Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

ian41

Message deleted

ian41

Voyager2002 wrote: »

The CAA response is wrong: your flight from Gatwick was cancelled, and your onward journey from Budapest was on a flight with a different number from that on which you had been booked. You were therefore the victim of cancellation and/or denied boarding (they obviously did not allow you to board your booked flight from Budapest).

While the EU Directive says nothing about delays, it most certainly does state that compensation must be paid when flights are cancelled and / or boarding is denied. So I suggest that you re-word your complaint in these terms, and if necessary prosecute Malev in the English small claims court.

Sorry but this is not correct. It is confusing but MA613 and BA4451 is the same flight - it is a codeshare. If you key in MA613 you will see the departure was delayed until 0950. So sadly, the CAA's explanation is on the money - for a change!

However, although the OP will have to wait for the Euro 400, she is entitled to the benefits of Articles 8 and 9 of the Reg - see post # 1150 for details.

richardw

ian41 wrote: »

Without knowing the info, I would say the following to you on what I (as a layman) might do as a non-lawyer if I was in your shoes.

1. Get legal advice or check out any legal expenses cover before you press any MCOL buttons.

2. If you do not want to do 1 above (most people don't), then before you go down the MCOL route, ensure that you have read sufficient threads (successful and non-successful) relating to others who have been through the process. Also read all the "Help" threads relating to MCOL - particularly on flightmole because it is a specialist forum. Check out kathryn's ezy thread in April 2010 which should have been successful but wasn't.

Kathryn seemed to get a District Judge who appeared "not to be on the ball", I wonder if the airlines and their barristers/solicitors are keeping notes/sharing information on the 'not on the ball' judges and if this is a small factor in whether or not they defend cases.

andykb

This was the response i finally got from TC about our delay to the uk earlier in the year.
I quoted as per advice from MSE.com, so im wondering what to do next.
My complaint based was based around inacurate info, lack of services(food, drink, comms) lack of TC staff and the 7.5 hour delay

Thank you for your letter regarding your recent flights with Thomas Cook Airlines.

Firstly, I would like to take this opportunity to apologise for the delay you experienced whilst travelling with us and for any inconvenience caused as a result. I do understand how disruptive such delays can be.

In response to your request for compensation, I should advise you that Regulation EC 261/2004 (‘The Regulation’) effective from 17.2.05 contains absolutely no provision requiring an airline to pay compensation to its customers in a delay situation, whatever the cause and duration.

Your claim for compensation arising out of delay to your Thomas Cook flight therefore relies on the 19.11.09 ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) Fourth Chamber in the conjoined cases of Sturgeon v Condor (C-402/07) and Bock/Lipuschitz v Air France (C-432/07) in which, despite there being no such provision in the Regulation, the ECJ ruled that compensation for delay is payable on the same scale as if the airline had deliberately cancelled the flight. Given that delays are completely unpredictable as to when and where they occur, and as to the complexity of the fault to be rectified, this ECJ ruling is of major concern to airlines worldwide.

Accordingly, on 11.6.10, under reference CO-6569/2010, a consortium comprised of TUI/BA/Easyjet and IATA made an application in the High Court for a judicial review of the above ECJ ruling, the Civil Aviation Authority being named as defendant but not opposing the application. The purpose of the application is to persuade the High Court to refer the question of compensation for delay back to the ECJ for a definitive ruling.

I can confirm that the High Court have now heard this review and they have ruled that claims brought by passengers for compensation for delayed flights under EC Regulation 261/2004 are suspended and will not be heard, until the issue has been revisited by the ECJ.

Pending receipt of the ECJ’s decision, all airlines, including Thomas Cook Airlines, are refusing to pay claims for compensation for delay in situations, which rely on the ECJ’s ruling in the Sturgeon/Bock cases mentioned above. Accordingly, I am afraid that I must refuse your request for compensation and I can only apologise that I have been unable to resolve this matter to your satisfaction.

Once again, I am sorry that you have had cause to write in and I do hope any holidays taken in the future will be problem free and much more enjoyable.


Any suggestions?

richardw

re the delay, wait until the issue has been revisited by the ECJ.

If they did not provide the Art 9 right to care food and drink, write back.

andykb

richardw wrote: »

re the delay, wait until the issue has been revisited by the ECJ.

If they did not provide the Art 9 right to care food and drink, write back.

That was part of my complaint we werent given the correct right of care. If im mistaken its every 6 hours with access to telephones and faxes to obatin info about your delay and onwardly communicate your delay to concerned parties.
We got 8 euro vouchers and were told use our mobile phones to communicate with family and Thomas cook customer relations.

ian41

andykb wrote: »

That was part of my complaint we werent given the correct right of care. If im mistaken its every 6 hours with access to telephones and faxes to obatin info about your delay and onwardly communicate your delay to concerned parties.
We got 8 euro vouchers and were told use our mobile phones to communicate with family and Thomas cook customer relations.

These are your entitlements per passenger - no more, no less. Airlines interpret these in different ways but apart from phones, most want legible receipts.

Article 9 Right to care
1. Where reference is made to this Article, passengers shall be offered free of charge:
(a) meals and refreshments in a reasonable relation to the waiting time;
(b) hotel accommodation in cases
- where a stay of one or more nights becomes necessary, or
- where a stay additional to that intended by the passenger becomes necessary;
(c) transport between the airport and place of accommodation (hotel or other).
2. In addition, passengers shall be offered free of charge two telephone calls, telex or fax messages, or e-mails.
3. In applying this Article, the operating air carrier shall pay particular attention to the needs of persons with reduced mobility and any persons accompanying them, as well as to the needs of unaccompanied children.

andykb

Ok so to me its worth a punt at the duty of care angle as well?

ian41

richardw wrote: »

Kathryn seemed to get a District Judge who appeared "not to be on the ball", I wonder if the airlines and their barristers/solicitors are keeping notes/sharing information on the 'not on the ball' judges and if this is a small factor in whether or not they defend cases.

I have my own conspiracy theories but do not think this one is feasible. The names of DJs are not known at the time when airlines decide to defend cases.

However, do think that in the small claims track, it would be natural for DJs to think subconsciously, why would an expensive city law firm engage an expensive barrister to travel to the provinces to fight a claim of only £300-£1200 (with no prospect of recovering their legal costs) unless they felt very confident of the outcome on a point of law, therefore they must have a good case........ I also believe the fact that many DJs do not get a chance to speed read say 100 pages of docs beforehand, therefore they can miss the obvious because they are busy reading/not listening. Also I do believe that the Defence Bundle is deliberately large and overweight as a tactic.

min888

Hi Martin and all,

I am seeking your advice on my fiance's recent experience with her BA flight where the flight was re-routed to Athens mid-flight (destination was Dar es Salaam) due to a technical fault.

BA quite rightly put the her and fellow passenger up in a hotel and provided food. However, due to the delay, she arrived in Dar es Salaam a day later than she was meant to. She was travelling to attend a family wedding and having spent more than £1000 on her ticket and missed out on some of the celebrations I, following the MSE flight delay guide wrote to BA informing them of the delay and that my finance was seeking compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004.

BA wrote back advising that they are not liable for any compensation and such compensation should be sought via my finace's travel insurance provider?

Grateful for your advice pls.