Originally Posted by
njf63
If the police officers on the spot were sufficiently unmoved to take action, then your legal options are pretty limited...
Disagree - that doesn't have any bearing. They are not there to enforce contracts.
Agree that it will be hassle though. However getting police names / references to cite as parties who witnessed elements of it does help things.
On the visa side of things, the EZ people you spoke with were probably (I'm sorry to say, and in the specific context of your interaction) in the right. After all, there are swingeing fines for carriers which allow boarding to international pax without proper documentation and staff are under strict instructions to follow the rules and tbh quoting Spanish law at UK check-in staff is almost the definition of wasted breath
Disagree categorically with this.
Airlines might like to treat TIMATIC as if it is a bible with the definitive word. But it isn't. It does have mistakes and omissions.
Also not that many staff know how to consult it properly, many think that any 'NO' means 'NO'. In reality, a 'no' only means a 'no' in that context, if you have a 'yes' in another different context that is fine.
I've had members of staff of another airline removed from front line duty and subject to disciplinary for refusing to consult further when the passenger said the simple answer they looked up in an old printed copy of TIMATIC was wrong.
Also, I suspect an EC261 claim for IDB will go nowhere as EZ will likely start and end with "Mr alexg32 could not demonstrate at time of check-in that he satisfied the visa criteria for the country he wished to travel to and he was therefore denied boarding..." (sorry if you're a Ms alexg32 btw - no way of telling !)
Again, I think that is a non-starter for them. Given the prevailing legislation.
Whatever you do, please come back and let us know the outcome !