NickB

With due respect, I do not think that this is remotely open to debate: an operating carrier does not fully comply with all its obligations to inform passengers affected by an IDB/cancellation/delay by merely having a notice at check-in desks: the Reg does require the presence of such a notice (Art 14(1)) but it also clearly, explicitly and unambiguously imposes a distinct obligation (in Art 14(2)) to provide each and every affected passenger with a written notice of their rights under the Reg and of the contact details of the relevant NEB.

That said, I certainly agree that failure to inform does not per se give rise to compensation although there could conceivably be a potential action in damages if one could establish that the failure has resulted in damages. I struggle to see how this could arise, though.

corporate-wage-slave

With due respect, it obviously is open to debate since we are having it! Having said that, I absolutely think it would be good customer service if they did give out written paperwork. The airlines will doubtless argue that putting up a sign inviting people to collect their notifications fulfills their requirements. The exact wording is "shall provide" a written notification, not "will handover", and in some dusty cabinet is the provision. You (and I) may disagree with this position, but that's the measure of the debate.

The point I was actually trying to make (and perhaps failing in that) is that in this particular case it's not going to butter no parsnips.

Tony West

Then who is ultimately responsible for enforcing the EU regulations. Pretty pointless to have regulations if BA can just ignore them?

But lets examine a bit more, its raining out so I have time.
My claim is for a 22 Hour delay. This delay could have been avoided if BA had rerouted me therefore as I see it, that refusal to reroute me and their breaking of the regulations IS part of the claim and as I see it can only help my claim

And as a point, I asked a friend who is on his way back from Bangkok if there was any notification of rights at his check in as you mentioned and couldnt find anything.

Dave Noble

It makes no difference whether the airline refused to reroute or not; you entitlement is to EUR600 for the delay, nothing more, nothing less

There are 2 things to consider

(1) was the cause of delay one for which compensation would become due
(2) was delay long enough

It is purely a civil matter to claim the money due. Why try dragging it out and trying to make it any more complicated than it is?

Dave Noble

That was my understanding of the airline's interpretation of the regulation and unless a court rules that a personal copy has to be provided , that it is unlikely to do so

Tony West

Your view is rather simplistic and assumes I was only in this for the money . But I'm not.

OK my take is
(1) was the cause of delay one for which compensation would become due.
BA says no. I say yes, but I also state delay would not have happened if BA had applied the rules WRT Rerouting. The two points are inexorably linked in my opinion and I will let a judge decide if he thinks so if it goes that far.

(2) was delay long enough
Yes but see above.

My claim against BA is more for the entire principle of the thing than the money, the money means nothing.
Sometimes some people just have to stand up and say "No".
I'm retired and have the time.

And again I have to ask, who is responsible for policing the EU regulations.?

NickB

Well, it is a bit like saying that "whether the earth is flat or not" or "xhosa is the official language of Switzerland" is open to debate just because one person says: "the earth is flat" or "Xhosa is the official language of Switzerland".
Except that 14(1) already requires the notice on the desk and, therefore, 14(2) would make no sense if just putting a notice satisfied 14(2), not to mention that 14(2) speaks of "providing" and, not only that but also providing "each passenger."

Only in Alice in Wonderland and in a place where "xhosa is the official language of Switzerland" is a statement that is open to debate can one possibly entertain the notion that putting a notice on a check-in desk satisfied the information requirements of Art 14(2).

Maybe but that is no reason to write something which is plainly wrong. If somebody wrote: "you cannot get a seat in economy on BA on the LCY to JFK service via SNN because BA does not fly from LCY to JFK via SNN", it would be appropriate to point out that the statement that BA does not fly from LCY to JFK via SNN is wrong (and not just "open to debate" ) even if it is true that one cannot get a seat in economy on BA on LCY to JFK for other reasons.

Dave Noble

There is no principle - it is simply a claim for money owed

When you submit the claim , it will likely be responded to by BA that it accepts that EUR600 is due , ask for bank details and just pay up; probably will never need to go to court

I think you have a very incorrect view of the county court system

NickB

National enforcement bodies, viz. the CAA in the UK. However, the approach followed in the UK in relation to enforcement of Reg 261/2004 is that of a "lightweight" approach to enforcement, viz. do close to sweet FA except in cases of deliberate, repeated, egregious, open and defiant refusal to comply with the Reg. Thus, short of the airline explicitly putting its TandCs that they will not comply with the Reg and refusing to alter those TandCs after being called upon to do so, it is unlikely that the CAA will take sanctions against the airline.

Tony West

I understand the County Court system quite well, having challenged both BT and Ebay and won both my cases, then lead around the garden path by a DJ who simply didnt understand my point. Fortunately a CJ did.
I also understand that in court the lack of a simple few words can lose you the case if a case is judged by a DJ or CJ who has a total disinterest

The principle is that it would seem that BA will dismiss summarily, many many claims citing Exceptional Circumstances.
My claim for 22 hour delay is without doubt quite correct yet BA even though they know they are in the wrong still dismisses it using 3 different explanations and in one case an outright lie. I simply wont put up with being treated like that.

