Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

Marmotta wrote: »

... delayed by 26 hours due to a faulty engine...... they insisted it qualified as an exceptional circumstance and I wasn't due any compensation,...Is this the case and, if not, is there any case law I can refer them to when I complain again?...

Search this thread for 'Wallentin' and have a thorough read.

Aidy1972 Hi LBD,

I have recently written to Monarch Airlines exactly 14 days ago today using the MSE letter from the website. Not heard anything yet. Did you use the same letter or have you tried a diferent way?


Hi Aidy

I wrote to them on my return in April and they told me go away, wrote again earl Oct reminding them that the appeal failed and passengers allowed to claim, and they were just waiting judgment and wanted to give them the opportunity to settle before the flood gates opened.... they declined.. so here is what I sent next...


Compensation claim for delayed flight

As requested please find enclosed the claim form and other documents in connection with our claim for the extensive delay of our flight with Monarch on the 03/04/201

I am writing regarding flight XXXXXX on 03/04/2012 from London Luton, England to Fiumicino,Rome,Italy with the scheduled departure time of 08.05 am. My booking reference was XXXXXX. This flight arrived over 6 hours late.
The passengers in the party were Mr, Mrs and Mr

As you will be well aware, the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Tui & others v CAA on 23rd October 2012 confirmed the applicability of compensation for delay as set out in the Sturgeon case. As such, I am seeking compensation under EC Regulation 261/2004 for this delayed flight.

It was confirmed at the time that the delay was caused by a “technical problem” on the plane as such this does NOT constitute exceptional circumstances. If you disagree please supply the relevant proof and or reasons.

I have asked Ms Hannon several times to give me a clear estimate of how long she intends to take in dealing with this claim, thus far she has clearly and blatantly refused and ignored this question, I ask she do so by immediate return via email, she does have my email address but for speed I will provide it again, XXXXXXXXX
We are claiming for all 3 passengers in the party, not only for the delay, but also the taxi from the airport to our accommodation, as the transport we had already paid for stopped at 1800 hours (receipt included)
We also wish to make claim for meals and drinks during this time. My wife is an insulin dependent diabetic and requires food and drinks at regular intervals. Sadly we did not keep our receipts, as we had no idea the delay was going to be this long, nor did we anticipate having so much difficulty with Monarch and this claim. We are not unreasonable and await your offer in this regard.

We also draw your attention to the fact we are entitled to interest on all monies from the date of the incident until date of payment.
Whilst we appreciate ours may not be the only claim, you have been aware of it since April 2012 and have it recorded, you were also given the opportunity to settle earlier in October and refused until the judgement was handed down. This has now been done and we feel that you should now proceed with speed to resolve this issue.
We her by give you 14 days’ notice that if we have not received the funds by the 15/11/2012 we will instigate a small claim, this will increase the amount payable by A the court fees plus the statutory 8% interest per annum. This is not a course we would wish to take, but feel we have been more than fair and reasonable.

Feel free to copy and alter to suit your needs, that goes for anyone..:)

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Fares go up because of any costs, not just fuel.

You're ignoring the significance of costs,
if we look at easyJet's accounts http://corporate.easyjet.com/~/media/Files/E/Easyjet-Plc-V2/pdf/media/latest-news/2012/fy-2012-en.pdf

pages 13 and 14, it costs easyJet £17.45 per seat for fuel, a massive 32.5% of its total costs per seat.

If we look down other costs are £3.05 per seat, a small 5.7% of its total costs per seat.

It doesn't detail its EU reg 261/2004 costs but does comment

"..lower compensation payments under EU 261/2004.." They've most certainly got these costs under control.

Fuel is the significant 'uncontrollable' cost in their business above all else, it's this that you should be concerned about, together with their unavoidable £9 admin charge.

Unbelievably, we've just had confirmation back from easyjet (after sending our letter in on Tuesday!) that we've been successful with our claim for a flight delayed 4 hours 55 minutes to Menorca from Liverpool last August.

At the time the airline told us the problem was a part failure, they'd had one sent up from Luton in a taxi, the taxi broke down on the M6, then they had no-one to load luggage, then they'd missed another take-off slot..... you get the idea. I really thought that all this had been said to mitigate future claims under the 'exceptional circumstances' clause but obviously not. They've said we are owed 400 Euros each (that's 1600 Euros total) for our delay and seem to be keen to get it over and done with. A result in anyone's book.

What I'd say to people on this thread pondering the what if's is to get a letter in to the airline. It's the cost of a stamp to answer your question. We used the template on this site (cheers!) and it's paid off. I read up a bit and looked at the CAA site for a steer on likely outcomes but if you don't act you'll never know.

Stuff like this never happens to us so I'm chuffed to bits. That's Christmas paid for and all it cost me was an extended stay at John Lennon International Airport.

Good Luck everyone, give it a go.

richardw wrote: »

Have you got a link to this?

I'm afraid not. I did a quick search on HMCS web site, but it looks like things have moved on since my last involvement with Court Applications, and the only reference I can find to Specific Issues is under the Childrens Act.
So it might be best to just make the application for compo and get the judge to decide if the simple explanation offered by the airline without documentary back up is sufficient, given that the onus is on the airline to prove it's duty of care was sufficient.