Originally Posted by
Carlusa
yes I would agree if someone was making repeated false claims that they knew they were not entitled to, though that’s hard when BA gives false information and keeps the true reasons a secret unless taken to court and forced to reveal it
but now we have a large corporation repeatedly and willingly breaking the law because they know they will usually get away with it and know if they later get caught out lying there’s no penalty for it
honestly shocked to read someone try to defend BA’s behavior and argue that it seems fair and a big company shouldn’t be penalised for anything unless customers get penalised too, what a truly odd response
BA's opinion on whether a delay falls in to the exceptional circumstances exclusion may differ from your opinion and even case law, but it doesn't make what they say a lie or what you say the truth. BA are entitled to argue their corner at the end of the day, just as you are entitled to argue yours.
There are cases mentioned in the thread and elsewhere in the board which have been taken to CEDR and which I think can be argued both ways - in fact in some case I suspect I could have a decent go at arguing no compensation is due. BA may choose to settle before decision, but that isn't an admission that the claimant is correct.
I will say I don't discourage anyone from taking a case to CEDR if they feel they are due compensation. But this whole matter is not black and white as some are making out.
EDIT: and just to add, regardless of who wins, it is the defendant that bears the cost. As a claimant that is very generous for me and allows me to make claims with very little risk on my part. Personally I think that is a very good deal for passengers.