Flight delay in 2008 with Globespan

kaggi

I was on a flight from Florida in 2008 that was delayed by over 7 hours. At the time Globespan told me I wasn't entitled to any compensation. It now seems my husband and I were entitled to compensation but I don't know how to claim this now. Can I claim it through their liquidators, and if so how do I find out who they are? I don't have my credit card receipts that far back so I can't remember what card I used to book it either.

Caz3121

from the FAQs
Airline bust= no claim
The claim is against the airline, not the travel agent, not the package holiday company, not the administrator, nor anyone else. AIRLINE ONLY. If the airline is bust, you have no-one to claim against. It doesn't matter if the package tour operator is still in business and the airline is not. No airline = no claim.

Xj797433

What is it with the big red bold?
YES you can claim. I'm claiming against my credit card now for this flight.
Tesco credit card.
What I did was collect all evidence from the internet regarding this flight delay...and there are plenty of news items.
Martin Lewis suggests a web site to collect flight stats from back then, just register and you can get departure/arrival stats...clearly indicating the 7hr delay.
And...I rang Tesco and asked for copies of statements from May/June 2008 when I booked the flight. No problem. I have the evidence. Just contact each likely credit card company and get back statements. I'm corresponding with Tesco bank. Using registered post or proof of posting depending what I'm posting. Keep records.

Caz3121

I have not seen any cases where the credit card company takes responsibility for EU261/2004. S75 holds the credit card jointly responsible for purchases that are not delivered but it sounds like you bought a flight with your credit card and the airline provided you with a flight.
Your flight was also over 6 years ago so time barred from court even if the airline was still operating

There is no time limit to putting in a s75 claim. However, if you're unhappy with the card company's response or the outcome of a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, you have a total of six years to pursue the matter in court.

Be interesting in their response as this could open up possibilities for many other travellers...but as mentioned, others that have gone this route have had no success

David_e

Caz3121 wrote: »

I have not seen any cases where the credit card company takes responsibility for EU261/2004. S75 holds the credit card jointly responsible for purchases that are not delivered but it sounds like you bought a flight with your credit card and the airline provided you with a flight.

I'm not a lawyer but thought I would have a look at what S75 Consumer Credit Act 1974 says. The scope is defined in subsection (1):

“ … in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract …”

In the context of flight delay claims, the supplier (the airline in the situation we are discussing) would be pursued for damages under the EU Regulation.

Now, to the extent that you can read legislation literally, liability under the Regulation does not arise as a result of misrepresentation. Further, I suspect that it also doesn't arise from a breach of contract. We don't normally concern ourselves with contract terms in relation to flight delay claims because the Regulation doesn't require us to. I suspect that if we did look at the contracts that we have with airlines, there would be various conditions concerning delays. (For example, saying that arrival times are subject to various caveats that might not be EC but would otherwise be valid in UK law.)

So, if there is a lawyer in the house, can S75 be used to impose a Regulation 261/2004 liability on a credit card company when there has been neither misrepresentation nor a breach of contract by the airline?

razorsedge

David_e wrote: »

In the context of flight delay claims, the supplier (the airline in the situation we are discussing) would be pursued for damages under the EU Regulation.

Do mean compensation not 'damages'? Otherwise we are back to the old Montreal Convention v EU261/2004 arguments again.

David_e

razorsedge wrote: »

Do mean compensation not 'damages'? Otherwise we are back to the old Montreal Convention v EU261/2004 arguments again.

Whatever the description in the Reg is. The key point being it appears possible/probable that delay cases don't involve a breach of contract (in UK law) even though they may give rise to a liability under Reg 261/2004. A successful S75 claim appears to require a contract breach.

David_e

I should have read the legislation further.

S75A(2)(d) imposes a condition, in relation to a breach of contract claim:

"that the debtor has taken reasonable steps to pursue his claim against the supplier but has not obtained satisfaction for his claim."

If a claimant did nothing for several years and only then found the airline had subsequently gone bust, has the claimant taken "reasonable steps"? A relatively literal interpretation of the law would suggest not if the claimant took no steps against the supplier (the airline).