Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

StoddaM · 20 March 2013 at 12:40AM

Received 1 cheque for £519.60 and another on the way from a delayed flight in May 2011 they won't pay out on my Daughter as she was under 2... I did receive confirmation that I was getting €750 each but they are not honouring this now anyone know if it is worth fighting for the extra? Thanks MSE for the heads up on this

Caz3121 · 20 March 2013 at 8:44AM

the maximum I believe is €600 per person based on the distance and length of delay - from your other post €600 is the correct amount

l.walton · 20 March 2013 at 9:49AM

l.walton wrote: »

I sent off an email to Singapore Airlines last year claiming compensation for a flight about 5 years ago and they replied (very quickly) saying that I had to put in a claim within 2 years.

After my reply which pointed out that I had 6 years (and the case to back this up) I received no response. My three emails that followed also received no response (I was also asking for the exact cause of the 'technical difficulties')

I put in a Money Claim Online claim a couple of weeks ago and received no response so I recently applied for a judgement. Is there anyone here familiar with the system? My main questions are how long this judgement takes (weeks or months?) and whether it will be likely that I have to go to court?

Thanks for any help.

Just an update on this:

I still have not heard from Singapore Airlines and I have had the default judgement for over 2 weeks now. I called up MCO to ask when I should apply for a warrant of execution and they said that it was up to me. They also warned me that Singapore Airlines will be able to overturn the default judgement (and any execution warrant) easily so that 'they get a chance to defend themselves'. I thought that chance was the first 2 weeks but apparently not! Not really bothered if it goes to court as I'll just get the money then but I'd just like to hear something. I think I'll put in a warrant of execution request soon just to get things moving along, would obviously to like to avoid spending the £100 though.

So in brief my update is that there are no updates!

Mark2spark · 20 March 2013 at 10:21AM

Well that's news to me. I can't see the point in the court system and obtaining a judgement by default if it can 'easily' be overturned :undecided

I mean, what's the point?

Mark2spark · 20 March 2013 at 10:28AM

It says on page 5 of the MCOL guidance that, after judgement, if you don't agree with the decision, then you have 21 days in which to appeal.
So it might be worth holding back on the warrant of execution until this 21 day period has (well) passed.

l.walton · 20 March 2013 at 10:33AM

Mark2spark wrote: »

It says on page 5 of the MCOL guidance that, after judgement, if you don't agree with the decision, then you have 21 days in which to appeal.
So it might be worth holding back on the warrant of execution until this 21 day period has (well) passed.

Thanks, that's really helpful.

Mark2spark · 20 March 2013 at 10:35AM

Some more info for you:
http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/free-legal-information/small-claims-court/setting-aside-judgment.html

Can you confirm that they received the court claim at the correct address?

l.walton · 20 March 2013 at 10:46AM

Mark2spark wrote: »

Some more info for you:
http://www.compactlaw.co.uk/free-legal-information/small-claims-court/setting-aside-judgment.html

Can you confirm that they received the court claim at the correct address?

I used the address of the 'London Management and Administration Offices'

Chiswick Park,
Building 11,
566 Chiswick High Road,
London, W4 5YS

That's the only UK address that I could find.

Mark2spark · 20 March 2013 at 11:15AM

I just googled that address and 192.com comes up with it as Singapore Airlines.
http://www.192.com/atoz/business/london-w4/airlines/singapore-airlines/44f7f908165ffea349438a4a6f8a730c1928dd3c/ml/
It also has a phone number, might be worth calling it and seeing who answers it and what they say?
I'd be tempted to get them to confirm their address, say you are sending them details of your new carpet cleaning company or something.

Reading through the MCOL and related sites on default judgement, they are pretty much going to have to say that they haven't received any of the court paperwork. So the fact that they are still at that address is crucial.

samwardill · 20 March 2013 at 5:30PM

Mark2spark wrote: »

I would ask the Irish regulator again for their comments on point 3 of the ruling in light of their decision.

3.The fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken ‘all reasonable measures’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 and, therefore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation.

But it's an interesting take. Seems that all tech issues will be covered if thats the way of thinking. So only compensation if there's.... errrr.... well.... oh right, no compensation for anything then :undecided

I did follow your advice and the regulator came back (eventually) with the following response. I believe their response demonstrates a continuing lack of understanding of the relevant case law. Do you agree?

"In answering your question it is important to remember that extraordinary circumstances is not the only criteria than an air carrier must meet before being exempted from the payment of compensation. In order for Article 5(3) to apply to a given flight disruption an air carrier must demonstrate both:
- the existence of extraordinary circumstances; and
- that there were no reasonable measures which could have avoided the cancellation/ delay notwithstanding the existence of the extraordinary circumstances.

As my colleague Mrs Maguire advised in her letter, the aircraft scheduled to operate your particular flight had been properly maintained: therefore in accordance with the Wallentin-Hermann judgment, the technical issue which arose constituted an unexpected flight safety shortcoming. As you are no doubt aware Recital 14 to the Regulation clearly states that unexpected flight safety shortcomings may constitute 'extraordinary circumstances' for the purposes of Article 5(3). Based on the information received this Office accepted that the structural damage to the door of the aircraft scheduled to operate EI3706 did constitute extraordinary circumstances in the circumstances.

However, and as Mrs Maguire endeavoured to set out in her letter, proving the existence of extraordinary circumstances is not of itself sufficient to exempt an air carrier from the payment of compensation. The criteria in Article 5(3) are twin criteria and both must be satisfied before the exemption applies. Consequently this Office then examined the reasonable measures available to Aer Arann to avoid the disruption in spite of the extraordinary circumstances. We assessed the options available to the air carrier which might have facilitated the operation of the flight notwithstanding the technical issue which came to light i.e. completing a timely repair which might have led to a delay but not a cancellation, the availability of spare aircraft within Aer Arann’s fleet, hiring in an aircraft from a third party etc. In this regard it is important to note the word 'reasonable' is specifically mentioned in the Regulation and recent case-law has indicated that the measures available/ taken should not place an unreasonable economic burden on an air carrier. Essentially enforcement bodies must take a fair and balanced approach.

In the context of your complaint Aer Arann demonstrated that they endeavoured to repair the aircraft in as timely a manner possible. They also sought to use their spare aircraft but unfortunately it was unavailable. We are also aware from previous cases that whilst the time and costs associated with hiring-in a third party aircraft are viable for some air carriers, for others these represent unreasonable measures. As you are aware we concluded that Aer Arann satisfied this second criterion also.

Ultimately what I hope is clear from the above is that ‘reasonable measures’ are not used to avoid extraordinary circumstances. The correct interpretation of the provision is that they are taken by the air carrier to avoid a disruption notwithstanding the existence of extraordinary circumstances. For that reason you are right when you say that maintaining an aircraft correctly should not be regarded as reasonable measures for the purpose of Article 5(3).

Finally whilst I appreciate that you are dissatisfied with our conclusions in this case, please be assured that this Office fairly and objectively applies the Regulation and related case-law to all complaints brought to our attention. We meet regularly with both the European Commission and national enforcement bodies (NEB) from other Member States with a view to ensuring that the application of both the Regulation and emergent case-law is consistent throughout.

In line with the above and on consideration of the information received in relation to this disruption we concluded that the exemption contained in Article 5(3) applied to the cancellation of EI3706 on the 16th August 2011 and this remains our position today."

I have three choices here:
a) Leave it
b) Pursue a claim via the European Small Claims procedure
c) Pursue a section 75 claim via the credit card used to purchase the tickets (which, incidentally, was in an account held by my brother and not me)
Any thoughts from seasoned claimers on what you would do in my position?

Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free