PDA

View Full Version : Can they sue for the costs involved.


Lancelot37
9th Oct 2010, 11:37
Anyone knowledgeable on consumer law in OZ? Our rellies booked a holiday in Sydney and their flights from Adelaide to Sydney with Tiger. Two hours before departure the flight was cancelled and with their two kids crying it cost them over $2,000 for alternative flights at the last minute. They "may" get back the cost of the Tiger flights.

Can they claim for consequential loss against Tiger? Surely on payment of the fare they entered into a contract with Tiger and should be able to persue a claim beyond the return of their cost of the fare for failing to complete that contract.

Chuchinchow
9th Oct 2010, 13:01
Tell your "rellies" to read the contract they entered into when they bought their tickets.

Details of that contract will be found in the small print that they no doubt blithely agreed to without reading when they ticked a small box on the Tiger website.

Alternatively, the contract will be printed in the back of any paper tickets they might have used.

Lotpax
9th Oct 2010, 18:31
This is what Tiger's conditions say. Whether these are legally challengeable is something I am not qualified to have an opinion on.

Did they have travel insurance?

10.2 Cancellation, Changes Of Schedules:
At any time after a booking has been made we may change our schedules and/or cancel, terminate, divert, postpone, reschedule or delay any flight where we reasonably consider this to be justified by circumstances beyond our control or for reasons of safety or commercial reasons. In the event of such flight cancellation or changes to the schedule so as to depart more than four (4) hours before or after the scheduled departure time, the Passenger may elect, either:

To be carried at the earliest opportunity on another of our scheduled services on which space is available without additional charge and, where necessary, extend the validity of your booking; or
To retain the value of your fare in a credit account for your future travel provided you re-book within six (6) months there from; or
To receive a refund in accordance with these Terms & Conditions. Where a cancellation or significant alteration is made to our schedule before the date of your departure, we will use reasonable efforts to inform you of any such cancellation or alteration.
10.3 Sole Remedies:
Upon the occurrence of any of the events set out in Article 10.2, the options outlined in Article 10.2 (a) to (c) are the sole and exclusive remedies available to you and we shall have no further liability to you.

ExXB
9th Oct 2010, 19:09
A contract is a contract and in circumstances where there is no possibility for one party (in this case the passenger) to seek or obtain changes to stated terms and conditions, the courts generally require said t&cs to be reasonable. This is generally the case with airline T&Cs, and they normally include a specific clause that says that no agent or employee is authorised to amend such T&Cs.

Reading this Tiger has the opportunity to get out of their obligations just by deciding that they want to (i.e. "where we reasonably consider this to be justified by circumstances beyond our control or for reasons of safety or commercial reasons."). However (I expect) that a similar opportunity is not afforded to the passenger to get out of the contract. Even in circumstances beyond the passenger's control (traffic jam) or for reasons of safety (being ill) or commercial reasons (can't really afford it) they can't get out of the contract.

Is this reasonable? I suspect that the courts would rule that it is not. However the actual reason behind the cancellation will be key to decide if a court challenge would be successful. If it was simply a commercial decision then I expect they could win. If it was for safety ..., that might be more difficult.

II suggest the passengers should write a nice polite letter to Tiger asking them to cover their costs and if they decline, pass the correspondence over to the ACCC who have the authority under the TPC to force Tiger to amend their T&Cs.

I am not an expert in Australian (or any other) law and I would recommend that your rellies take legal counsel before doing anything.

Lancelot37
9th Oct 2010, 20:38
Is this reasonable? I suspect that the courts would rule that it is not. However the actual reason behind the cancellation will be key to decide if a court challenge would be successful. If it was simply a commercial decision then I expect they could win. If it was for safety ..., that might be more difficult.

Thanks EXxB. Perhaps the airlines should be challenged in the Courts with inserting unfair conditions but who has the money to do that? Perhaps Governments should look at the wording on "conditions". Reasons of safety etc would be a reasonable condition but not because enough seats have not been sold.

In other words they've got you by the short and curlies!

Globaliser
9th Oct 2010, 22:14
In the event of such flight cancellation or changes to the schedule so as to depart more than four (4) hours before or after the scheduled departure time, the Passenger may elect, either:

To be carried at the earliest opportunity on another of our scheduled services on which space is available without additional charge and, where necessary, extend the validity of your booking; or
...Was this option not offered by Tiger?

I think that there are many airlines on which (legislation aside) this would be the primary remedy in this type of situation. If the passenger chooses instead to accept the cancellation and take a refund, then that's the passenger's choice - as is the higher cost of the alternative routing to get to the destination.

