BA compensation – response when contacting legal team

[hugo r]

I contacted the legal team via snail Mail with regards to claiming comp for a delayed flight which CR are refuting and the fact that I hadn’t heard back from BA CR after asking for a deadlock letter

My question is , if you wrote to Legal at BA how do they respond ? Is it via CR or does it come from the legal department

I got a final response email from CR yesterday but trying to determine whether that’s actually come from CR or legal team

I gave lots of evidence to BA to try and claim comp due to delay caused by pilot being sick on LHR -MIA (delayed 3hr 4 mins ) which there saying delay was due to ATC which isn’t the case , shocked there happy for me to go to CEDR

[JDB]

hugo r wrote:

I contacted the legal team via snail Mail with regards to claiming comp for a delayed flight which CR are refuting and the fact that I hadn’t heard back from BA CR after asking for a deadlock letter

My question is , if you wrote to Legal at BA how do they respond ? Is it via CR or does it come from the legal department

I got a final response email from CR yesterday but trying to determine whether that’s actually come from CR or legal team

I gave lots of evidence to BA to try and claim comp due to delay caused by pilot being sick on LHR -MIA (delayed 3hr 4 mins ) which there saying delay was due to ATC which isn’t the case , shocked there happy for me to go to CEDR

I think that with the advice here to go straight to legal, that has had the inevitable effect that many are just passed to CR. How do you know BA for sure is incorrect about ATC taking the delay under 3hrs?

[hugo r]

My friend who works for Amadeus shows the delay code as other , if it’s ATC it has a different code (apparently)

That’s why shocked they’re happy for me to go to CEDR and suggested it in the final response.

Also submitted all the names of the BA agents who all advised the same reasons for the delay (including the captain)

[JDB]

hugo r wrote:

My friend who works for Amadeus shows the delay code as other , if it’s ATC it has a different code (apparently)

That’s why shocked they’re happy for me to go to CEDR and suggested it in the final response.

Also submitted all the names of the BA agents who all advised the same reasons for the delay (including the captain)

I’m afraid the info from your friend doesn’t constitute evidence. Delays often have multiple causes which Amadeus and ExpertFlyer don’t allow for. I have no idea whether you are correct or BA is – that will be tested by CEDR or MCOL, but at CEDR you won’t get to see whatever evidence BA might proffer.

[Matt]

CEDR send through whatever evidence/argument BA gives them so that you can respond.

[Thegasman]

JDB wrote:

hugo r wrote:

My friend who works for Amadeus shows the delay code as other , if it’s ATC it has a different code (apparently)

That’s why shocked they’re happy for me to go to CEDR and suggested it in the final response.

Also submitted all the names of the BA agents who all advised the same reasons for the delay (including the captain)

I’m afraid the info from your friend doesn’t constitute evidence. Delays often have multiple causes which Amadeus and ExpertFlyer don’t allow for. I have no idea whether you are correct or BA is – that will be tested by CEDR or MCOL, but at CEDR you won’t get to see whatever evidence BA might proffer.

Surely it’s a fundamental principle of any arbitration process that each side gets to see & respond to the others evidence?

[JDB]

@Thegasman no, and you will find it’s the same with the Financial Ombudsman. The arbitrator will give you a summary of what the other side is saying, but not the full submissions or actual evidence. This is in contrast to a court process where all the parties will see everything.

[StillintheSun]

I’ve been through the CEDR process.
Below is the link to the flowchart:
https://www.cedr.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Adjudication-process-flowchart-v2.jpg

In my case CEDR provided a 4.5 page Defence. Within that document were screen shots of their computer entries relevant to their defence (the evidence). I do not believe any evidence was relied upon outside of the Defence as it was neither referred to in the Defence or in the decision explaining why BA lost.

Upon the receipt of the Defence, you may comment thereon. Frankly, if any assertion was not supported by any evidence set out in the Defence I would state the following in reply:
“I note that the following is set out in BA’s defence [insert assertion]. Despite having every opportunity to provide evidence to support the same both prior to and during this arbitration BA have not done so. The assertion ought therefore be disregarded as it cannot be proven by BA. [Moreover, it is contradicted by the evidence I have provided as part of this process] Clearly in these circumstance my evidence vis-a-vis BA’s failure to provide evidence should be preferred.”

I would not compare what goes on with the FOS, with what goes on with CEDR. Of course if anyone has any evidence to support the assertion that in CEDR you do not get to see BA’s evidence as opposed to assertions that would be interesting to know about.