Denied boarding and Premium Economy down grading – compensation if flying to EU

[Julian P]

It seems that even the UK's Civil Aviation Authority are confused about the Law.

I have just been sent some $ by the airline without comment, presumably for the downgrading of the Singapore-Sydney leg of the London-Sydney trip but this email below from the CAA says that they cannot help on that leg as the law does not apply to it.

AUC - AUC - Civil Aviation Authority email of 06 January 2010:

Dear Mr P,

Thank you for your correspondence about you complaint with Virgin Atlantic.
I have written to the airline asking them to reply to your correspondence. However, as a UK body, our services are available primarily to UK residents in respect of complaints about flights contracted in the UK. The main exception to this criteria is for complaints that fall within the scope of Regulation EC261/2004 on compensation and assistance in the event of denied boarding, cancellation and delay. We would therefore only be able to assist you for the denied boarding on the flight London to Sydney. As the downgrade on Singapore Airlines between Singapore to Sydney does not fall within the scope of Regulation EC261/2004 we would not be able to pursue this part of your complaint.
Yours sincerely


Paola Accardo
Consumer Affairs Officer
AUC - Civil Aviation Authority

 

[serfty]

I suspect they are trying to wash their hands of the issue, or are simply uninformed.

You could reply, pointing out that compensation is payable in relation to:

1. the originally booked and confirmed journey, and
2. the ‘final destination’ being the destination ... of the last flight [of the journey undertaken];

Both of which should bring compensation for the ex SIN leg under the umbrella of the regulation.

 

[oz_mark]

I suspect they are trying to wash their hands of the issue, or are simply uninformed.

You could reply, pointing out that compensation is payable in relation to:

1. the originally booked and confirmed journey, and
2. the ‘final destination’ being the destination ... of the last flight [of the journey undertaken];

Both of which should bring compensation for the ex SIN leg under the umbrella of the regulation.

All of which is a Virgin Atlantic issue. The operating carrier for SIN-SYD was SQ (seems like a re-routing occured as well as Virgin Atlantic I thought went via HKG, and the OP must have agreed to this rerouting?) they were likely flying them on the class that was ticketed (at least from the SQ perspective).

It seems compensation for that downgrade has already been paid anyway.

 

[serfty]

All of which is a Virgin Atlantic issue. ... It seems compensation for that downgrade has already been paid anyway.

I agree with this. IMHO, there would be very little cost/benefit in persuing this further.

 

[anat0l]

IIRC there are VS codeshares on some SQ flights.

Of course, there is no Y+ on SQ. I'm assuming that the carrier from LHR to SIN was also SQ (seems sensible for VS to try this).

Now I am confused because I am trying to see how much the OP has been paid and for what appropriate directives under the relevant EU laws.

 

[oz_mark]

IIRC there are VS codeshares on some SQ flights.

Of course, there is no Y+ on SQ. I'm assuming that the carrier from LHR to SIN was also SQ (seems sensible for VS to try this).

From what I could work out it was QF (or maybe BA) LHR->SIN and SQ SIN->SYD.
Originally booked on Virgin Atlantic (I guess via HKG)

 

[Julian P]

More confusing correspondence from the UK Civil Aviation Authority's Air Users Council:

06 January 2010

Our Ref: 142-939

Mr P


Dear Mr P

RE: Virgin Atlantic
Thank you for your correspondence about you complaint with Virgin Atlantic.
I have written to the airline asking them to reply to your correspondence. However, as a UK body, our services are available primarily to UK residents in respect of complaints about flights contracted in the UK. The main exception to this criteria is for complaints that fall within the scope of Regulation EC261/2004 on compensation and assistance in the event of denied boarding, cancellation and delay. We would therefore only be able to assist you for the denied boarding on the flight London to Sydney. As the downgrade on Singapore Airlines between Singapore to Sydney does not fall within the scope of Regulation EC261/2004 we would not be able to pursue this part of your complaint.

Yours sincerely


Paola Accardo
Consumer Affairs Officer
Please note that all e-mail messages sent to the Civil Aviation Authority are subject to monitoring / interception for lawful business

And my reply:

Paola,

Thank you for your email - I hope to hear from Virgin Atlantic properly soon.

