Latest news with #ConsumerRights
BBC News
10 hours ago
- Business
- BBC News
The big change affecting European travel
The days of being charged additional fees for your hand luggage on flights could soon be a thing of the past – at least in the European Union. On 24 June, lawmakers voted in favour of a proposal allowing passengers to bring a small carry-on bag weighing up to 7kg (15.4lbs) on board their flight free of charge, even on budget airlines. Under the new rule, which could take effect as early as July 2025, travellers would be allowed to bring one cabin bag measuring up to 100cm on board their flight, as well as an under-the-seat personal item with a maximum size of 40x30x15cm at no additional cost. The proposed law still requires approval from 55% of EU member states, but if adopted, the new rules would extend to all flights within the EU, as well as routes to and from the EU. "Today's vote marks an important step toward fairer and more transparent travel," vice-chair of the EU Committee on Transport and Tourism (TRAN) Matteo Ricci said in a press statement. "[It introduces] concrete measures such as the clear definition of free hand luggage … a fundamental right to avoid unjustified extra costs." Previously, EU-based budget airlines like EasyJet, RyanAir, Wizz and others often charged substantial fees for hand luggage, depending on its size and weight. As a result, Spain's Consumer Rights Ministry fined five budget airlines €179m (£149m) for what it deemed "abusive practices" in November 2024. The Spanish ruling, along with pressure from consumer rights associations and passengers, has paved the way for the EU to push for what it considers fairer and more consistent hand luggage rules. The carry-on proposal is part of a larger effort by the European Parliament to increase protections and rights for travellers. To ensure that families can sit together without incurring additional costs, lawmakers also voted to prohibit airlines from imposing seat selection charges for children aged 12 and under. Lawmakers also want to change the way companies handle compensation and reimbursement requests by requiring ticket vendors or third-party retailers to inform passengers of the full cost of their flight at the time of booking – including intermediation or service fees – as well as the reimbursement process. Officials also want to ensure that travellers in the EU aren't just entitled to compensation when airline delays cause them to miss their connecting flights, but also when a delay causes them to miss their connection on another mode of transport (an airport bus, for instance) when the ticket is purchased through one operator. While the new proposals may seem like a victory for passengers, not everyone is in favour of enacting them into law. Airline industry representatives are strongly opposed to waiving hand luggage fees, saying that the cost of the bag will be folded into overall prices, making them higher for everyone in the long run. Critics suggest that the new rules essentially force travellers to bring along hand luggage, since the cost will be baked into their ticket with no opportunity to opt out. "Europe's airline market is built on choice. Forcing a mandatory trolley bag strips passengers of that choice and obliges passengers to pay for services they may not want or need," said Ourania Georgoutsakou, Managing Director of Airlines For Europe, Europe's largest airline association, in a statement. "What's next? Mandatory popcorn and drinks as part of your cinema ticket? The European Parliament should let travellers decide what services they want, what services they pay for and, importantly, what services they don't." -- For more Travel stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook, X and Instagram.
Daily Telegraph
27-05-2025
- Automotive
- Daily Telegraph
Tesla Motors Australia appeals tribunal order after owner wins case over fault model S.
Don't miss out on the headlines from Motoring. Followed categories will be added to My News. Exclusive A NSW mum-of-three who won a tribunal hearing that ordered Tesla to replace her $93,000 Model S 'lemon' is still waiting for the vehicle after the electric car giant lodged a last-minute appeal. Anne Bishop, who is a passionate electric vehicle (EV) supporter, took the car manufacturer to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) in September 2024 alleging the 2015 model car she bought through their Tesla Certified Pre-Owned program in 2018 was riddled with faults. The Tribunal instructed Tesla to refund $6649.79 in repair costs and to supply the customer with a replacement vehicle of similar value and type. Tesla lodged a last-minute appeal against the ruling. The appeal is set to be heard on the 14th August 2025. MORE:Australia's brutal reaction to EVs MORE:Staggering loss proves Cybertruck is dead 'When I bought this car, it was intended to be a once in a lifetime extravagance, a purchase designed to safeguard our growing family on the roads at a time when this was most important, and with the intention to keep the car for at least 20 years,' Ms Bishop told 'In February of last year, when the car broke down so comprehensively and inconveniently, two months out of warranty, all I expected was for Tesla to honour their word and pay for the repairs,' the NSW mother said. After experiencing more than a dozen major failures in the Model S, Ms Bishop escalated her complaints through to the Tesla Owners Club of Australia, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and NSW Fair Trading. But with no result, she turned to the NCAT. MORE:Musk's bombshell announcement, Tesla sinks NSW mother Anne Bishop with her $93,000 Tesla Model S. Picture: Supplied MORE:'Pure evil': New Tesla scandal erupts in US At the hearing, Ms Bishop sought reimbursement for her $8,500 repair costs (from a total of $17,000), a partial refund, or ideally a replacement vehicle. Over five and a half years of ownership, Ms Bishop said she experienced breakdowns of the car's media unit, battery failures, door handle malfunctions and, most recently, a rear drive motor failure. In her complaint, Ms Bishop explained that comments made by Tesla chief executive officer Elon Musk 'regarding the longevity, durability and quality of engineering and manufacturing in Tesla cars' prompted her to purchase the car. Ms Bishop sourced independent expert opinion as evidence for the NCAT. MORE:Musk, Tesla smashed by China 'military' ban 'I intend to never purchase another Tesla product again.' Picture: Supplied MORE:China hammers another nail in Tesla's coffin In a comment made outside of court, two automotive experts advised Ms Bishop that the car sold to her by Tesla was a 'lemon'. Both experts stated it was unreliable and unacceptable quality but most importantly unsafe to drive. 'It didn't seem unreasonable to expect a car I was paying close to six figures for, 'certified pre owned' from the manufacturer, that had originally sold for $165,000 and with the kind of promises made by Tesla's CEO, to comfortably exceed the durability of an entry-level car originally worth 1/10th of that price,' Ms Bishop said. In its ruling, the tribunal found Ms Bishop's vehicle had suffered a 'succession of issues affecting essential components', concluding that a reasonable consumer would not have purchased the car had they known of its condition. Elon Musk said Tesla 'won't forget' early adopters who 'took a risk'. Picture: Jim WATSON / AFP NCAT determined that the issues constituted a 'major failure' under Australia Consumer Law. 'The bottom line is that the applicant is left with a Vehicle which has, over the period of ownership, been unreliable and has suffered an ongoing series of faults to expensive components,' NCAT said in its ruling. Ms Bishop said she initially felt 'tremendously relieved that this entire nightmare' was finally over. 'I also felt justified in seeing the matter through, not only due to financial necessity, but also by now as a matter of principle and to set a precedent for other Tesla owners dissatisfied with poor quality and poor service.' Ms Bishop said. Tesla argued that repairs were conducted under warranty where possible and noted that some failures occurred after warranty expiration. The Tesla S 2019 was very popular in Australia. However, NCAT found that the list of issues justified a solution beyond warranty terms under consumer guarantee rights. At the hearing, Ms Bishop, who has remained supportive of electric vehicles, indicated that she preferred a replacement vehicle rather than a full refund. Tesla was ordered to replace the vehicle but the auto giant lodged a last-minute appeal. 'When several weeks had passed with no word from Tesla after receiving the order from NCAT, I emailed them, in the hopes of negotiating the details necessary to finalise the matter in accordance with the order,' Ms Bishop said. 'I never received the courtesy of a response, but a week later a law firm filed a Notice of Appeal with NCAT.' The matter remains unresolved. Tesla Australia did not respond to requests for comment. Originally published as Exclusive: Tesla escalates battle after tribunal order