Lancelot37
9th Oct 2010, 22:53
No other flight was suggested as available. No reason was given. My main point is that you pay the price and then they let you down. They and you have entered a contract.

They cover themselves with the small print and stuff the customer.

They did have insurance but whether it would cover consequential loss I know not at this time. I don't think so as they would have told me.

Where else in business would they get away with it? They could afford the extra $2,000 but many could not.

It might be legal at this time but is it morally wrong? A good Government would declare it as an unfair clause.

Here are people who will never book with Tiger again and I'm sure that very many of their friends will not do so when they hear about it.

Business is built on reputation and not just price.

Globaliser
10th Oct 2010, 00:26
No other flight was suggested as available. No reason was given. My main point is that you pay the price and then they let you down. They and you have entered a contract.

...

Here are people who will never book with Tiger again and I'm sure that very many of their friends will not do so when they hear about it.

Business is built on reputation and not just price.Did they even ask Tiger whether they could be reaccommodated on the next flight, or a flight the next day? Or did they just throw a hissy fit and charge off to another airline without asking what the options were?

There are limits to what an airline can do if, for example, an aircraft goes tech. And if you book an airline that only has one or two flights a day, you are going to be at risk of a longer delay if something goes wrong, as it inevitably will from time to time. It might well involve flying the next day.

I wonder how many people book Tiger because of their reputation? It seems to sell on price. The "never book again" threat might be taken more seriously if they'd paid much more to fly Qantas and then been avoidably let down and treated badly.

Argus
10th Oct 2010, 03:12
Australia, being a federation of states and territories, has both federal and state consumer protection legislation. Each jurisdiction provides recourse to a tribunal.

Tiger Airways is a listed corporation and is therefore subject to federal legislation, in this case the TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/)

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) investigates consumer complaints against corporations, including allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct. I suggest your relatives look at the ACCC's web site - Misleading & deceptive conduct (http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/815335) - then click on the link to the 'how to complain' procedure and follow the steps set out therein.

PAXboy
10th Oct 2010, 13:10
Sorry if this sounds harsh but ...

If the contract has been signed and used by (presumably) thousands of pax and tested on occasion (presumably) by hundreds of pax, then it is legal. Morality doesn't come into it.

If one is dealing with a contract that lands up with a person being in slavery (to take an extreme example) then morality comes into it. However, the courts tend to be old fashioned and all 20th Century about these things, rather than the realities of 21st Century LCCs, so they might be on the side of the pax. If they do, it will result in the carrier tightening their Ts&Cs against further loss.

Key points will be:

Did the pax get IN WRITING that the airline could not offer them any alternative flight?
Failing that, do they have a reliable witness?
Do they know the name and duties of the carrier rep/agent who told them, or is it going to be "This person said ..."?
Did they check with the carrier's web site or further up the tree before choosing to make alternative arrangements?With a LCC, it is usual for it to be 'transport at a time of our choosing or zero' OR 'full refund and find your own way'. I have had to make this choice myself before and that is the choice you make every time you book an LCC anywhere in the world. 99.9% of the time, they get you there on time and that is why they are cheaper.

willl05
11th Oct 2010, 01:11
I don't see any (a) to (c) in 10.2. If they are petty, maybe you can too.

Lancelot37
11th Oct 2010, 08:58
I don't have further details at this time but the rellie was an experienced airline user making several trips a week throughout Europe in his job so I doubt that panic/stubbeness or other emotions were involved. It would be all dealt with calmly. He was used to delays and cancelled flights and sleeping in airport lounges at times when there were problems.

Perhaps I might phone Adelaide from the UK for more info, but it is worth it? I merely wanted to raise the point etc. It's always the customer who loses out. I'm sure that if a flight was offered within 24 hours they would have taken it. They lived close enough to the airport to return home, if needed, and them come back for another flight.

Globaliser
14th Oct 2010, 23:26
I don't see any (a) to (c) in 10.2.I think it's referring to this (http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/430091-can-they-sue-costs-involved.html#post5984543):-... the Passenger may elect, either:
(a) To be carried at the earliest opportunity on another of our scheduled services on which space is available without additional charge and, where necessary, extend the validity of your booking; or
(b) To retain the value of your fare in a credit account for your future travel provided you re-book within six (6) months there from; or
(c) To receive a refund in accordance with these Terms & Conditions.The bullet point numbering was different in that post, but I think this must be what 10.3 refers to.

Anyway, it may just be that this is what one is going to get from the bargain basement end of domestic air travel in Australia.