Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Virgin Atlantic ONLY

bouddhaman

bouddhaman wrote: »

I have drafted the letter for 14 days and I am sending that today . I added the following sentence into the letter.
[FONT=&quot]Please don’t think that the fact that we are resident outside of the Uk means that we will not proceed with this action, I have found that we have the right to proceed w[/FONT][FONT=&quot] the claim and will [/FONT][FONT=&quot]use the European Small Claims Procedure Form A to submit this to the courts.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]ith[/FONT]

Today I am the very happy recipient of an email offering a bank transfer of 1294 euros in an out of court settlement for our claim . This is for the delay on the flight VS 030 in March 2013 for 4 people. So if anyone else was on this flight they can quote that there has already been a payout. I did this with the eurpoean form A from abroad, France. The only hold up was a request for the form to be signed by all parties not just me, thst it be sent in duplicate and that payment for the small claims process had be sent to them and not by bank transfer as first indicated. Other thhsn that it was plain sailing. Thank you Centipede 100 and all the other forum members.

Psaila

Yes we paid around £120 for the infant.
They did say technical issues. But they didn't elaborate..
Thank you I will take a look.

Bethhie

We was originally booked onto this flight which was due to depart at 4pm. After sitting on the runway until around 730pm it was finally announced that the flight would be cancelled and we would be going back to the airport due to a technical fault that they could not fix. We was then put up in an hotel and flew out the next day to a different airport (JFK) as it was one of our only options.

I was wondering if anybody else was on this flight and had managed to claim any kind of compensation?

We have complained to Virgin who basically told us to go away as it wasn't their fault.

We were particularly annoyed as this was a short trip that we had saved for for our 21st birthdays and we lost a whole 24 hours.

We are currently complaining to the CAA and hope to get a much better response!

Please let me know if you was on this flight

normansbaby

Centipede100 wrote: »

Will be interested in the defence but pretty sure the airline will say that weather meant that the previous flight couldn't take off so ECs apply.

In fact, the Reg refers to ECs applying to, amongst other issues, " meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned".

So ask yourself, did weather directly impact the operation of my flight from UK to Jo'burg? The answer is clearly no, but the airline will peddle this line right through a court case.

The Reg is designed to offer a defence to airlines for circumstances outside of their control. However, how can bad weather on another continent be used as a valid defence to deny your claim when weather was fine from the UK to SA. As you now see the argument is false and that is why the Reg is worded the way it is.

Hi Centipede,I agree entirely.Also the weather problems in New York were 24 hours earlier,plenty of time in my view to make other arrangements for us.
Do you know if there has been a specific case in relation to previous weather delays that I could quote if it comes to it?

normansbaby

Centipede100 wrote: »

There is no specific case law on previous weather delays so for that you have to refer to the Regulation itself. Recital (14) states as follows:

(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.

The 'flight concerned' is your flight, not a preceding or succeeding flight. Note that the Reg does not refer to aircraft either but 'flight'. This is quite deliberate since the EU Parliament decided to limit the impact of the extraordinary effect of meteorological conditions to the flight concerned only and no other flight or aircraft.

Airlines will of course have you believe that the impact of weather, even if it occurred on a different continent to that which your flight was flying from/to, can be used as a legitimate excuse to deny compensation but this is purely a tactic to dissuade passengers from claiming.

Thanks Centipede, have logged onto MCOL and Virgin have now lodged a defence ,details below:

"It is admitted that the Claimant was booked to travel on the
Defendant’s flight VS 601 from London Heathrow to Johannesburg on
14 March 2010 which was scheduled to depart at 18:00 hours.
3. It is admitted that this flight was delayed and did not depart
London Heathrow until 10:14 hours on 15 March 2010. The delay
was caused by extreme weather conditions at JFK, New York. A
storm producing hurricane force gusts meant that flights could
not depart from JFK on 13 March 2010. Unfortunately, this caused
major disruption to all airlines flight programmes out of New
York and many flights were delayed or diverted. The knock on
effect of these delays caused by aircraft stuck in New York ran
into the following day causing the delay to the Claimant’s flight
Article 5(3) of the Regulation states that if the flight was
cancelled, compensation is not payable “where an event has been
caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been
avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken”. Note 14
accompanying the Regulation indicates “meteorological
conditions”, as being an extraordinary circumstance.
7. The Defendant asserts it took all reasonable action to
minimise the delay and carry passengers to their destination as
soon as possible.
8. It is therefore denied that compensation under the terms of
the Regulation is applicable in this instance.
9. The Defendant repeats the issues set out above as evidence"


So they have repeated what they said previously claiming the previous days weather was EC.
I assume I will get a questionnaire to complete from MCOL at some point,is that right?
Tbh I was hoping they would cough up when I made the claim but it looks like I'm going to have to persue it further.

