PGberkshire

Your rights to compensation are not determined nor negated by your own criminal acts

Im a new user

I think that there is a fair possibility that the OP would get the ticket on the other airline refunded, but it's risky and the OP could lose. It would probably require going to court to get the money refunded. If several airlines offer flights on that route, it's maybe safer to book the cheapest of those.The OP is not starting from home. This is not really any different from those cases where the nearest airport is far from your home and you need to take a train to the airport. If the train ticket is non-refundable, your options are staying at home and buy a new train ticket, or going to the airport and stay at a hotel at the airport. In either case, I'd expect the airline to cover the cost (if you keep the cost down).True, but if the court discovers that the OP violated the law when going to MLE, then there is a possibility that this information would leak to the police which could mean additional costs for the OP.

Often1

Nobody has suggested that OP is starting from "home". He is simply starting a ticket. That is a decision made by the passenger.

Dave Noble

Which completely contractics your suggestion that BA is not liable for the hotel cost

The passenger is entitles to protections of article 8 and 9 but not for the EUR600 compenation under article 7

Article 9 states that the airline is required to provide hotel accommodation the additional nights as well as meal and refreshments

cauchy

What makes you think this? The goalposts have moved on article 7 - see https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...315522&from=EN.

Dave Noble

This is nothing to do with article 7
Article 9 is the one that relates to provision of hotel, meals, refreshments etc

I would not think that the passenger would be in a strong position to claim EUR600 compensation under article 7 and even said so in my post
Is there any judgement that has suggested that article 9 is now restricted in some way?

Im a new user

The passenger is entitled to accommodation and food. There is nothing in the regulation suggesting that this won't apply if the problems happen before the first flight.

600 euros (or the pound equivalent) does not apply because the OP was notified more than 14 days in advance.

cauchy

My post was badly worded, sorry. That judgement is about Article 7 - it involves a claim against TAP where a flight had to be cancelled because a violent passenger bit another passenger and assaulted the cabin crew (!) TAP rebooked the passenger on its own service the next day, but this was held to be not good enough, so the "exceptional circumstances" didn't apply.

The show-stopper for the OP on Article 7 is the cancellation is more than 14 days out (as pointed out above).

Dave Noble

Yes - that would be correct
That however does not remove BA's obligation to pay for hotel, meals et al. since these are not part of article 7

KeaneJohn

This is true but it doesn’t mean BA should pay for the OPs choice of hotel should he not wish to move nor wish to stay at a cheap hotel closer to the airport as it seems to be beneath him.

Dave Noble

Well.,.. I see 2 ways of looking at it

BA is responsible for providing accommodation ( not reluctantly reimbursing after saying to to providing it ) - if it refuses to make the booking then it does not seem at all unreasonable that the person claim for a hotel that they are already booked at - why should the passenger be second guessing what the airline wants to pay. It would be easy to prove that it wasn't just a case of find most expensive hotel and stay there - just extending existing stay

If it doesn't want this, then the airline could , I don't know, meet its obligations up front

Can it reasonably complain that someone stayed at the same hotel that they were already at after the airline refused to make a booking itself?

KeaneJohn

Depends on the costs. There seem to be perfectly decent hotels in the £100-£200 range close to the airport. It could be argued that the persons seaplane transfer was booked for the end of his stay as he would have had to get to the airport for the original departure.

As has been pointed out.upthread BA could place the OP in a £75 1 star local hotel and would have satisfied its legal obligation.

We.don’t know what the price difference is but I’d suggest if the rate is £600 per night it’s not ‘reasonable’ to remain there when a perfectly adequate £150 night hotel is available at the airport . That would be for CEDR or MCOL to decide in the event CS refuted the claim.

moondog

options:
1. buy new tickets with cash on your desired date...seek reimbursement
2. accept the flight 3 days later, and send BA screenshots of reasonably priced hotels in Male, explaining that you only seek reimbursement for this

Confus

If a customer is on a BA Holiday then it could indeed be considered reasonable to stay in the same hotel. But in that case, the BA Hols Duty desk would be making arrangements behind the scenes anyway. But otherwise, it really depends what is reasonable. And this ultimately might have to be tested by a court. Would a €2500 a night suite at the Ritz be reasonable when there’s plenty of other hotels in Paris? Almost certainly not. But would a Sofitel be acceptable over a Formule1? Probably. The problem is that it’s so subjective. Ultimately the OP needs to consider whether he’d be ok paying from his own money. If not, then it’s not fair to ask BA to pay the same.

Im a new user

I see hotels on Booking.com for less than £150 for the whole stay from the 11th to the 14th within 5 km from the airport. If the OP's hotel costs hundreds of pounds per night, then I suspect that the OP will have to look for something cheaper.