[MartynSinclair]

Last week a couple of colleagues were going to Scandinavia. They live in Milton Keynes and were flying from Luton. They ordered a ‘high end’ limo to Luton airport for a flight on loco 1, direct to their destination.

The limo had a breakdown on the M1.

This caused my colleagues to miss their flight, loco 1, offered no re booking due to the circumstances and in the end, the best option was to buy a ticket from loco 2 from a different airport on a different day. They then went to second airport and had to stay in a hotel overnight.

The bigger sting in the tail was the limo firm didn’t refund fare from MK to Luton.

I believe this is not covered by travel insurance policies.

Do my colleagues have any come back on the limo company?

[FDOS_UK]

I don’t know, Martyn, you’d need a lawyer to advise on that.

Did they pay by credit card and can they try a chargeback with the CC firm, on the basis that the service was not delivered as described?

Are they absolutely sure that the travel insurance policy does not cover them? It may not, but I’d have thought a very close reading would be in order, to ascertain if (a) it covers public transport failure and (c) whether a limo is considered public transport.

[capetonianm]

I am reasonably sure that most travel insurance policies cover delay or accident to public transport (any licensed operator should count) en route to the airport. I know mine does, and I can dig it out and find the exact wording if it helps. I claimed on it once when I missed a longhaul departure from ZRH when the tram I was on to Hauptbahnhof to catch the airport train was delayed due to an accident early on a Sunday morning. I managed to get a taxi but still missed the flight. My insurance paid the cost of the abortive taxi ride, and the cost of rebooking for the flight, which wasn’t a lot of money but the principle stands.

I can understand that the airline offered no concession, but that the limo company offered not even a refund is appalling. Please name and shame. I would have thought that their insurance would cover them in the event of a claim after a breakdown or accident.

I would issue a letter before action, quantifying costs incurred, and the go to County Court. Alternatively we appear to have at least one resident lawyer on this forum, one of them may be able to offer some advice.

[canucklad]

Good sunny Friday morning to you Martyn

And first things first, name and shame the limo company. The limo company inability to deliver them in a timely fashion created the original issue.
Those colleagues that tweet, get them twittering away!

You’d be amazed how quickly their attitude will change.

After all, why should an insurance company, and by extension all of us, pay for sub standard service.

I’d also consider naming and shaming loco1 for being so inflexible that your colleagues had to re-book via another company. At the very least harass loco1 to refund the taxes paid!

[MartynSinclair]

I am pretty sure that mini cabs / limo’s are not considered public transport. We had this discussion some time ago when the M25 was blocked by protesters and people were missing flights. I recall that most Heathrow airlines did allow re booking in these circumstances. However, loco’s generally take the view, you missed the flight, speak to your insurance company. Consequential losses are not covered by travel policies.

[capetonianm]

I haven’t gone through the small print on my policy but this is the wording :

Missed departure Cover for alternative transport costs if you miss your outbound departure if, after leaving home, your car becomes un-driveable due to a mechanical breakdown or your public transport is delayed causing you to miss your departure from the United Kingdom. £800

If they cover ‘your car’ for breakdown I cannot see that they wouldn’t cover a taxi/limo/Uber for the same circumstance. Interestingly in this case as my departure wasn’t from the United Kingdom, it was from Switzerland, but they still covered it.

[FDOS_UK]

I am pretty sure that mini cabs / limo’s are not considered public transport

It varies from policy to policy, but decent policies usually class a licensed carrier as ‘public transport’, per capetonianm’s earlier comment.

Amex Bronze, for instance defines public transport as:

Any transport by road, rail, sea or air with a licensed carrier operating a regular and/or charter passenger
service on which you are booked to travel.

Someone needs to read the travel insurance policy carefully.

[MartynSinclair]

Just been told the reason why the insurance wont cover the delay (although a claim has gone in), is that the “top of the range Mercedes”, did not come with a spare tyre, only a repair kit which didn’t work. Apparently for the peril to be covered, the car must have had a spare tyre.

With regards to the taxi firm, I need to amend. When the puncture occurred, my colleagues tried to arrange a replacement car. The original driver, did not want paying, but my colleagues offered him something. The second car clearly needed paying.

The final part of this situation, when they arrived at Luton, they knew it was touch and go, even though they had phoned through. They got to the desk check and the flight was confirmed as open… just…but before their bags could be accepted the computer automatically closed the flight..