Also thank you for confirming that you can deal with this - the regulation is pretty clear that a flight originating at Heathrow is for you to deal with "Each Member State shall designate a body responsible for the enforcement of this Regulation as regards flights from airports situated on its territory and flights from a third country to such airports." - it does not specify UK residents or otherwise.

I am concerned that you seem to have mis-read the law regarding the fact that my journey to Sydney was made up of two flights (which it has to be as it is not possible to make the journey in one).

The regulation clearly states "(h) ‘final destination’ means the destination on the ticket presented at the check-in counter or, in the case of directly connecting flights, the destination of the last flight;" so the flight from Singapore to Sydney is clearly covered by the regulations - the booking being from London to Sydney.

Virgin Atlantic also seem to disagree with you on the law as they have just made a partial refund to my account but the amount paid has no resemblance to the amount stated in the regulations.

Could you confirm if you agree with this? I am having trouble getting definitive agreements on what Virgin Atlantic owe me, the regulation simply states "75 % of the price of the ticket"
--

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Could you confirm if you agree with this? I am having trouble getting definitive agreements on what Virgin Atlantic owe me, the regulation simply states "75 % of the price of the ticket"
--[/quote]

Apologies if this has already been said - but i saw another thread here where serfty had posted compensation rates for downgrades. Looking at that table it showed $500 or whatever it was for flights downgraded from PE to Y between asia and australia.

At the time I saw that thread I calculated 75% of that and it came to the exact compensation offered to the OP - around $375.

So I thought 'ah - that's where they got the compensation amount from'. I then looked for this thread but couldn't find it again.

 

[mannej]

Could you confirm if you agree with this? I am having trouble getting definitive agreements on what Virgin Atlantic owe me, the regulation simply states "75 % of the price of the ticket"
--

Apologies if this has already been said - but i saw another thread here where serfty had posted compensation rates for downgrades. Looking at that table it showed $500 or whatever it was for flights downgraded from PE to Y between asia and australia.

At the time I saw that thread I calculated 75% of that and it came to the exact compensation offered to the OP - around $375.

So I thought 'ah - that's where they got the compensation amount from'. I then looked for this thread but couldn't find it again.[/QUOTE]
I think that list you are referring to deals with two different carriers.

 

[Mal]

Apologies if this has already been said - but i saw another thread here where serfty had posted compensation rates for downgrades. Looking at that table it showed $500 or whatever it was for flights downgraded from PE to Y between asia and australia.

Probably what you are looking for: Involuntary Downgrade Policy

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Probably what you are looking for: Involuntary Downgrade Policy

Thanks - that was it - although I think the link i saw earlier had a lower level of $500 rather than $550. (Based on $500 that could have been one explanation for arriving at $375 - ie .75x500)

That might explain how the compensation level was arrived at - but whether or not that was the correct application on the rule is still to be determined.

I reckon it should be more like 75% of the point-to-point fare - not 75% of the invol downgrade amount.

 

[Julian P]

Still no reply from either Virgin Atlantic or AUC - Civil Aviation Authority.

See above, Virgin did refund AUD $331 on 28 December so there is a [silent] admission that some money is owed for downgrading but they have yet to explain themselves.

 

[Julian P]

Email today to Virgin Atlantic as still no reply, County Court action will be in UK and can be issued online easily:

Dear Sirs,

Letter before County Court Action - 14 days notice

Whilst the email below was acknowledged automatically on 16 December, I have not received a reply.

I have received a refund of £183 on 29 December 2009 direct to my account:
29 Dec 2009 DEBIT CARD REFUND VIR ATL REFUND DEPT GBR GBP 183.00

However, the downgrading law is clear as below - 75% of the ticket price must be refunded for downgrading and no conditions are attached to this refund as you have weakly claimed.

Therefore, please pay the remainder within the next 14 days or I will start County Court action without further notice, claim to include costs and interest.

 

[Dave Noble]

If they dispute your claim, are you happy to travel to the court in UK for it?

Dave

 

[anat0l]

If they dispute your claim, are you happy to travel to the court in UK for it?

Dave

Seems like it.

If he wins, will they pay for his airfare to the UK in order to fight this in person? After all, it is a cost to him in the process (or a punitive claim).

