[drykl]

Thank you to FDOS for reporting me as a troll.
This serves to confirm a post in the BT forum (23 Sep 2016) when FDOS had labelled scotia as a troll.
scotia stated that:
“Apparently I’m a “troll” simply because I pointed out they had made an incorrect statement, but seem unwilling to accept they got it wrong!”

For the record:
FDOS asserts here that flight delay >5 hours after schedule would be the basis for this EU261 claim.
I pointed out earlier (and again) that BA had re-scheduled the customer’s flight to leave earlier. Thus, BA could put up a defence that there was neither delay nor cancellation applicable to EU261.

[drykl]

FDOS said that I lack knowledge and that my opinions are incorrect speculation.
In order to remedy my deficiencies, I have analysed FDOS’s words in detail to further my learning.

FDOS said:”FYI, the CAA’s perspectives are not the law and Regulation EU/UK261 is the legislation the Courts (and ADR bodies) rely on to reach their decisions.”

Factcheck 1: this is what the CAA say
We are responsible for enforcing European consumer laws that apply specifically to aviation. This includes legislation relating to price transparency, contract terms, passenger rights during flight disruption and access to air travel for passengers with reduced mobility. We also have concurrent powers with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to enforce general consumer law in the aviation sector.

FDOS said: “Your inability to understand the difference resulted in the incorrect speculation you published which really did not assist the OP. The regulation the Courts and ADR organisations use in making determinations is EC/UK261. CAA advice is not law.”

Factcheck 2 – this is what the CAA say
Laws on denied boarding, cancellation and delay compensation
We are the enforcement body in the UK for the laws that cover air passenger rights when flights are delayed or cancelled, or when passengers are downgraded or denied boarding.
EU261/2004
CAA 2005 (I note that the clue is in the name!)

Factcheck 3 – the ADR service (including the CEDR recommended by FDOS) actually sits under the CAA and has to be approved by the CAA.

The CAA is the competent authority under these Regulations for aviation. Part of our role as competent authority is to consider the competence and suitability of ADR applicants to provide an ADR service to aviation consumers. In its role as a competent authority the CAA also maintains continuous oversight of the ADR entities which it has approved…..

In summary, I certainly believe that individuals are free to choose whether they wish to take advice from legal enforcement agencies (CAA, Police etc.) or if they prefer to go with the word of anonymous persons on a forum.

Thank you very much to FDOS for educating me.

[ASK1945]

drykl: Once again, I hesitate to intervene in the spat between two Forum members, but I will anyway. Your are both correct.

De facto, the CAA are the regulatory body for this subject and they act under the relevant regulations. There are similar regulatory bodies for very many industries, almost all of whom operate under regulations passed in Parliament. Thus, as such, they all offer advice and at times “prosecute” individuals or organisations for flouting their rules.

However, de jure, FDOS is also correct. Frequently, organisations operating under regulations (“the law”) are taken to court because the one of the parties concerned believes that the authority has not followed the relevant law. A good, frequent example is the General Medical Council. Sometimes the appeal to the court goes as far as the Supreme Court. Then, under the principles of common law and precedent, the final decision of the court operates as the law until such time as regulations are changed by Parliament.

This is why in an earlier part of this thread I mentioned that I am not a judge. Indeed, I am not even a lawyer. I don’t believe that you or FDOS are, either. I suggest that you leave it – as I am doing – for the OP who started the thread to complete their follow-up of their complaint, wherever it ends and then reflect on that, instead of throwing things at each other.

[drykl]

[postquote quote=1362796]

Very wise and valid points.
I am not a lawyer, I only happen to have clients who seek my services when they unfortunately run into regulatory issues.
Less than 1% of the time we would try and persuade a Court to rule against the regulator (inevitably ends badly after millions of pounds, and years of fighting and tears).

99% of the time, my clients and I try our utmost to demonstrate full recognition of regulations because this gives best chance of success.

Personally, I do agree with ASK1945 and FDOS that BA should give a refund (based either on Terms & Conditions, or EU261 depending which is most applicable to specific circumstances),
If not, then CAA-approved Dispute Resolution, as suggested by FDOS, is the way forward.

There is one big ‘However’ which arises because we don’t know the exact circumstances surrounding:

what was specifically offered in the email notification of the change in flight
any discussion the OP has with BA at the time
how the cancellation was eventually carried out

I only ask these questions because BA Terms and Conditions say that for Schedule Changes, they are happy to offer re-booking +/- 2 days or full refund. My experience (confirmed by ASK1945) is that the email from BA usually give theses options.
I guess something must have gone wrong here.

1 user thanked author for this post.

ASK1945

[tonywells1961]

Many thanks to all – CEDR have ruled in my favour and BA have stumped up.

1 user thanked author for this post.

ASK1945

[Author]

Posts