Latest news with #carseat
Times
10 hours ago
- Times
Airline left my family stranded after losing the baby's car seat
On our return to Birmingham airport after a package holiday we found that our baby's car seat hadn't arrived. By the time the staff had searched the plane and airport baggage area it was almost 11pm on a Sunday night. We were offered two car seats left behind by other passengers as an alternative (neither was suitable for our ten-month-old son) and that was all. There were no trains by this time so we had to pay for a hotel for my wife and baby to sleep in for the night, because we couldn't legally drive him home in our car (which I drove home with our three-year old daughter). The travel company refused to pay for the hotel and expenses, which left us out of pocket. The car seat was returned eight days later so fortunately we didn't have to buy a new one. Is the travel company liable to pay our additional expenses? I have complained twice but both complaints have fallen on deaf Nottingham Losing luggage can really spoil a trip, or cause great inconvenience if you are on your homeward journey, especially if the missing items are essential, such as a baby's car seat or a wheelchair. You can seek compensation for this, but the key questions are: to what extent is the trip marred and is this all the fault of the travel company? When a flight is cancelled or a hotel is overbooked, it is considered a 'direct loss' and you can expect full compensation for the money you have already paid, along with additional reasonable costs that you may have incurred. If you are unable to do something as a result of an error by a business, or have to pay out additional money due to this error, then things become more complicated. Situations like this are generally referred to as a 'consequential loss', although it's not a popular term with the legal profession. That's because there are a whole range of scenarios that can arise as a consequence of an error caused by a business. The problem with claims of this nature is establishing whether the actions of the business were entirely responsible for your losses, or if there was a suitable alternative that you could have taken. • Going on holiday? Here's how to sort your money out In your case, the safety of your child is paramount. If no suitable alternative could be found to allow you to travel with your family safely and within the law, then the holiday company should certainly consider paying you for the money you were forced to spend on accommodation. However, you'll need to put a strong case to the travel firm as to why this is the case. I'd recommend making a formal complaint, setting out: • The age and requirements of your child.• Why your car seat was suitable for your child.• Why the two alternative seats offered were not suitable.• Your understanding of the law around safe driving (you don't need to be an expert here — not feeling safe is enough. Make sure you explain why). • That the accommodation you chose was reasonable and not overpriced.• Why you didn't claim on your travel insurance and any policy limitations. Having to provide all of this information may feel dreadfully unfair, but it's worth doing. That's because holiday firms have a tendency to compensate only for things that they feel they may be directly liable for. If the business turns you down, check to see if they are members of a scheme that can mediate in a dispute. The Air Travel Organisers' Licensing scheme gives you financial protection when you book a flight as part of a package deal. And the Association of British Travel Agents has a dispute resolution scheme for customers of their members if things go wrong, as well as other consumer protections. If you're complaining about an airline, ask them about their Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme. Failing that, don't be afraid to threaten them with the small claims court. Martyn James is a consumer rights campaigner covering everything from energy bills to cancelled flights and pothole claims
The Sun
28-05-2025
- Business
- The Sun
Popular baby car seat urgently recalled over ‘serious risk of tot suffocating'
A POPULAR car seat has been banned by trading authorities over "serious" suffocation fears. The Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) rejected the Chinese product because it does not meet essential safety regulations. 2 2 Parents are being strongly advised to avoid Belecoo's baby stroller and car seat, which has been recalled due to a lack of safety warnings. The brand's 580-2 model was deemed to pose a serious asphyxiation risk to babies and toddlers by Trading Standards. It does not meet the requirements enforced by the General Product Safety Regulations 2005. The damning report claims that parents might unknowingly endanger their young children by letting them sleep in the seat. It reads: "The product presents a serious risk of asphyxiation because it is not supplied with relevant safety warnings. "Without these warnings, a parent or carer may place a child in the stroller to sleep in an upright position. "This may cause the child's head to drop down, restricting the necessary airflow to their lungs and leading to asphyxiation. "The import has been rejected at the border." It was recalled on May 23 this year. The decision comes just a day after another Chinese stroller was banned over similar fears. At Performance 's Z1 Black and Z1 Gray products were deemed to pose a "high risk" of asphyxiation due to a lack of warnings, instructions and safety information. And last month, parents were warned to stop using a kids clothing item from Marks and Spencer over suffocation dangers. Customers were advised to return Children's Fisherman's Coats for 0 to 3 Months and 3 to 6 Months to stores. The major retailer was slammed by trading standards officials over the hoods attached to the baby clothes. A report read: "If a baby is placed inside a hooded product and left unattended, the baby's natural movement may cause the hood to cover the head and face. "This may lead to suffocation. "The product does not meet the requirements of the General Product Safety Regulations 2005." And baby "sleeping bags" sold on eBay were removed from online marketplaces over similar health concerns. Newborn 0-3 Month Hooded Teddy Bear Sleeping Bags were deemed to lack arm openings, meaning a baby may slip down if unattended. Others include a hood which could cover their head or face if left alone. Your product recall rights Chief consumer reporter James Flanders reveals all you need to know. Product recalls are an important means of protecting consumers from dangerous goods. As a general rule, if a recall involves a branded product, the manufacturer would usually have lead responsibility for the recall action. But it's often left up to supermarkets to notify customers when products could put them at risk. If you are concerned about the safety of a product you own, always check the manufacturer's website to see if a safety notice has been issued. When it comes to appliances, rather than just food items, the onus is usually on you - the customer - to register the appliance with the manufacturer as if you don't there is no way of contacting you to tell you about a fault. If you become aware that an item you own has been recalled or has any safety noticed issued against it, make sure you follow the instructions given to you by the manufacturer. They should usually provide you with more information and a contact number on its safety notice. In some cases, the manufacturer might ask you to return the item for a full refund or arrange for the faulty product to be collected. You should not be charged for any recall work - such as a repair, replacement or collection of the recalled item