Psaila

Psaila wrote: »

Hi all just arrived home after a 27hr delay on a family holiday from Orlando international to London gatwick. Apparently there were technical problems so the plane was not at Orlando to take us home. They did put us up in a hotel for the night but we then had to spend 6hrs the next day in the airport. There was 6 adults 3 children and 1 infant in our party. It wasn't a nice experience. Do you think we would have a successful claim?
Many thanks darren

ive just spoken to someone at virgin and they would only say that there was an unforseen technical problem with an engine.
Does this still fall withing grounds of a claim?

thanks

Daisysmom

Hi I have just logged onto my MCOL page and today virgin have filed a defence ... that's all it says so I suppose I will receive something through the post with more details and can anyone tell me what will happen next please? Thanks xxx

Daisysmom

Ive just read through Virgins defence and this is what they have stated ....

1. The Defendant is a company incorporated under the laws of
England under registered number 016001117 with its registered
office at The Office, Manor Royal, Crawley, West Sussex, RH10
9NU. The Defendant is engaged in the international air
transportation of passengers, baggage and air cargo.

2. It is admitted that the Claimant and her family were booked to
travel on the Defendant’s flight VS 75 on 20 September 2008 from
Manchester to Orlando. The flight was scheduled to leave
Manchester at 10:25 hours.

3. It is admitted that due to an unforeseen technical problem
which affected the safety of the aircraft, the flight was delayed
and did not depart from Manchester until 19:51 hours on 20
September 2008.

4. As this flight was departing, on push back, the number 4
engine failed to start. The Defendant’s engineers established
that a pressure regulating shut-off valve had failed and would
require replacement.

5. This part was not available at Manchester and arrangements
were made to bring the part required from Heathrow.

6. Manchester is not a hub airport for the Defendant and whilst
we hold or have access to extensive and routinely required parts
at all the airports we operate to, items that are rarely used or
are of high value are not kept as routine stock items at non- hub
airports.

7. It is admitted that Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 (“The
Regulation”) is intended to apply where flights are delayed or
cancelled.

8. The Defendant admits that it is an operating carrier pursuant
to the Regulation.

9. It is admitted that the Regulation requires compensation in
varying amounts to be paid to passengers whose flights have been
cancelled or delayed for more than 3 hours, depending on the
reason for the flight cancellation or delay and when the
passengers were informed.

10. In spite of the above, it is denied that the Claimant is
entitled to EUR 600 as set out under Article 5 of the EU
Regulation because under Article 5 (3) it states that
compensation is not payable if the cancellation was caused by
extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided
even if all reasonable measures had been taken. The Defendant’s
aver that the aircraft scheduled to operate this flight was
delayed due to extraordinary circumstances which could not have
been foreseen or avoided by the Defendant.

11. The Defendants aver that the cost of maintaining costly
parts on a permanent basis at a non-hub airport would have
created an intolerable and disproportionate sacrifice.

12. In view of the above, the Defendant avers that the delay
was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have
been avoided and as such the Defendant denies they are liable to
the Claimant for the amount claimed


Ok so what do I do next? Sorry if I sound like a numbskull but this is all new to me and any help at all is much appreciated.

Thanks so much xxxx

hmtowns

Jopaly wrote: »

Thanks for your prompt response Vauban, I really appreciate it.

I'll post on here with an update in due course.

Seems as though Jolapy and I were on the same flight. I am a little further back in the claims process having just received my denial letter.

I am looking to send a letter before action and wondered whether the following should be included?


We are sure you are aware that under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 a technical problem in anaircraft which leads to the cancellation or delay of a flight is not covered bythe concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of thatprovision. This therefore means that you cannot claim that the cracked windowand the delay caused by its replacement, were extraordinary circumstances asyou have alleged.



In additionwe would also point out that in the case of Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy CaseC-22/11, at point 37, it clearly states that;
" In addition, it is apparent from recital 15 in the preamble toRegulation No 261/2004 that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ may relateonly to ‘a particular aircraft on a particular day’, which cannot applyto a passenger denied boarding because of the rescheduling of flights as aresult of extraordinary circumstances affecting an earlier flight". Thistherefore means that if the circumstances of the cracked window were consideredas being extra-ordinary circumstances, that does not entitle the same to beclaimed for the effects that it had on our flight.

I appreciate any help that you can give.

David_e

Daisysmom wrote: »

Ok so what do I do next? Sorry if I sound like a numbskull but this is all new to me and any help at all is much appreciated.

Thanks so much xxxx

Just looking at this:

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/action/how-to-use-the-small-claims-court/

I am not sure that you can, or need to, do anything.

Looking at the successes thread, I'm not sure that their response is necessarily a bad sign. That is not an expert view, however.