/ Travel & Leisure

Would you pay to complain to an ombudsman about your airline?

Paper money airplane

Flight delayed? Baggage lost? An airline regulator thinks it should cost you £25 to further your complaint about your airline under the alternative dispute resolution’s new complaints system.

Under this new system air passengers could be charged £25 to complain to one of the aviation ombudsmen about lost luggage and delays if their complaint is unsuccessful. It’s a bold move that could deter many travellers from furthering a complaint about their airline.

But more than that, this new complaints system by the aviation regulator sets in place a muddled process that seems likely to confuse passengers.

Complaining about an airline

Previously passenger complaints that weren’t resolved by airlines could be escalated to Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). However, any judgment made by the CAA was non-binding on airlines and some passengers would have to take civil cases to the courts.

Under these new complaints rules, airlines have been urged to sign up to CAA-approved alternative dispute resolution (ADR) bodies. These ADR bodies will arbitrate on cases and set compensation, without forcing passengers to take court action. The bodies will cover denied boarding, delays, flight cancellations, damage to bags, lost luggage and problems faced by disabled passengers.

The problem is, to date, 20 major airlines — accounting for more than two thirds of passengers who fly in and out of UK airports — have signed up to three different complaints bodies.

We now have a voluntary system with multiple complaints bodies which is hopelessly muddled and confusing for passengers.

Paying to complain

Can they really make us pay to complain?

Yes. One complaints body, the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) is now charging a £25 fee ‘if your complaint is 100% unsuccessful’.

While another, which is yet to get any airlines signed up, charges £10 that’s refunded to you if you win your case. And the two other bodies don’t currently charge a fee.

This unreasonable charge is placed on people who’ve already been delayed and may have had to pay out additional costs due to that delay. The concern is that this charge is likely to put people off making complaints, even when they have good cause to do so.

Improving complaints

This new complaints charge is part of wider system changes to complaints procedures in aviation that we don’t think is adequate enough to respond to complaints. That’s why we’re calling on the Government to step in and introduce legislation for a single ombudsman that’s mandatory for all airlines to join.

So, what do you think, is this an adequate solution to improve complaints procedures for passengers? Would you be happy to pay to complain?

Would you complain about an airline knowing you risk being charged a fee for the complaint?

Maybe - I'd be more cautious about making a complaint (43%, 1,786 Votes)

Yes - I'd still complain (30%, 1,279 Votes)

No - I wouldn't complain if I risked paying for it (20%, 837 Votes)

Not sure (7%, 293 Votes)

Total Voters: 4,195

Loading ... Loading ...
Comments

What is this nonsense in having to have every part of an organisation make money. Some parts of a company should never be expected to make money, it should be down to other parts of the business to reduce their overheads. Complaints being one such example.

Complaint is our voice and rights when we are not happy with a service and if the airlines start charging then everyone else will start to do the same for eg: Banks, Insurance Companies, Trains, Holidays, just about everyone else because it means more money for them (greed) and making harder for honest law abiding people. Whole society is now based on greed from corporates, goverments and the list goes on.
Read the bible.

To complain is free of charge. To dispute the response to the complaint is the issue here. For a small sum the complainant can get a binding decision without having to go to court. If the claim is upheld the fee is returned. No human rights have been harmed in this process.

Is this headline misleading?
It seems from the CAA announcement that it is not the initial complaint that will be subject to a charge, but only if you are not happy with the outcome and wish to pursue your complaint further. As far as I can see legitimate undisputable complaints will be handled and hopefully resolved by airlines (and airports) without any charge. But if you are not satisfied with the outcome then there is recourse to a binding arbitration service (or 3 depending which one the signed-up airlines use) to resolve a dispute. This seems helpful particularly if foreign airlines are involved. I would have thought these schemes will need funding, and a £10 or £25 charge might not be unreasonable – deterring frivolous or trivial complaints perhaps but refunded for appropriate ones. If the alternative currently were to take court action then this is a far better option in my view.

I agree with Malcolm and think Which? is bloating this issue. Nobody will be charged for complaining about an airline, but they could be charged if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of a complaint and wish to take it further. I think the CAA have acted in a controlled and sensible fashion. If companies issued statements like Which? Conversation headlines Which? would be the first to moan. A bit more responsibility and less sensationalism please.

It is far too easy for airlines to evade their responsibilities. Average compensation should increase by much more than £25 to cover all these payments. We need an effective deterrent to poor customer service, not to say contempt of customers, not a deterrent to complaints.

