MSE News: Flight delay compensation floodgates open

Tom_Ashfie

Hi All,

I recently experienced similar problems when trying to make a claim against Easy Jet for a flight back in 2008 from London Luton to Paris. I arrived over 4 hours late due to a "catalogue" of disasters.

Anyway I tried to claim myself but was sent the usual load of rubbish from Easy Jet saying that the engine failure that resulted in the delay (blah blah blah) was out of their control and so they would not pay. I left it at that for a while as I did not have the time to follow up.

Anyway a friend of mine then recommended a company called Blueway Limited to me who operate under flightdelayrefunds.com
who he had used and who had won him compensation for his previous delayed flight - they work on a no win no fee basis and only take 20% from any amount that they successfully claim back. I have now just received a credit of £410 (and this is after flightdelayrefunds.com took their 20%) into my bank account after they won my case for me. Just thought it may help anyone looking to make a claim or who is stuck with their previous claim as they certainly helped me and all I had to do was send them some simple info.

Cheers all and hope it helps

Tom

mitchy9396

I travelled with my partner and two children from Manchester to Sanford 19th Aug 2007. We were delayed for 8 hours and arrived losing nearly a day :of our holiday. I have just received £2040.00 from Monarch in compensation today! Thank you MoneySavingExpert.com I wouldnt have done it without you and we can now afford a holiday this year!!

dave35

Vauban wrote: »

Dave,

It does sound like she has a claim. Your next stage is for your Mum to write a Notice Before Action (sometimes called Letter Before Claim). Read the FAQs - there are links to templates there. But if the airline still don't respond after 14 days, your Mum will either need to start a court claim (through MCOL) or engage a no-win no-fee company (who will take a third of the award). See my other thread "taking the airlines to court" for some useful links on court action - it ain't too hard.

All sorted thanks
A nice cheque for £1100 arrived last week

corkie359

Has anyone ever been able to get compensation on tickets from BA for the ash cloud delay

Alan_Bowen

Ash clouds are most certainly 'extraordinary circumstance's and you are not entitled to compensation. The only claims possible were for accommodation costs incurred if you were stranded abroad and I think all of those were settled years ago

poplar

:T:T:T

droylie wrote: »

:beer:

Dear all

Thomson have agreed to settle out of court for the full amount (400 euros x 2 + court costs of £140). I was due to go to court this Thursday and it had been put on hold for 2 years and I started it up again before Xmas. They could not prove that the 16 hrs and 33 mins delay was caused by extraordindary circumstances and in fact that our plane was used to pick up passengers in Mexico due to a technical difficulty in Mexico. My ex-husband is a Barrister and helped to write the claim against them which I am happy to post on here or send to others.

Victory! Just to say - do not give up - They wrote a 12 page defence originally but it was all rubbish.

Kerrie

:j:beer::T:T:T

2spicy

Was delayed by 28 hours due to the issue at LHR last month...

Sent a letter to BA claiming compensation, and recieved the following response..

Dear Mr Spicy

Thank you for contacting us about your claim for compensation.
Your claim for compensation has been refused because BA0863 on 24 May 2013 was cancelled due to operational circumstances outside British Airways' control which prevented the aircraft operating as scheduled. Under EU legislation, British Airways is not liable for a compensation payment in this situation.
Unfortunately airline operations are subject to circumstances outside the airline's control. British Airways takes all reasonable measures to avoid cancelling a flight in such circumstances. Consideration is given to whether there are any operational options available before a decision to cancel is made. We are sorry that cancellation was necessary in this case.
Thank you for following this up with us and I hope you will fly with us again soon.
Best regards
Aniket Kale
EU Compensation Claims
Your case reference is:????????

2spicy

I think im going to fold on this ... BA put me up in a nice 4star hotel, gave me taxi's and a packed lunch, a cooked breakfast. ok they did screw up my weekend, and bounced me all around europe to get home ... chalk this one up to experience

Den_ram

Centipede100 wrote: »

The Regulation is a good place to start where the recitals give examples of "extraordinary circumstances":

(14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier.

(15) Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures had been taken by the air carrier concerned to avoid the delays or cancellations.

"Extraordinary circumstances" are referred to thus in Article 5.3 of the Regulation:

3. An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7, if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

Full Reg here: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:EN:HTML

There have been two ECJ cases where "extraordinary circumstances" have been defined in claims of cancellation and delayed flights.

The Wallentin-Hermann case involved a flight cancellation following a technical defect: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007CJ0549:EN:HTML

The operative part of the judgment stated:


1. Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, is not decisive for the interpretation of the grounds of exemption under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.

2. The frequency of the technical problems experienced by an air carrier is not in itself a factor from which the presence or absence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 can be concluded.

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.

Likewise the Sturgeon ECJ case also revolved around a long delay following a technical issue with the aircraft: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30dbd62f9a86421d4131b3f3cff98329ad18.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxuKbN10?text=&docid=73703&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=8817

The operative part of the judgment again concluded that technical issues would not normally be covered by the concept of "extraordinary circumstances".

Operative part of the judgment:

1. Articles 2(l), 5 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a flight which is delayed, irrespective of the duration of the delay, even if it is long, cannot be regarded as cancelled where the flight is operated in accordance with the air carrier’s original planning.
2. Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled and they may thus rely on the right to compensation laid down in Article 7 of the regulation where they suffer, on account of a flight delay, a loss of time equal to or in excess of three hours, that is, where they reach their final destination three hours or more after the arrival time originally scheduled by the air carrier. Such a delay does not, however, entitle passengers to compensation if the air carrier can prove that the long delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances beyond the actual control of the air carrier.
3. Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control.

If one follows the general tone of judgments handed down by the ECJ, it is following the tenets established by the Regulation which is seeking a high level of protection for passengers.

It follows therefore that for "extraordinary circumstances" to exist, they have to be of a type that would not be inherent in the day-to-day operation of an airline. That is a pretty high hurdle for airlines to overcome and one which they sometimes struggle to prove if a well-advised claimant takes legal proceedings against them.

That is not to say that small claims courts don't hand down some adverse judgments on even these well-founded principles. They do and it can be a pretty random experience even in similar cases involving similar circumstances where courts have found at opposite ends of the spectrum. So take note and be aware of what can happen at the small claims court level.

Hi, just after a bit of advice.
I am busy preparing my NBA letter to monarch after receiving an e mail informing me that my flight was delayed as a result of an etrraordinary curcumstance being a technical fault on the number two engine inboard pylon.
we all know EC's do not include techincal faults but what im wondering id in my letter should i quote article 5(3) of regulation EC 261/2004 or should i quote the judgement on the Wallentin-Hermann case which relates to Article 5(3) of regulation EC 261/2004
hope this makes sense,
thanks in advance,
denise

HopePray

Our July flights to Turkey from Glasgow with pegasus were delayed over three hours on both journeys, however flightstats do not even have the flight listed? Is there anywhere else I can search for it? Thanks