Dave_C

What? Quite a bizarre assertion. That would imply that every single MCOL action taken by numerous people would be invalid?

I've taken BA to court (a number of years ago) and they settled for the full amount before it got there. I personally know other people that have also done MCOL.

Ultimately the OP didn't get what he paid for. A refund would be quite reasonable and I doubt that any small claims court judge would say they don't have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

TabTraveller

Without getting too technical, the Convention applies during international air transit being from embarkation until disembarkation. The way this is illustrated is that if you were to fall down a defective escalator on your way to the check in desk then you would be able to sue the airline under domestic law. If you fell down another escalator during the boarding process then your claim would be limited by the Convention.

Clearly the Convention does not preclude claims being brought against air carriers for damages not arising during the temporal period covered by the Convention. EC261 rights also exist in addition to the rights and limitations imposed by the Convention.

There are very clear public policy reasons why there should be a broadly uniform approach globally to international air carriage. The general exclusion of domestic law is of course necessary to ensure that airlines are able to operate to the US, for instance, without suffering the very real risk of being sued under different laws in every state for breaches of contract or in tort.

TabTraveller

See my post above.

When you took BA to court was it specifically in relation to damages that arose from the period between embarkation and disembarkation?

The fact that BA may have settled a claim, rather than going to the expense of defending it, is not an indication that you were right in law. It just means that a commercial decision was taken that it was cheaper to settle than to defend.

hearingdouble

As a (non-armchair) lawyer, this is not correct. You can enter into an English law contract to perform/provide services anywhere.

What we have here is an arguable breach of English law contract. A contract was entered into following BA representing that a flat bed would be provided. By failing to provide a flat bed, BA did not hold up their end of the bargain. It seems clear to me that this is far more of a consumer contract law question than an aviation law question; MCOL does seem to me the more appropriate venue than CEDR.

That said, I would like to echo what NWIFlyer said below before rushing into anything:

frenzie01

Of course "reasonable" means different to everyone.
The Op wanted a full refund which made me smile.
If it was me I would want a full refund and free flights for life.
But then I would come to my senses and accept the free flight upgrade.

For one reason or another, the Op flew BA this time. If he has a free upgrade in his bag, I guarantee you he will fly again. At a bargain price. And the seat would work that time.
And he would've been happy.

TabTraveller

As a fellow (non-armchair) lawyer, I'd really encourage you to read the precedents around the Convention. There undoubtedly is a breach of contract, but any such claim is specifically precluded by the Convention. A good recent summary of the relevant cases can be found in Chaing v Air Canada which I linked to earlier.

expert7700

This thread makes it clear that if I want compensation or credit card refund, I would highly consider insisting on being reseated in a lesser cabin for the remainder of flight.

If 'their seat was so broken I needed to spend the rest of my flight in economy for safety reasons, then an airline could no longer argue that looking at your amenity kit while everyone around you lied flat and slept means you aren't owed a refund.

this seems in line with credit card disputes against a hotel. They won't intervene or refund much if you complain how horrible a room was if you ended up staying the whole night If you walk out, sleep in your car or another hotel, they are 100x more likely to refund.

subject2load

The £50 initial offer was of course nothing less than insulting - another example, as you say, of the typical stance taken by BA. Sometimes these derisory offers are subsequently increased (as in this case), but very often they are not.

As for the mindset behind it all : I see an exact parallel with the recent £5 voucher given to those denied lounge access at ABZ during the refurb period. The two scenarios are, in some ways, quite different ; but a distinct similarity exists in the fact that BA's starting point is not what we can do to make the customer feel better towards us ; but how can we minimise any costs, based entirely on our legal obligations rather than any serious attempt at meaningful service recovery.

I see nothing in the airline's ongoing reaction to these incidents to dissuade me from the view that the culture within BA's customer relations is fundamentally rotten.

fiona

These ever increasing posts are worrying.
In the end - what is the first thing that anyone thinks of with a CW seat?
£50 compensation for a non reclining seat in CW , where even economy has a seat that reclines?
BA should have been sorting or compensating this properly without a carry on. There shouldn't be a debate or trying to wangle out of it on some legal term. It's just wrong and they know it. We shouldn't have to accept that it's a lottery that you get what you paid for.
The bad publicity will catch up eventually. Well lets hope so.
To be fair to everyone they need to put on their website

• a spacious seat which converts into a fully flat bed*

* if you're lucky. Please note we will award you a generous £50 if it doesn't.

simons1

Not half as happy as he will be when he cleans up at MCOL

jlsw7

The claim would be heard by a District Judge. He or she will be a former solicitor or barrister of many years' experience. The basic salary of a District Judge is £107,100 pa. So, if he or she really scrimps, he or she might be able to muster £59 to reach the extraordinary luxury of CE.

Prospero

A side discussion consisting of three posts has been removed. The OP has been very kind to provide details surrounding his/her complaint so the side discussion came across as an unwarranted distraction.

Prospero
Moderator: BA forum

frenzie01

Or he will be just as happy with MCOL as with CEDR?

Time will tell, but I have a feeling....

Andriyko

The contract is for transportation, not a night in a CW seat. A refund can be spoken of when no transportation was provided. A broken seat or a seat that does not turn into a bed warrants some compensation but not a full refund. What is 'reasonable' depends upon who's asking. Clearly people have different views on that. Some suggested in other threads asking for a refund when no meals were provided in CE. In this case, I'd be happy with a confirmed upgrade on my next flight. But I don't see how any judge will disagree that a substantial portion of the contract was fulfilled when BA transported the OP from A to B. Seeking a lower amount of compensation may bring better results.

NWIFlyer

I think it's worth mentioning that the MCOL process has an arbitration option which can kick in at the point a defence is made assuming both parties agree. If the OP claims something sensible, in the knowledge that BA was previously prepared to offer £300, I'd think there's a good prospect of reaching an agreement before this ever reaches court. I doubt BA will be terribly keen to use their legal department's time travelling to court to defend a few hundred quid difference in expectation, so I'd expect commercial reality to bite once the MCOL proceedings start.