Maybe it wont go to court. But I'd rather be prepared and not need it, than need it and not be prepared.

corporate-wage-slave

Well I can certainly understand your anger, but (a) BA will by now see this as a purely transactional issue and (b) largely, the courts too. It's unlikely to produce a Lord Denning style verbal duffing up of BA.

In my experience, if you send in via MCOL, BA probably will pay up - that's just their track record. It costs them more to defend some cases than to just throw in the towel. The sooner you MCOL, the sooner you get your money.

From the facts as presented you seem to have a reasonable case. Your strongest argument, it seems to me, hasn't been deployed directly by you this far, namely BA's basic requirement to do everything they reasonably can to keep the delay to a minimum, and in the case of this flight, find another aircraft/crew to operate it, given that LHR is their home base. That's pretty much the core animus of the Regulation.

If BA think you may be bluffing they will file a defence, and then - if my understanding is correct - offer an out of court settlement. The latter seems to be more for downgrades (which BA seems to have a particular difficulty with), I don't think it will get that far if you go via MCOL.

corporate-wage-slave

It's plainly wrong in your mind, but that is just your opinion. I think it may help if you are willing to see other points of view from time to time - and indeed you can certainly dismiss them if you wish. I will just repeat - if it wasn't clear before - that on balance I actually agree with you. But in some airlines' minds "providing" to every passenger is different to "handing out". If the Regulation was intended to mean "handing out" it would have said so, perhaps? That's a potential reading, a nuance, a debate to be had. We both think the airlines are wrong - the whole context here is definitely not about assuming passengers' powers of clairvoyance. I think it is fair to point out the other side of the argument from time to time, I don't think it's fair to drag in less relevant equivalents such as the linguistic spread of Xhosa. And yes, that's just my opinion.

NickB

I entirely agree. There are plenty of grey areas in the Reg where things can be argued one way or the other. But there are also some things which are very clear and just because an airline may wish to put forward the opposing view (in their own interest) does not mean that the point is "open to debate". It seems to me equally appropriate, when an argument is, frankly, indefensible, to acknowledge that it is so.

OK. Let me ask you a question, cws: what would be your evaluation of the likelihood of the CJEU finding that Art 14(2) does not add any additional obligations on airlines to Art 14(1). You talk of a "potential reading", a "nuance". So is it 49% or perhaps 48% in your view?

It seems to me patent that the odds of this happening are completely negligible, somewhere in the region of 0.001%. Do you really believe that there is a reasonable chance that the CJEU would interpret it that way, even an outlying chance at, say, 5% or 10% (even if, on balance, you opt for the opposite)? If you do, then fine. We are clearly merely having a divergence of views.
If, OTOH, you consider that there is no reasonable chance of the CJEU reading the Reg this way, then it seems to me that it would be disingenuous to argue that the matter is "open to debate".

corporate-wage-slave

It's difficult to put a number on this, but logically I would tend towards the 5% area. If it really was 0.001% robustly then someone, somehow, somewhere would have got a referral to CJEU to make a ruling on it (e.g. a mass claims solicitor?). As far as I know that hasn't happened, therefore it's slightly weaker I feel. So indeed a divergence of views. And 5% is quite enough for the airlines' straw clutching teams, as we have seen elsewhere!

NickB

I agree that a 5% chance is an outside chance and enough for something to be at least marginally arguable.
Perhaps then you have a better knowledge and understanding of CJEU caselaw and/or of the Reg than me as I would have regarded it as virtually impossible to conceive of the CJEU deciding it in any other way than finding that Art 14(2) establishes a distinct obligation from Art 14(1).

I do not agree. The problem with the information obligations is that they do not lead themselves to enforcement by private parties: what exactly would you sue for if the airline has not informed you of your rights? You would have to establish a prejudice resulting from the failure to comply with its obligations under Art 14 and, as I stated above, that is where the problem lies: it is difficult to conceive of a situation where such a prejudice can be established.

I am therefore not surprised that there is no litigation on Art 14 of the Reg. and I do not think that anything can therefore be inferred from that absence of litigation. It really is a provision in the Reg that lends itself to public rather than private enforcement. Am I surprised that there isn't more effort at public enforcement? Not really either. I can see why regulators, even if they were minded to enforce the Reg robustly (which no NEB, afaik, does in the EU although some are more even laid back than others), would not exactly regard it as an enforcement priority. In short, there is no private enforcement because there is no cause of action for private litigation on this and there is no public enforcement because it is not significant enough for NEBs to devote resources on enforcement.

IMO, airlines are ignoring Art 14(2) not because they have been professionally advised and they genuinely and honestly believe that displaying a notice at check-in satisfies Art 14(2) but simply because there is no enforcement, whether public or private, of the provision at all and, until they are called upon to do so by the NEBs, they will keep on ignoring 14(2) pure and simple.