CEDR Denied Boarding Adjudication

[Sparky37]

Thanks Ihar. Hammering a square peg in a round hole? All we’ve done is try and navigate through the various T&C’s and Articles, whilst responding to other areas, in trying to get this resolved. There appears to be a hang up on Clause 3b3, becoming ill after starting your journey as ticket validity periods, yes it’s not disputed it says MAY extend to recovery date or the first date after the recovery date, seats dependant. It’s an interesting clause as if the consensus is MAY is the determining expression, they don’t have to actually do anything and they don’t state in what circumstances they won’t.
This is rhetorical but makes you wonder what this clause is actually for and I would think ‘we don’t feel like it’ wouldn’t wash in some circles.

[Sparky37]

You’re right Ritchie and this did raise an eyebrow when I read it originally. It’s actually part of the booking process and makes no mention of anyone else other than the airline itself. I would think that the mobility provider would be deemed authorised agents, so acting on behalf of the airline.
Again another interesting and rhetorical point as there is no contract with the mobiliity assistance company or airport holding company, and they would just laugh this away and refer us to the airline who the assistance was booked with.

[Richie]

The UK CAA has https://www.caa.co.uk/publication/download/19028

[Richie]

Sparky37 wrote:

…I would think that the mobility provider would be deemed authorised agents, so acting on behalf of the airline…

Do you think there’s a principal-agent relationship?

[Sparky37]

Thanks Richie and I took a copy of this when I got the airline defense. From my normal persons view of it, I have requested assistance via the airline and they have appointed agents to facilitate this. I have no contact with the mobility supplier/ airport company in any of the booking process.
Is there a principal-agent relationship in place? I wouldn’t really know and also wouldn’t know what, if any, compensation arrangements are in place between the airline and airport.

[JDB]

It’s an entirely academic question. Whatever the relationship is or isn’t between the airline/airport/assistance service provider, it doesn’t affect or create any right to compensation. The position of the airline under the Montreal Convention couldn’t be clearer.

[Ihar]

Sparky37 wrote:

There appears to be a hang up on Clause 3b3, becoming ill after starting your journey as ticket validity periods, yes it’s not disputed it says MAY extend to recovery date or the first date after the recovery date, seats dependant. It’s an interesting clause as if the consensus is MAY is the determining expression, they don’t have to actually do anything and they don’t state in what circumstances they won’t.
This is rhetorical but makes you wonder what this clause is actually for and I would think ‘we don’t feel like it’ wouldn’t wash in some circles.

IANAL but this is exactly what it is. I can imagine if were changed to will it might be open to all types of abuse. I hope you get it resolved with the insurance company. An MCOL claim would be on breach of contract, and I don’t think that’s proven.

[JDB]

Sparky37 wrote:

Thanks Ihar. Hammering a square peg in a round hole? All we’ve done is try and navigate through the various T&C’s and Articles, whilst responding to other areas, in trying to get this resolved. There appears to be a hang up on Clause 3b3, becoming ill after starting your journey as ticket validity periods, yes it’s not disputed it says MAY extend to recovery date or the first date after the recovery date, seats dependant. It’s an interesting clause as if the consensus is MAY is the determining expression, they don’t have to actually do anything and they don’t state in what circumstances they won’t.
This is rhetorical but makes you wonder what this clause is actually for and I would think ‘we don’t feel like it’ wouldn’t wash in some circles.

I don’t think 3b3 is intended to cover an on board/after departure incident although it is an interpretation, but again it’s totally academic as it is conditional. When there are such goodwill clauses and they represent the only answer, one needs to approach the provider with great care.

[Sparky37]

Thanks all. Yes clearly one for interpretation and 3b3 is if after beginning your journey…..you become ill…illness prevents you from travelling…., then we get into ‘may’ and the legal definition of what that means, and this is why they probably use it as it is based on their goodwill and no committal. They could make this clearer of course but again, why would they want to?
Lots of lessons learned going though these issues and from your collective feedback, and as a traveller the antenna is now more certainly up!!