George Allison says:
25 August 2016

Air travel is no longer a pleasure. We pay £4.50 just to drop off or pick up passengers at Stanstead. We are advised to check in one and a half hours before boarding for which we have to queue, we then queue again for security check for which we almost undress, we then mill about with hundreds of other passengers while we wait to board our aircraft. Yet every time we travel by train there is no charge for drop off or pick up at the railway station; why should we have to pay at Stanstead. We then sit in cramped space for the duration of the flight. Now you tell us we have to pay to complain!! Are we going absolutely crazy? Whatever next?
If we feel there is a reason to complain, we should be able to do so without pumping money into the airline’s coffers. If something is wrong, however big or small, we MUST be allowed the freedom to report it. Why should air passengers be treated like second class citizens. When the airline industry gets it’s act together and provides a good service there will be no need to complain. There will of course always be the occasional crank; then the desk staff should be trained and equipped to deal professionally with such cases. More serious cases should be written and sent to a well publicised address. Frankly I have never heard of such money grabbing and unfair nonsense.

Elizabeth says:
25 August 2016

This does sound reasonable.

dieseltaylor says:
24 August 2016

However the bottom line would appear to be the CAA has found a way to get out of an onerous and costly role.

Whether it has the power to shed the role in this way would be interesting to examine. The easy question would be why did the CAA ever take on the role originally. I assume that the CAA is a statutory body and was at some stage delegated by Government to oversee this role.

Perhaps Which? could check this out?

The Press release from the CAA
Please accept my apologies for inflicting such a poorly constructed effort to your eyes. It is embarrassingly bad.

11 August, 2016

Passengers flying to and from the UK will now be able to get their complaints against an increasing number of airlines for delays, cancellations, lost baggage and services for passengers with reduced mobility resolved without the need to go to court.
Around 20 major airlines – over two thirds of the market by passengers carried with more expected to follow – have now signed up to Civil Aviation Authority(CAA)-approved Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) bodies, who will provide passengers who are dissatisfied with the way their airline has dealt with their case with a legally-binding decision on their complaint.
Tim Johnson, Policy Director at the CAA, said:
“Our research shows that forty five percent of air passengers that complained to their airline, airport or holiday company after experiencing a travel problem were dissatisfied with the outcome and almost six in ten were not satisfied with the redress provided. So clearly passengers expect more when they make a complaint about air travel
“If passengers don’t get a satisfactory outcome to their complaint from their airline, using an approved Alternative Dispute Resolution provider gives them a simple way to get a prompt, fair and binding decision on their dispute – meaning they don’t have to resort to court action.
“We believe this is a major step forward for passengers and are pleased to see a large number of airlines have signed up to ADR and are already giving their passengers this option. But we will continue to push for more airlines to sign up to ADR, so as many passengers as possible have access to efficient and effective dispute resolution if anything goes wrong with their flight to or from the UK.”
With three approved UK ADR bodies now up and running – as well as other European-based providers delivering similar services – the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has changed the way its own complaints handling service operates. From now on, the CAA’s Passenger Advice and Complaints Team will only assist and accept complaints from passengers of airlines not signed up to ADR schemes. For those passengers, the team will be able to assist with complaints about the following:
· EC261 matters – flight delays, cancellations and denied boarding issues

· EC1107 matters – issues relating to passengers with reduced mobility

· Lost, delayed and damaged baggage issues

The CAA will provide oversight of ADR bodies to ensure they comply with the complaint handling standards, as well as continuing to enforce airlines’ compliance with consumer law – making sure airlines have policies in place that comply with the relevant passenger rights regulations and taking action wherever necessary.
For further press information, contact the CAA Press Office on: 0207 453 6030 press.office@caa.co.uk.
Information on the approved ADR bodies and the airlines that have signed up to them is available from the CAA website.”

dieseltaylor says:
24 August 2016

The bottom line would appear to be the CAA has found a way to get out of an onerous and costly role.

Whether it has the power to shed the role in this way would be interesting to examine. The easy question would be why did the CAA ever take on the role originally. I assume that the CAA is a statutory body and was at some stage delegated by Government to oversee this role.

Perhaps Which? could check this out?

The Press release from the CAA
Please accept my apologies for inflicting such a poorly constructed effort to your eyes. It is embarrassingly bad.

