly, grovelling, abject admissions of guilt etc.

I will keep the forum updated of my own progress - situation going since May - are presently being told they will investigate (it's not that complicated) but nothing appears to be happening.

Not going into detail for the moment.

Someone has to stop these people. I hope it will happen in my case.

Like I said, I will be updating the forum with any result or explaining what went wrong if the outcome is less than positive.

Never give up, that's the motto.

Tks for the prompt response -

What happened????????????????

Anybody?

Am in middle of ridiculous situation with FD and would LOVE to know outcome.

plato1