There's an irony in that last paragraph that's so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Of course, I have no idea what the system is over there (related to which court would you undertake this action, and the maximum penalty (monetary) that can be handed down by that court).

 

[QF WP]

Of course, I have no idea what the system is over there (related to which court would you undertake this action, and the maximum penalty (monetary) that can be handed down by that court).

You'd think that Dave Noble might know, being he's from Eggland. I would expect that it could be "ex parte"

 

[Dave Noble]

Seems like it.

If he wins, will they pay for his airfare to the UK in order to fight this in person? After all, it is a cost to him in the process (or a punitive claim).

There's an irony in that last paragraph that's so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Of course, I have no idea what the system is over there (related to which court would you undertake this action, and the maximum penalty (monetary) that can be handed down by that court).

There is no such thing as a punitive claim

If claiming through the small claims track of the county court system, the claimant details what they believe the other party owes them . The defendant hsd the following options

(a) accept that the claim is valid and agree to pay .
(b) dispute the claim in part and respond on how much they believe that they owe and agree to pay. The plaintif then has to decide whether to accept this or not.
(c) dispute the claim entirely
(d) not respond at all

If (a) occurs then easy; just collect the money
If (d) occurs then easy, can ask court for a default judgement and collect the money
If (b) occurs and happy with their offer again easy

If the defendant denies all ( or part and not accepted ) then the case will be moved to the local county court of the defendant and a date scheduled. The case is almost always heard in chambers and is fairly informal; no need (or ability to claim for ) a solicitor/barrister. The plaintif will then need to attend and explain why he believes that the money is owed and the defendant can respond on why he doesnt agree. The judge will then decide on what he believes is owed if he sides with the plaintif and issue a judgement or the plaintif will lose

If the plaintif is unable to attend ( e.g. if travel costs are too high in relation to what is being claimed) , then it can proceed without the plaintif attending but the odds on winning are very much stacked against them since the defendant can respond to the claim quite easily and the claimant cannot very easily respond back

It can sometimes be decided on the paperwork only, but not come across that being done

As far as claiming interest as threatened by the poster, that cannot be claimed

It is not like an american movie; there is no jury or silly punitive damages or penalties etc; just a claim on what is believed to be owed which may get paid. Reasonable expenses can be requested if the case is won, but a claim for a flight from AU I think would be laughed at; could easily end up possibly winning the case but being financially worse off if flew over for it

 

[MelUser]

Isn't the answer in this sorry saga simply to accept one's losses and move on and never ever fly with this airline again - it is not as though there is no choice on the route that was flown.

 

[Julian P]

I will await Virgin's response of course though the Court will take a dim view if they fail to reply at all - the aim is to avoid litigation.

Lucky for me, but not for Virgin Atlantic, I have appeared in UK Courts at least 100 times.

Actions like this are always worth pursuing - companies should not be allowed to just blank a complainant who is owed money under the law. This would qualify was a 'small claim' with very limited costs potential for either side - but it will cost Virgin potentially thousands to defend taking into account all the paperwork from different staff and hearing(s).

But lets not get side tracked by litigation here - the point is that I chose to fly in Virgin's Premium Economy using my own money. The bumping and downgrading is unfortunate but the lack of response and having to chase a refund afterwards shows that Virgin are treating this premium customer very badly - their customer service is not as good as their hype and the fact that I have to even contemplate Court is a disgrace.

 

[Dave Noble]

Actions like this are always worth pursuing - companies should not be allowed to just blank a complainant who is owed money under the law. This would qualify was a 'small claim' with very limited costs potential for either side - but it will cost Virgin potentially thousands to defend taking into account all the paperwork from different staff and hearing(s).

One hearing with one person attending is hardly going to cost Virgin a great deal , plus if you are not in the UK to actually put your arguments, then the representative will have an extremely easy time defending it

But lets not get side tracked by litigation here - the point is that I chose to fly in Virgin's Premium Economy using my own money. The bumping and downgrading is unfortunate but the lack of response and having to chase a refund afterwards shows that Virgin are treating this premium customer very badly - their customer service is not as good as their hype and the fact that I have to even contemplate Court is a disgrace.

That you don't like their replies does not mean that their customer service is necessarily bad. they seem to disagree with your interpretation of what you claim you are entitled

Dave