11 August, 2016

Passengers flying to and from the UK will now be able to get their complaints against an increasing number of airlines for delays, cancellations, lost baggage and services for passengers with reduced mobility resolved without the need to go to court.

Around 20 major airlines – over two thirds of the market by passengers carried with more expected to follow – have now signed up to Civil Aviation Authority(CAA)-approved Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) bodies, who will provide passengers who are dissatisfied with the way their airline has dealt with their case with a legally-binding decision on their complaint.

Tim Johnson, Policy Director at the CAA, said:
“Our research shows that forty five percent of air passengers that complained to their airline, airport or holiday company after experiencing a travel problem were dissatisfied with the outcome and almost six in ten were not satisfied with the redress provided. So clearly passengers expect more when they make a complaint about air travel

“If passengers don’t get a satisfactory outcome to their complaint from their airline, using an approved Alternative Dispute Resolution provider gives them a simple way to get a prompt, fair and binding decision on their dispute – meaning they don’t have to resort to court action.

“We believe this is a major step forward for passengers and are pleased to see a large number of airlines have signed up to ADR and are already giving their passengers this option. But we will continue to push for more airlines to sign up to ADR, so as many passengers as possible have access to efficient and effective dispute resolution if anything goes wrong with their flight to or from the UK.”

With three approved UK ADR bodies now up and running – as well as other European-based providers delivering similar services – the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has changed the way its own complaints handling service operates. From now on, the CAA’s Passenger Advice and Complaints Team will only assist and accept complaints from passengers of airlines not signed up to ADR schemes. For those passengers, the team will be able to assist with complaints about the following:

· EC261 matters – flight delays, cancellations and denied boarding issues
· EC1107 matters – issues relating to passengers with reduced mobility
· Lost, delayed and damaged baggage issues

The CAA will provide oversight of ADR bodies to ensure they comply with the complaint handling standards, as well as continuing to enforce airlines’ compliance with consumer law – making sure airlines have policies in place that comply with the relevant passenger rights regulations and taking action wherever necessary.

For further press information, contact the CAA Press Office on: 0207 453 6030 press.office at caa.co.uk.
Information on the approved ADR bodies and the airlines that have signed up to them is available from the CAA website.”

dieseltaylor says:
24 August 2016

And below is the reason that the ADR system has been implemented by the CAA. However you might bear in mind that the EU regulation are not necessarily meant to replace existing systems that work. Not all countries in the EU would have a CAA dealing with consumer problems.

We are however a little late to the party as a Consumer organisation and any hope of having a rational one system for all seems to have disappeared. There also seems no limit to the number of companies that could be approved. It is not clear to me how the CAA or indeed the public will be able to monitor these ADR companies success rates. One might draw conclusions if we found airlines switching one to another as their view on success rate is diametrically opposite to consumers.

“Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) means settling your dispute without asking a court to decide on your issue. The ADR Directive is European legislation which required Member States to act to increase consumers’ access to ADR.
When implementing the ADR Directive the UK government noted in particular that there was an unmet need regarding complaints from consumers that stemmed from aviation contracts. As the UK’s specialist aviation regulator the CAA was appointed by the government to be the UK’s competent authority to approve ADR providers as fit to offer ADR services to consumers of aviation services.
The CAA‘s role, as a specialist aviation regulator, combined with its strategic objective of empowering aviation consumers, means it is best placed to consider the competence and suitability of ADR applicants to provide alternative dispute resolution procedures to consumers of aviation.

Just for the hell of it I have re-written it and I believe it is clearer and only 14 words longer. : )

11 August, 2016

Passengers flying to and from the UK will now be able to get their complaints for delays, cancellations, lost baggage, and services for passengers with reduced mobility resolved without the need to go to court. If you are unhappy with the result of a claim you have made against an airline you can now use a Civil Aviation Authority(CAA) approved Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) body.

Around 20 major airlines, who between them carry over 66% of passengers, have signed up to the new system. More airlines are expected to follow. The ADR’s will provide passengers who are dissatisfied with the way their airline has dealt with their case with a legally-binding decision on their complaint.

Tim Johnson, Policy Director at the CAA, said:
“Our research shows that 45% percent of air passengers that complained to their airline, airport or holiday company after experiencing a travel problem were dissatisfied with the outcome and almost 60% were not satisfied with the redress provided. So clearly passengers expect more when they make a complaint about air travel

“If passengers don’t get a satisfactory outcome to their complaint from their airline, using an approved Alternative Dispute Resolution provider gives them a simple way to get a prompt, fair and binding decision on their dispute – meaning they don’t have to resort to court action.

