Jump to content


Have taken BMI to Court


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 5061 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Have taken these idiots to court...after much deliberation and letters and phone calls to sodding India :mad:

 

Have figured that their "charges" are unlawful in a similar way to the bank charges...

 

Don't beleive me?

 

£30 says it is ;-)

 

 

1.The Claimant purchased 2 flights from

London heathrow to Dublin 2.The Defendant

debited total amount of £54.00 for the

flights; £67.50 for applicable taxes,

passenger surcharge, and insurance surcharge

charge(taxes); 3 Claimant canceled flight of

own accord. Defendant offered total of

£17.50 refund from taxes portion of the

transaction which was rejected. Defendants

fee for cancellation and processing of this

was £50. 4. Claimant contends; a) The charges

exceed the Defendants losses caused by

cancelling; (b) The Term permitting the

Defendant to levy such charges is

unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in

Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Unfair

Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common Law. 5.

Claimant claims: (a)Return of the amounts

debited of £67.50 for taxes portion of

transaction and refund; (b)Alternatively, if

the charge is a fee for a service, then they

must be reasonable under S.15 of the Supply

of Goods and Services Act 1982.©Court costs

Link to post
Share on other sites

cheap flights from UK to Europe and America | bmi

 

Here is a statement in BMI terms and condtions whereby if the booking is cancelled then one is entitled to a refund of the Taxes portion of the transaction less an "administration fee"

 

It is this "administration fee" (which turned out to be £50) that I am contesting in court.

 

Does it really cost £50 to do a refund and cancel a booking?

 

Can anyone suggest any other approach I could take on this in court other than trying to prove that their cost is unreasonable under s.15 of the sale of goods and services act 1982 ?

 

Cheers,

M

Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost all companies whether they are banks or not, will intend to defend at the initital stage of a claim against them.

 

You appear to be doing all the right things, now keep going.

 

Finally, I would suggest that it does not cost £50 to cancel a booking, but, if it really does, let them show you in court.

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Ok - some development on this court claim.

 

BMI has submitted a legnthy defence saying in short that the charges are reasonable - and they are willing to submit evidence in court to back this up.

I have the AQ to fill in but comments welcome before I proceed...

 

I am very much intrigued as to how it costs £50 to conduct refund back to a debit card - and find it hard to beleive that there is no penalty factored into this cost.

 

In any case, here is the defence word-for-word.

 

Any comments / suggestions greatly appreciated...

 

Magz

xx

 

IN THE NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COURT

BETWEEN:

“MAGZY”

Claimant

- and -

BRITISH MIDLAND AIRWAYS LIMITED

trading as bmi

Defendant

DEFENCE

1. Paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Claimants Particulars of Claim are admitted.

2. The Defendant denies that the refund administration charges of £25 per ticket

exceeds the Defendants loss caused by the cancellation and processing of the

cancellation by the Claimant as alleged in paragraph 4(b) of the Claimants

particulars of Claim.

 

Particulars

(a) In order to offer tiny tickets at the lowest possible price, the costs of such

tickets are stripped of predominantly all charges for contingency events. This is

not the case with certain of the other tickets which the Claimant had the

opportunity to purchase. One of these charges is an administration charges for

cancellation by the passenger. Rather than increase the ticket price, the Defendant

only levies a charge to cover cancellations where the passenger cancels.

 

(b) The Defendant operates a telephone and internet service to enable passengers to

cancel tickets. Both operations involve a manual process which requires a dedicated

member of staff processing any refund manually. The process involves checking that

the passenger's ticket has not been used, the calculation of the refund due, the

manual input of refund details including the passengers name and credit card/debit

card details. The Defendant intends to submit evidence of the process to show that

the cancellation fee is a fair pre-estimate of the Defendants loss.

 

3. The Defendant denies that the terms set out in their booking terms and conditions

entitling the Defendant to levy an administration charge in the event that the,

passenger unilaterally cancels their ticket, are unenforceable whether as alleged in

paragraph 4(b) of the Claimants particulars of Claim or at all. In any event, the

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (1977 Act) is not applicable as the terms in

question are not exclusions or limitations of liability. If, which is not admitted,

the 1977 Act is applicable, the terms are reasonable in the circumstances.

 

Particulars

(a) The Defendant operates a number of different types of ticket at varying prices.

The ticket purchased by the Claimant is known as a 'tiny' ticket and is the lowest

price seat the Defendant sells.

(b) The flexibility of the ticket is dependant upon which ticket a passenger

purchases. On the flights for which the Claimant booked tickets, the Defendants

full range of tickets from tiny to business flexible where available. The Defendant

chose to purchase a tiny ticket where a fully flexible ticket allowing a full refund

without any administration charge at a higher price was available.

 

4. The Defendant denies that the cancellation fee must be reasonable under Section

15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (1982 Act) as alleged in paragraph

5© of the Claimants particulars of Claim. If, which is not admitted, Section 15 of

the 1982 Act' is applicable in the terms are reasonable in the circumstances.

 

Particulars

(a) The particulars to paragraph 3 above are repeated.

(b) Section 15 of the 1982 Act implies a term that charges must be reasonable in the

event that the consideration for the service is not determined by the contract. The

terms and conditions of carriage governing ,the relationship between the Defendant

and the Claimant clearly state the cancellation fee and as such, section 15 is not

applicable

 

5. Save as aforesaid, each of the allegations set out in the Particulars of Claim

are denied and the Claimant is put to strict ,proof of the same. It is denied that

the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief, for the reasons

alleged or at all.

 

Statement of Truth.

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in the Defence are true

I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement.

 

David Owen

Group Legal Advisor

David Owen

Group Legal Adviser

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck...

 

Further it looks to me like the £25 is an arbitrary sum and bears no relation to the potential loss.

 

It will be interesting to see if a) they turn up and b) how they intend to prove their costs.

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Good for you Magzy, well done - I guess they were penalties after all then...

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Here is the letter from BMI outlining their settlement offer.

I have accepted this as It was what my claim was for.

 

ImageShack - Hosting :: bmixi0.jpg

 

 

(they still have not paid it though) :-|

 

WELL DONE - Maybe you have to accept first in writing before they issue the cheque. Best thing is to phone them and ask where the cheque is!

Regards

DS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did send a letter saying I accept the offer mid december..

 

nearly a month gone now.

 

I will contact them again asking for the money plus the statutory 8% interest which will add to about £3 - will get me a pint down't pub I suppose...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

sent an email to david owen (bmi legal advidor) stating pay up or face more legal action and costs. cheque arrived yesterday - result!

 

So it was worth the £30 to take them to court!

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
sent an email to david owen (bmi legal advidor) stating pay up or face more legal action and costs. cheque arrived yesterday - result!

 

So it was worth the £30 to take them to court!

 

;)

Magzy

Good Result - Well Done

It just shows you just have to stick to your guns and you did.

DS

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...