Help required, Bmi Re scheduled flight compensation claim

PolishBigSpender

dmg24 wrote: »

We can all quote statute, but you need to actually apply it to the given situation, something you have neglected to do!

And bearing in mind that BMI will have much deeper pockets than the original poster, it could be much more hassle than its worth to attempt to bring legal action against them. I certainly wouldn't want to take the risk of BMI dragging it through the court system and ending up being liable for their costs, particularly as (as far as I know?) there's no precedent in the English legal system for this.

People are very quick to quote EC regulations, but aren't so quick to point out that enforcing them is a whole different story.

Shona99

dmg24 wrote: »

We can all quote statute, but you need to actually apply it to the given situation, something you have neglected to do!

If you read my post I have not "neglected" to provide to give any form of advice to the OP. I simply did not provide any form of application of the relevent law to the OP's position -other than support his/her decision to seek advice from a competent source. I expressed the view that the OP should seek that advice from that legal advisor.

Perhaps I could have attempted to do so, but failing to do so I cannot see is "neglect".
(Precise recognition of the value and meaning of words is often a key skill required of a qualified lawyer).



Anyone can "quote statute" as you say but you need to apply it to the facts as your say.

Am I to infer that you yourself have applied that application to the OP's position yourself? You appear to have presented a suggested "answer" to the OP?

(I see you dont disclose your professional competence to provide such legal interpretation yourself-but do sensibly say that advice is best sourced from an expert lawyer).

hollydays

I hope the OPs advice was from a specialist too.As Polishbigspender points out,it's all about the enforcement.

I don't see where dmg has actually used the phrase "expert lawyer" though.. I think you are trying to manipulate/misrepresent what she said.Keep it straightforward,or it helps no-one.I think helping the OP to interpret the word reasonable,may be helpful in this case,which is what several posters have tried to do.
Where did you get your legal advice from Mar-k? Did they not guide you as to what was reasonable?

Shona99

dzug1 wrote: »

Was that a lawyer expert in travel matters? If not I'd be wary of his advice.

.

Isnt this what she/he asked with respect to the expertese of the lawyer instructed?

The point I'm making is that this is sound commentary in my view-and would include any "advice" amounting to "legal advice" proferred on the forum from an anonymous source.

hollydays

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/faqs.html#Anchor-Wh-46173

The Plain English Campaign.

FAQ "Who are the worst offenders for gobbledygook?"
The legal profession and finance industries.

Shona99

hollydays wrote: »

The most i ever managed to get out of bmi for a cancellation and a loss of a days holiday ,and downgraded flight,was £150 worth of gift vouchers which i later sold on ebay. ( the circumstances were different as we were already at the airport,and they put us up in a hotel).To say they were obstructive was an understatement,so don't expect them to give in gracefully. They even told me they hadn't heard of the eu directive..

I take it from this comment that you still felt aggrieved with bmi and that your own claim had not been resolved to your satisfaction

Was it gobbledygook delivered from bmi that caused you to give in gracefully?
Alternatively, if you felt aggrieved, why didnt you pursue the claim you thought was meritorious?

Maybe if you had access to somebody competent to advise you what was and was not gobbledygook this may have been a useful starting point for you to understand your legal position.

How you enforce your legal position may be a different matter.

This would be dependent on your willingness to challenge bmi's position ultimately through court action. This is a decision that an individual makes. Who else makes that decision?

However as Polish Big Spender correctly points out there may be legal costs consequences in taking court action. What PBS fails to add is that if a claim is restricted to under £5000 under the small claims track-those costs consequences would be restricted to the costs presumptions of Part 27 of the CPR.

Apart from the legal costs consequnces you would need to make a certain investment of time and effort-whether you proceed as a litigant in person or whether you instruct Solicitors to conduct the litigation for you. bmi might be banking on the likelihood that you are not prepared to make that investment of time and effort.

PBS also makes a presumption that bmi would substantially defend a court claim that might objectively be likely to succeed. How can PBS make that presumption?

hollydays

You can take it that quote shows that BMI can take up a lot of time.Some may be prepared to invest more time,I wasn't.PBS points out about enforcement too.

Any thoughts on what is reasonable,as that is what the OP has asked?No need to be brief.

dzug1

Shona99 wrote: »

Isnt this what she/he asked with respect to the expertese of the lawyer instructed?

The point I'm making is that this is sound commentary in my view-and would include any "advice" amounting to "legal advice" proferred on the forum from an anonymous source.

I am not offering "legal advice" - I am proffering a layman's opinion which may be right or wrong. If you/anyone else decides to interprets it otherwise, then heed the advice at the top of the page. Most of this forum would shut down if there was a rule that only lawyers could post.

Remember, this is an open forum! Anyone can post so always exercise caution when acting on info

If OP has gone to someone like Ross Fernihough ( http://www.holidaytruths.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=57959 ) then he will be well advised. If a random solicitor on the High Street then no, not necessarily. It will be matter of pot luck. In a specialist field using a generalist can be a mistake - if you look at the silver surfers board for example (and others) you will see endless examples of generalist solicitors fouling up probate.

dmg24

hollydays wrote: »

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/faqs.html#Anchor-Wh-46173

The Plain English Campaign.

FAQ "Who are the worst offenders for gobbledygook?"
The legal profession and finance industries.

... and Shona99!

I actually don't find legal and finance types bad for wittering on, but they are my areas of expertise so maybe it doesn't seem so foreign to me? However, I do find plumbers and tradesmen talk a load of, erm, gobbledygook!

On a personal note, I would never take advice from someone that cannot spell expertise.

PolishBigSpender

Shona99 wrote: »

However as Polish Big Spender correctly points out there may be legal costs consequences in taking court action. What PBS fails to add is that if a claim is restricted to under £5000 under the small claims track-those costs consequences would be restricted to the costs presumptions of Part 27 of the CPR.

Bearing in mind that you be using an EC regulation as the basis of the claim, this may very well apply - from http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_rights/legal_system/small_claims.htm.

If a case is complex, the judge may refer it to another track for a full hearing, even if it is below the financial limit of that track.

I wouldn't expect a small claims court to be able to make a judgement on the wording of EC regulations where the wording isn't clear. I expect BMI could attempt to get it moved onto a different 'track' - and thus the liability for costs starts to come in. Can the OP, having just paid for a wedding and honeymoon really afford to see a civil case through the legal system?

PBS also makes a presumption that bmi would substantially defend a court claim that might objectively be likely to succeed. How can PBS make that presumption?

As it's based on an interpretation of EC regulations with no precedent, I wouldn't be so certain that BMI would lose such a case. You might even see other airlines collaborating as expert witnesses to ensure that the ruling went the airline industry's way - basically, with such an uncertain thing, it would be very foolish for the OP to assume that a win would be certain.

Certainly, you haven't proved in this thread that it would be a straightforward case in the original poster's favour.