“We believe this is a major step forward for passengers and are pleased to see a large number of airlines have signed up to ADR and are already giving their passengers this option. But we will continue to push for more airlines to sign up to ADR, so as many passengers as possible have access to efficient and effective dispute resolution if anything goes wrong with their flight to or from the UK.”

With three approved UK ADR bodies now running and European-based providers delivering similar services the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has changed the way its own complaints handling service operates.

From now on, the CAA’s Passenger Advice and Complaints Team will only assist and accept complaints from passengers of airlines not signed up to ADR schemes. For those passengers, the team will be able to assist with complaints about the following:
· EC261 matters – flight delays, cancellations and denied boarding issues
· EC1107 matters – issues relating to passengers with reduced mobility
· Lost, delayed and damaged baggage issues

The CAA will provide oversight of ADR bodies to ensure they comply with the complaint handling standards, as well as continuing to enforce airlines’ compliance with consumer law – making sure airlines have policies in place that comply with the relevant passenger rights regulations and taking action wherever necessary.

For further press information, contact the CAA Press Office on: 0207 453 6030 press.office at caa.co.uk.

Information on the approved ADR bodies and the airlines that have signed up to them is available from the CAA website.”

very good diesel. I look forward to a reply from Jen and Patrick in response to this and other critical comments made.

You forgot (?) to mention the inflammatory bit – people may have to pay! It should be stressed that you complain initially to your airline or airport as now, with no charge of course. If that complaint is not resolved to your satisfaction you can take it to an Alternative Dispute Resolution service that may require a payment of up to £25, refundable if your case is upheld.

dieseltaylor says:
26 August 2016

Re-writing the Which? Conversation piece is indeed an interesting challenge.

Is my aim to attract a lot of responses? Or to provide accurate information for readers ?

I have some sympathy with Jen who is probably encouraged to draw responses. Whether the subscribers for Which? , who pay very handsomely for the magazine, are happy to see the money used on Conversations that are perhaps not the finest in clarity is moot.

I am wondering if there is a substantial mismatch between the type of people who subscribe and what the media thinks people like to read and this is measured by linger time on pages, the use of overly simple concepts and words etc.

My take is Which? subscribers almost by definition are smarter and more thoughtful than the general population.

diesel, “I have some sympathy with Jen who is probably encouraged to draw responses. “. This is what worries me about a number of convos, surveys and campaigns. Which? can seem more concerned with, as you put it, drawing responses and gaining headlines than in presenting an accurate case. I have taken up a number of issues where “information” has been wrongly used, inaccurately presented or only a one-sided case made seemingly with a view to persuading people in a particular direction. I rarely get what I regard as a proper response. it disappoints me that Which? sometimes tries to mislead.

Clearly we don’t know what Jen’s brief was, but I hope it was not to provide a misleading and inflammatory intro simply to “draw responses”. I’ll buy a red top if I want that sort of journalism. I actually subscribe to Private Eye.

dieseltaylor says:
26 August 2016

Do you mean this level of quality – as outlined by the latest Which? Campaign

I refuse to believe it was Gloria that was scammed at all – it was the Bank that was scammed. Secondly the idea that it was her life savings also seems dubious. Savvy Gloria was not caught out by fraudsters. There is an awful lot not explored or explained properly and Which? s asking for us to sign something which is phrased so it is akin to asking whether people should be allowed to breathe or not. It is a travesty of what the charity is meant to be about.

The subscribers and members need to really get to grips with whosoever is in control.

Gloria Hunniford, presenter of TV’s Rip Off Britain, fell victim to a scam that targeted her life savings. Her bank account was drained of £120,000 after a woman walked into a bank pretending to be her.

It’s a disturbing example of how even savvy people like Gloria can be caught out by fraudsters. Gloria told the Evening Standard: ‘I felt completely violated. These were my savings. You expect your money to be safe in a bank but it is not.’

Gloria said she has no trust for banks. Even though the bank eventually refunded the money, Gloria has called on banks to up their game and improve their security checks.

Do you agree with Gloria Hunniford that banks need to step up their security?

I agree with Gloria I don’t agree

Thanks again for your support,

Which? campaigns team

I agree with both Malcolm and Diesel on this point. So far as I am concerned, for Which? to be tendentious on topics and manufacture slants on them with the apparent purpose of inciting biased responses is unacceptable and in my eyes it undermines its whole foundation of integrity and objectivity.

