Can I get refund for a non-refundable fight ticket?

mgdavid

callum9999 wrote: »

...... It's a consumer rights issue because it's an issue about the rights of the consumer. While they don't actually have a legal right in this scenario, .........

so it's not then.

agrinnall

callum9999 wrote: »

"She does not have travel insurance to claim off either."

If you can't grasp from this that the OP knew full well that travel insurance would have helped in this scenario, then I'm not sure talking about it any further can be in any way constructive.

I repeat, the OP knows now (i.e. when the thread was started) that travel insurance would have resolved this.

But I agree that you are a brick wall that I'm banging my head against in this case, so I'll stop now.

callum9999

agrinnall wrote: »

I repeat, the OP knows now (i.e. when the thread was started) that travel insurance would have resolved this.

But I agree that you are a brick wall that I'm banging my head against in this case, so I'll stop now.

It's laughable that you think you ever were.

You say you're repeating, but that is the very first time you said "i.e. when the thread was started". If you're going to have a tantrum because I misinterpreted something you wrote - my misinterpretation being a 100% valid interpretation of your words - then you should make your posts clearer. I'm so sorry for not being a mind reader.

callum9999

mgdavid wrote: »

so it's not then.

They haven't had their legal rights breached but again, it's an issue about the rights of a consumer.

It surely can't be news to you that the likes of Watchdog and its newspaper equivalents take up causes in which the company has done nothing legally wrong? It seems like you're just trying to be deliberately combative?

After a quick Google search here's one almost identical example:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/mar/24/virgin-atlantic-illness-change-flights

mgdavid

callum9999 wrote: »

They haven't had their legal rights breached but again, it's an issue about the rights of a consumer.

It surely can't be news to you that the likes of Watchdog and its newspaper equivalents take up causes in which the company has done nothing legally wrong? It seems like you're just trying to be deliberately combative?

After a quick Google search here's one almost identical example:

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2012/mar/24/virgin-atlantic-illness-change-flights

Callum it is you who are combative, as far as I can tell due to faulty English language comprehension, maybe you could just take a deep breath occasionally and re-read what is before you, and consider alternative meanings to the ones that you jump to.

In this specific case, if 'they have no legal right' then it is not a 'consumer rights issue', it will not be fought and won in a law court. It may however be a 'public relations issue' and be fought and won in a newspaper or other media - that does not imply 'rights' only that the supplier decided to buy off the unwelcome fuss. Fortunately many suppliers are starting to think the consumer media have gone far too far and are standing their ground rather than roll over and pay out, perhaps encouraged by the Mike O'Leary brand of consumer care. Many companies are fed up of paying for customer stupidity and are beginning to realise that it is infinite. This specific case might well be one that they do make an exception for, as cancer sufferers do command a great deal of popular sympathy. Any refund will be done as a gesture of goodwill and would be absolutely nothing to do with any 'rights'.

callum9999

mgdavid wrote: »

Callum it is you who are combative, as far as I can tell due to faulty English language comprehension, maybe you could just take a deep breath occasionally and re-read what is before you, and consider alternative meanings to the ones that you jump to.

In this specific case, if 'they have no legal right' then it is not a 'consumer rights issue', it will not be fought and won in a law court. It may however be a 'public relations issue' and be fought and won in a newspaper or other media - that does not imply 'rights' only that the supplier decided to buy off the unwelcome fuss. Fortunately many suppliers are starting to think the consumer media have gone far too far and are standing their ground rather than roll over and pay out, perhaps encouraged by the Mike O'Leary brand of consumer care. Many companies are fed up of paying for customer stupidity and are beginning to realise that it is infinite. This specific case might well be one that they do make an exception for, as cancer sufferers do command a great deal of popular sympathy. Any refund will be done as a gesture of goodwill and would be absolutely nothing to do with any 'rights'.

What on Earth are you going on about? I'm sick to death of people claiming I've made mistakes (which I certainly do on occasion) and then refuse to state what they are. So WHAT has my "faulty English comprehension" caused me to mess up?

It seems like YOU are the one who doesn't read things properly. I used the EXACT phrase "gesture of goodwill" and said SPECIFICALLY that their legal rights haven't been broken. So I have no idea what you're whinging about.

But to clarify, the reason for this rant and insult-slinging is that, despite clearly stating exactly what I mean, I used the umbrella term "consumer rights" in a way you don't approve of? You'll notice that this comes under consumer rights on the Guardian website as well, so I'm sure they'd love to hear your pedantry on the matter.