ThatT1Feeling

My most recent experience was through MCOL which was quick easy and painless. One has to pay £35 to file which I guess is at risk - but it’s not daunting at all and all online.

corporate-wage-slave

There are some comments about this in the main thread for EC261 but in essence
- CEDR is free to use, reasonably consumer friendly in terms of dialogue, not quick, and outcomes are very strictly, too strictly precedent based. They are paid by BA so it's not truly independent. Some of their staff appear poorly trained in broader consumer rights. CEDR is able to cope with Avios better than MCOL. It's just less scary than MCOL.
- MCOL has costs, first to register the claim and then to force a court hearing, £100 isn't unusual. It's more difficult to access and to do your claim justice it requires some research and homework. However once in the system the judicial system, it's processed efficiently, and it recognises the bias that is explicitly in EC261's wording, which says that the Regulation is intended to give a high level of consumer protection. CEDR seems to take little interest in this

Krisz

both could take long time. CEDR is free to the customer whilst MCOL you need to pay a fee. CEDR decision is mandatory for the airline so if they say they have to pay than they have to pay. CEDR can award non monetary resolutions whilst MCOL cannot. MCOL could go appeal if the airline wishes to.
simple cases as such above can go to CEDR as not much to argue. More complicated cases especially if your argument based on legal precedent or legal argument then MCOL is clearer as a judge can see your argument legally fine or not. Cases such as ticket validity, eu rebooking to other airline cases, etc most likely better with MCOL.
above is just a very generic overview.

barneyb

I had a cancelled flight (AMS-LHR) the other day, cancelled at 3 days notice. Only rebooking option was a flight departing 2.5h earlier. I believe this is eligible for compensation as <7D notice and no options within -1hr and +2hr. Question is would the reduced €125 apply as I had no delay in arrival (despite lossing a good chunk of my trip with the earlier flight).

corporate-wage-slave

They may well pay the 125€ relatively quickly and that will be their application of the relevant wording. There is a debate upthread as to whether that is correct and CJEU has made some udgements which would restrict the 50% cut. But you won't get that easily, as things stand.

corporate-wage-slave

Those on board would have been given a clear reason for this, but if you can allocate 3 or more hours to technical issues and related factors under BA's control then that takes you over the threshold for a potential claim.

KARFA

Update - BA have replied and are paying up on two lots of compensation, one for each cancellation. They have said no to the hotel (£56) for Sunday night, and no to the train (£36) for Monday morning on the basis I had already agreed to drop the LHR-NCL flight when the first cancellation happened, so as far as they are concerned BA stop being on the hook for duty of care once I arrived at LHR. They have already done a part refund for the LHR-NCL sector for £91. So seems like a fair outcome overall.

orbitmic

So it went quickly this time - BA were told the binding ruling was for £350 and they have now confirmed that they have arranged for it to be paid. I don't know if it was my message that triggered this or if CEDR would have concluded that BA had not complied even if I had not said anything, but either way, I still find it incredible that BA are wasting all of our times, even after having been clearly found at fault in the original case.

corporate-wage-slave

It does again suggest it's best not to cancel out services before you get home to keep Right to Care alive, though of course you needed ARN-LHR to be reinstated. But yes, overall you can't really complain even if the details don't quite look right.

Tobias-UK

This is the correct result, once you accepted the change and dropped the LHR-NCL for refund, the airline's obligations for UK261 ended in respect to that sector and again once you arrived at LHR.

Tobias-UK

I appreciate this may be a tongue-in-cheek suggestion, but it would be foolish to issue a Statutory Demand that is defective because it does not meet the legal requirements. A Statutory Demand is a legal document with serious repercussions. Once it is issued a company will take the demand seriously and if it is defective they will make an application to the court to have the Statutory Demand set aside - that will incur significant legal costs and court fees.

crazyanglaisy

A lost bag/essential replacements question. I hope I am in the right place. My checked bag was lost last night in the bowels of T5, coming back from Europe. I am travelling to DOH shortly and need to get basic clothing replacements, amongst other items, for the next stage of my trip. I have little time, work to do, and do not fancy trekking off to Staines or Hounslow. Is it reasonable in these circumstances to buy replacement t-shirts, underwear etc. from Paul Smith, Gucci etc and expense these to BA? As far as I am aware there are only clothes shops in T4 that cater to millionnaires.

Frequentflyer99

It was only partially tongue in cheek ! For the record it is actually not possible to apply to set aside a Stat Demand served on a co: the correct course would be to seek an injunction restraining presentation of a petition. Any such application would inevitably be preceded by a letter from BA's legal advisers. The Stat Demand would then have served its purpose of getting someone to look at whether the money is owing or not. I am not for a moment suggesting that matters are taken beyond that point.

orbitmic

I certainly wouldn't go that route. Quite frankly, I think I had two potentially reasonable options.

The first would have been to forget it if I was being practical as I don't care about the £10. However, I did not wish to do it.

The second was the one I chose: since CEDR had to verify that the airline had complied with the binding decision it had made, I sent a message visible to both BA and CEDR which pointed out that in my view BA had not complied with the decision which was to pay £350 (and not £340), that there was no reason to use the EU compensation amount since this pertained to a flight ex-UK after Brexit, and that the airline should thus be asked to pay the amount requested by the adjudicator and not a different, lower amount.

I thought that to me that second option was the right "level" of reaction because it enabled me to make my point and not let BA get away with unilaterally "overruling" an independent arbitration body, and also because I have get exactly zero pleasure from procedures, find them a waste of time, energy, and anxiety for everyone involved so would always choose options that do not extend my being involved in them any more than is necessary. Invariably, any "third option" would have just entailed starting or risking a new procedure which I did not want to get involved in just to prove an abstract point so to me it was much better to react within the framework of the procedure I had already started.

As mentioned above, whether CEDR would have reached that conclusion without my message, or whether my message achieved what I wanted it to I will never know, but either way the instruction came for BA to pay the amount agreed by the adjudicator and have now confirmed that they would do so after "wasting a round of discussions" between all involved.

corporate-wage-slave

You do exactly what you would do if you knew 101% that BA would not pay a penny to your claim. So if you would still replace items via T4 then you would do that. If you are more likely to take the bus 10 minutes from T4 to Tesco Dukes Green then that would be more advisable. So the requirement is that it's essential and that your spending is reasonable and proportionate. If you would have spent the money anyway then if BA said it wasn't in scope then you wouldn't feel bad about it. There are plenty of malls in Doha would be your other option I guess. It's not actually EC261, it's covered by the Montréal / Warsaw conventions.