I realise I have probably over-boiled on the deficiencies of this Conversation Intro, but there are still more problems with it that I have not mentioned, such as the immediate reference to “an airline regulator”. I mean, I know journalists are trained to write like this in local newspapers to draw readers in to stories that could be about their street or their village, but, honestly, we are entitled to better than that from Which?. How many airline regulators are there? Do we have a choice? Is it the Civil Aviation Authority? Oh yes, . . . so it is. So why not say so then? I suppose we have to accept – especially following the referendum experience – that anything said in support of a campaign has a licence to be excused from the normal conventions of honesty and fair treatment.

Gloria clearly either does have trust in her bank, or she is not, in fact, savvy. The bank held (at least) £120 000 in her account. If they go broke they are only liable to refund £75000.

I was wondering about that myself. I am sure a lot of people are in a position where they ought to consider distributing their savings around other banks or building societies to keep below the protected limit under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. However, I don’t know if it is so easy these days. In the first place there are fewer mutual savings institutions giving respectable interest on savings, and secondly there are considerable pressures to relocate your main current account and other banking arrangements if you choose to open a savings account, and they will probably also require you to listen to their personal finance specialist for an hour in return for relieving you of your funds. The £75K limit under the FSCS has to also take account (i) of any interest [one day] accruing on that account, (ii) any other savings with the same institution [and many are now joined at the hip – Norwich & Peterborough and Chelsea, under Yorkshire BS, or Britannia and Co-operative Bank, and several under the Nationwide], and (iii) the top cash level in the current account. Many people probably take the view that the government will not allow a total collapse to occur, and the new provisions for capital reserves etc have made that less likely, so carry on leaving too much in one organisation. Some of course might not be fully aware of how much they have earned or been paid for their services and take little interest in their financial affairs. Some people might also be prepared to sacrifice the protection in return for a higher rate of interest on the combined sum invested in one place.

I notice that a number of customers of credit unions have had to be compensated recently after their funds defaulted or collapsed so the risks of over-investing are still out there.

I I would not complain, I would just sue – in Small Claims Court it wouldn’t cost much more and even if I lost I wouldn’t have to pay their costs which would be a lot to defend. You know what they say don’t get angry – get even!

When making a court claim – the new description for an application to the “small claims” court – the County Court officials will explore whether the claimant has attempted to use any dispute resolution process that is available and if not to propel them in that direction. The courts take a dim view of litigants who have not used the conciliatory or resolution procedures that have been set up across many areas of consumer disputes.

MAURICE TAYLOR says:
24 August 2016

A £25 charge would not stop me from complaining if I felt certain I was right.
It would also make me reluctant to use the Airline in the first place.

Lynda M Nolan says:
24 August 2016

This is deplorable, and would stop some legitimate claimants. Companies making cash from others’ hardships is unethical. There must be another way. Because there are always those who take advantage of systems, maybe they could be clearly told (contracted) that they’d have to pay a small fee if they waste others’ time, e.g. leave a Credit card no. which could be charged if they are prove to be acting improperly, (a bit like Hotels charging cards if the person doesn’t honour their booking).

alan parker says:
24 August 2016

If you make a complaint then you attest to a statement of what you have lost or what happened. It should be the airline would have to justify that it was late, prove that your luggage was not lost / damaged.

steve says:
24 August 2016

Why is there not a box for “Wouldn’t pay and would make a complaint another way, e.g. CAA, 38 Degrees, MP or somewhere else?” Even if dissatisfied the follow up should still be free. Even if a foreign airline, it doesn’t matter. This is a free and democratic society; isn’t it??? We should not be dictated to in this way by big corporate companies! I agree to go to small claims court. They must not get away with this sort of behaviour!

Michael,B,Budinger says:
24 August 2016

I agree we should not be dictated to in this manner,unfortunately its politics,and we are at the bottom in this system. Governments listen to big business because profits come first, and ordinary people second if at all.

Not sure our society is either “Free” or democratic, Steve. Certainly not when the government has never been elected with a majority of the democratic vote.

I doubt any recent UK government has been elected by a true majority Ian. No more than Brexit / Remain if you mean the proportion voting for one thing out of the total electorate. Even the Scottish Referendum of 2014, with the highest ever turnout at 84.6% for an election or referendum since universal suffrage, did not achieve a majority for “No” on this basis, although it was close at 46.7%.

