-
I’ve just been advised that BA has been granted an extension to its response deadline (originally tomorrow) on the grounds that it needs to consult lawyers. I assume this is a usual part of the shenanigans?
A combination of CEDR and BA means that a case submitted on 6 June will not get near an adjudicator until 30 September – at which point I fully expect to be told (again) that CEDR is busy and it might take ‘a little longer’ to get to a decision.
Can anyone share recent timeline experience please?
Yes it’s shenanigans.
They are being unreasonable.
Absolutely normal BA behaviour.
@BH it’s often a good thing and quite unusual that BA is consulting lawyers if you have a good case. The lawyer may encourage them to settle if it is. Extensions are fairly standard and the timeline you report is relatively short and far quicker than MCOL.
@JDB To be honest, I didn’t read too much into the delay myself. I just assumed it was a standard excuse for something that hadn’t been looked at since they received it six weeks ago.
I’ve been through the MCOL process with BA years ago (probably before they contracted with CEDR). There was a similar request for delay then, which was followed by a settlement in full, so perhaps you’re right!
@BH that’s the very practical view.
There are a number of people who will shout that BA are being unreasonable or it’s some sort of delaying tactic when (a) they have no idea about your case and how complex it may be or (b) the way CEDR operates.
IIRC you should have been informed BA had asked for the extension and have the opportunity to object should you have wished to do so. I would allow them one extension (i.e this one) and then should they ask for another strenuously object but the ultimate decision rests with CEDR
Hmmm. I certainly wasn’t offered a chance to agree – or otherwise – BA’s request to extend. It was presented to me as a fait accompli.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
