Complaint Against SOP and Condor Airlines
Background…read moreDamaged Camera (Case No. CON-24/05-02396-F002)
On May 14, 2024, Condor agreed to pay $359.99 for a damaged camera but has not yet paid.
Condor initially misrepresented their terms of service, international treaties, and policies.
After evidence was provided showing cameras are allowed in checked baggage per GTBC USA, US preparation flight on Condor website, and IATA guidelines on Personal Electronic Devices, Condor agreed but failed to pay.
Damaged Luggage (Claim No. 00839434)
Condor accepted liability for damaging the complainant's luggage.
Condor attempted to sell a "discounted" luggage to the complainant instead of providing compensation.
Condor offered "zero" compensation, violating the Montreal Convention regarding compensation and restitution.
Complaints Against SOP (F 269678/24)
Conflict of Interest: SOP is financially supported by Condor Airlines, raising impartiality concerns.
Misrepresentation of Policies and Evidence:
SOP intentionally misrepresented Condor's GTBC USA by citing a non-existent "Section 12.6".
Fabricated restrictive clauses contradicting International Travel Regulations, IATA guidelines, and Condor's US Flight preparation policy.
Blatantly fabricated evidence against the published documentary evidence provided.
Failure to Uphold Consumer Rights:
Offered "zero" compensation despite the airline accepting responsibility in writing.
Ignored Montreal Convention mandates for fair compensation and restitution.
Lack of Transparency and Accountability:
Failed to provide legal basis or case law for resolutions.
Failed to provide documentary evidence to support their policy's references.
Disregarded provided documentary evidence concerning Condor's policies and international treaties.
Rendered an arbitrary, unsupported extrajudicial resolution without checks and balances.
Only responded to public forum posts, avoiding addressing the facts.
Did not respond to complaints and allegations sent via email communications.
Misrepresentation of Service Capabilities:
Claimed to clarify legal questions but failed to do so.
Deceptively merged two distinct complaints into a single resolution.
Alleged Fraudulent Practices:
Complicity in underpaying valid claims.
Use of fake reviews on various platforms.
Colluding with airlines to undermine consumer protection.
Breach of Contract: Failed to resolve an agreed-upon settlement between the complainant and the airline.
Evidence Contradicting SOP Statements
Condor's GTBC USA
US Flight preparation policy on Condor Airlines website
IATA guidelines on Personal Electronic Devices (PEDs)
Condor's written contract to pay for the damaged camera
Condor's written acceptance of liability for the damaged luggage
Montreal Convention mandates for fair compensation and restitution