It does happen in other parts of the world, where even more than 100% of the electorate have voted for a particular party.

So what is the alternative? Certainly we will never get everyone in the country agreeing on the same thing, so a large number are always going to be disappointed.

Even Tony Blair’s landslide New Labour victory in 1997 resulted in only a 43.2% of the popular vote although it resulted in Labour holding 63.4% of the Parliamentary seats.

Tony says:
24 August 2016

If l felt my complaint was reasonable l will still continue to complain. I understand from other comments that if the complaint is ‘rejected’ then one pays to pursue it further. Not unreasonable perhaps.
Going to an ombudsman on other matters is currently free but if this measure goes through I can see it a general practice to charge complainants. More business outlets will spring up with ‘no win, no fee’? No winners, all losers except the charlatans who operate this type of business!!
In this situation and if this occurred the airline would lose more, as my custom would go elsewhere. Stupid move but perhaps has not been marketed very well?

Kerrin says:
24 August 2016

My understanding is the airline appoints one of the complaints bodies to arbitrate the complaint. I would question how ethical and fair the complaint resolution process is if the body is not completely independent. By charging a fee for any unsuccessful claims almost incentivises the complaints body to find in favour of the airline. This practice should not be allowed. Yet again the airlines prove they are a law unto themselves and the individual consumer is no match for big business.

paul smith says:
24 August 2016

Its a complaint. The airline should cover the cost. Everyone else does and it does not cost them £14 to deal with complaints. Its just a scam to scare passengers from complaining and trying to get compensation for severely delayed EU flights.

After losing cases where they tried to deny people compensation for massively delayed flights .

Paul, this is not about making a charge if you initially complain to an airline. It is about what happens if you don’t agree with the outcome of your complaint. Rather than take court action (not cheap) this scheme offers dispute resolution, binding on both sides, when your original (free) complaint has not achieved the desired result. If you have a strong case then you will win, hopefully, and your fee will be returned.

Just shows you how the Which? bias in the headline has misled contributors to this Conversation.

I notice that the poll has also been corrupted by a distorted heading. I am getting seriously fed up with the willful misrepresentation and attempted manipulation in many of the vox-pop topics these days. Is there no control of content and meaning any more?

In the compensation / entitlement culture that exists nowadays, there are too many people all too ready to make spurious claims in the expectation of receiving compensation. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

At £25 I wouldn’t complain. I would claim on my travel insurance. I don’t have to pay for that and I know the outcome. do the travel insurance companies realise the airlines are shifting the cost of their incompetence onto the insurers? And then onto all travellers because insurance premiums would increase .

Does normal travel insurance cover such claims if the policy-holder refuses to use the available complaint mechanism? I am sure an excess would apply to baggage damage or flight delays; insurance companies are not exactly noted for their response to lost luggage claims.

I am sure that insurance companies are rewriting their exclusion clauses right now.

Nick Scales says:
24 August 2016

[Sorry Nick but your comment has been removed for being off-topic, please see our Community Guidelines for further details. Thanks, Mods]

Anthony Beirne says:
24 August 2016

If the airlines wish me to pay to complain then they should only take my money after providing a good and proper service, and only then submit the bill, if the wish me to pay for problems caused by the service they offer I think this seems reasonable!

Rod Hart says:
24 August 2016

Governments of this country are and have not done anything to protect the people from unscrupulous firms who make promises then fail to meet them not just airlines across the board. It is about time the thousands of useless civil servants got around to drawing up Laws and Not Codes of Conduct which contain mathematical
solutions only the silly buggers who supply them can understand. Hitting these firms where it hurts the most
by making them pay fair compensation to those who have lost out by the omission of a service which is delayed or cancelled.

Brian says:
24 August 2016

This charge is only acceptable to me if there are a very large number of spurious complaints.
The airlines have to present independently confirmed evidence of misuse of complaints before I will accept this bullying action as reasonable.
It demonstrates the dreadful way large organisations conduct themselves .

petejay says:
24 August 2016

Won’t pay, so take me away from flying.

I’d just issue an N1 small claim and pay the court fee – I would expect a more favourable and fairer outcome. How about we charge airlines for giving them our business, the arrogant buggers!

I would also add that airlines are no different from any other huge £multi-million business that is very happy to accept our money without which they would be out of business but fail to provide a fair after sales service – most big businesses are appalling and should be regulated. British Gas, npower, Vodafone … it’s a big list and they all rip off their customers on occassion