[FDOS_UK]

Just been told the reason why the insurance wont cover the delay (although a claim has gone in), is that the “top of the range Mercedes”, did not come with a spare tyre, only a repair kit which didn’t work. Apparently for the peril to be covered, the car must have had a spare tyre.

Your friends need legal advice on this – it seems onerous to me, what else would they need to know about the specification of the car, before booking it, for cover to be valid?

My Volvo is specified without a spare tyre and was supplied with a pump/sealant kit, no doubt the Merc was, too.

I have to admit that I spent £70 on an emergency tyre as one of the first actions after purchase (as the sealant kits do not fix all punctures in my experience), but nonetheless, I cannot see how an insurance company could reasonably expect a customer to get into the specifications of a vehicle on booking it.

[LuganoPirate]

The original limo co should have arranged an immeditae replacement car and your friend should not have had to pay. If they tried to arrange an alternative company then it’s down to them and the insurance, which should pay out. I don’t know of any car that now has a spare wheel. They all seem to have these aerosols which is fine if it’s just a puncture but useless in the case of sidewall damage or if the puncture is too big.

I know the distances may be different, but recently on my taxi ride to MXP, about 25 minutes out of Lugano, the electrics failed (on a new car) and within half an hour a replacement car was with me. Baggage transfer and two minutes later we were off and I made the flight with plenty of time to spare.

I don’t wish to sound like a know it all, but I always allow an extra hour to get to the airport, just in case!

[capetonianm]

Martyn : You originally referred to a ‘breakdown’ and surely a damaged/flat tyre falls under that description, so it sounds as if the insurers are nitpicking in an attempt to avoid payment, sadly this is what many insurers do.

As FDOS says, would the insurers need proof of full service history and the driver’s medical records perhaps? How far does this go?

[canucklad]

Morning Martyn

2The final part of this situation, when they arrived at Luton, they knew it was touch and go, even though they had phoned through. They got to the desk check and the flight was confirmed as open… just…but before their bags could be accepted the computer automatically closed the flight..”

Your above comment about what happened at the airport really agitated me. Not sure who the airline in question is, but it’s Luton, so I’ll guesstamate. It galls me that your colleagues are recognised by a willing human, and then a computer takes over the transaction and it results in a less than satisfactory conclusion. Little Britain would be proud.

What’s even more unacceptable, and correct me if I’m wrong, if it is the airline I’m talking about, it’s the same airline that managed a 30 minute check-in window, but increased it to 40 minutes. So surely customer service and common sense should have a prevailed on the part of the check-in staff.

Just another example of how the relationship between consumers and corporations have become skewed in favour of the people who we pay…..The airline and it’s staff should bow their head in shame.

I’m also going to sound controversial here, but why should an insurance company be liable for the failing of another business. As I said earlier, it just increases my premiums.

[SimonS1]

The bit about the airline is irritating but I would absolve them from responsibility. The way locos sustain on time performance is by enforcing cut off times. In this case it was touch and go but far too tight.

The bit with the insurer is really sharp practice though, especially if lack of spare tyre is the manufacturers spec. Of course the reality is insurers are like airlines, they will do anything to weasel out of claims. I would suggest a complaint to the ombudsman. The MoS also like getting their teeth into things like this.

[MartynSinclair]

One of the problems with insurance are claims for “consequential losses”, which are very difficult to cover. I remember a discussion some time ago whether claims for lost flights could be made against a car drivers who are involved in accidents that cause the approach roads to the airports being blocked, thereby causing passengers to lose the value of an airticket as they arrived too late. The answer was a NO…

Could the man (or organization) who caused the M25 to shut when he protested on one of the overhead gantries, have a claim made against him for the value of missed flights. Again, passengers are at the mercy of the airlines whether they will allow missed flights on non refundable tickets to be altered. This peril is not covered by travel insurance.

Yesterday (Saturday) all flights across the Atlantic were delayed, due to…..(and this is a very new one on me) Canadian ATC suffering a flood!!! My flight from Dublin along with many others were delayed. Yes I managed a connection, but only after a long dash at PHL, with around 30 minutes before flights. For those passengers that didn’t make the connection, they will get a new flight, but if there were any consequential losses, such as a loss of a hotel / car hire etc, travel insurance may not meet a claim.

I think firms responsible for the loss, should have to meet all costs incurred – but isn’t this how corporate USA works, everyone just sues everyone else for the losses to be covered….

I remember the discussion a few years back about whether a claim coul dbe made the insurance company of a car driver who has a crash, casuing the morotway to be sut, causing passegners to miss flights

[Author]

Posts