Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

gm786

Thanks
I have sent them an email quoting the case you mentioned challenging them.
Let's see.

gm786

Tyzap wrote: »

What they are saying is that the aircraft had a technical problem, a 'gear unsafe' indication warning light became illuminated in the cockpit.

Technical faults are NOT regarded as an extraordinary circumstance (EC) and are not a reason to refuse compensation. Have a read and then quote 'Huzar v Jet2.com' which was decided by the UK's highest court and which sets a legal precedent that all other courts in the UK must follow.

Good luck.[/QUOTE]

I sent them an email quoting that case and received below reply.
Should I go via ADR? IS there any hope? Seems like they are really prepared to refuse it right down.
Thanks in advance


"Your file has been reviewed and I can inform you that our decision remains unchanged. Kindly note that as stated in Article 5 paragraph 3 of the EC Regulation No. 261/2004, an operating 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 have been taken.

Should you disagree with this decision and wish to use Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), please be advised that the German organisation "Schlichtungsstelle für den Öffentlichen Personenverkehr" (SÖP) is competent to deal with your complaint and provide an independent review. SWISS is prepared to cooperate with SÖP within such an ADR procedure."

Tyzap

gm786 wrote: »

I sent them an email quoting that case and received below reply.
Should I go via ADR? IS there any hope? Seems like they are really prepared to refuse it right down.
Thanks in advance


"Your file has been reviewed and I can inform you that our decision remains unchanged. Kindly note that as stated in Article 5 paragraph 3 of the EC Regulation No. 261/2004, an operating 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 have been taken.

Should you disagree with this decision and wish to use Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), please be advised that the German organisation "Schlichtungsstelle für den Öffentlichen Personenverkehr" (SÖP) is competent to deal with your complaint and provide an independent review. SWISS is prepared to cooperate with SÖP within such an ADR procedure."

Hi,

They are just making your claim as difficult and drawn out as possible in the hope you will drop it. You have a valid claim. It's like a game of cat and mouse!

They are directing you to SOP, their ADR supplier. I don't like them for various reasons. I would suggest you either use a firm of NWNF solicitors such as EUclaim who are based in Holland or if you are up for the fight and have the time and motivation, DIY via MCOL.

EUclaim is much easier but at a cost of around 33%.

There is lots of good advice here when you need it too.

Good luck.

gm786

Thankyou
I will check out euclaim and other options.

symphony63

Tyzap wrote: »

What they are saying is that the aircraft had a technical problem, a 'gear unsafe' indication warning light became illuminated in the cockpit.

Technical faults are NOT regarded as an extraordinary circumstance (EC) and are not a reason to refuse compensation. Have a read and then quote 'Huzar v Jet2.com' which was decided by the UK's highest court and which sets a legal precedent that all other courts in the UK must follow.

Good luck.

What I understand this flight did not originate in the EU. Swiss Air which is based in Switzerland is slightly a different kettle of fish. They follow EC 261/2004 to certain extent.
I found the following in a publication "The-Aviation-Law-Review-4th-ed" under the heading 'Switzerland'.

Decisions of the CJEU rendered after the adoption of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 were not officially communicated to Switzerland. Therefore, the direct application particularly of the following judgments in Switzerland is questionable: Wallentin-Hermann, where the CJEU applied a restrictive interpretation of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ of Article 5(3) of the Regulation; and Sturgeon and related decisions, in which the CJEU introduced an obligation to pay compensation in the event of a delay of three hours or more. The Swiss courts are not bound by these decisions, but they are, of course, free to follow them. The District Court of Bulach confirmed this in a decision of 2 February 2016. Based on an interpretation of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 in accordance with the standards applicable in Switzerland, the Court held that passengers are not entitled to compensation in case of delay

JPears

But the OPs flight was cancelled. Not by an EC.
Swiss Air, for 261/204 purposes, is regarded as an EU airline.
Compensation due, end of.
As I mentioned in adiferent case, the OP can take legal action under the ESCP/Lugano convention, if necasary.
Swiss air are pushing you as far as they can, basicaly with misinformation/lies.
Make a complaint to FOAC.

symphony63

JPears wrote: »

But the OPs flight was cancelled. Not by an EC.
Swiss Air, for 261/204 purposes, is regarded as an EU airline.
Compensation due, end of.
As I mentioned in adiferent case, the OP can take legal action under the ESCP/Lugano convention, if necasary.
Swiss air are pushing you as far as they can, basicaly with misinformation/lies.
Make a complaint to FOAC.

You don't seem to understand wrote. Cancelled or not, Wallentin-Hermann does NOT apply. Therefore, 'a technical problem, a 'gear unsafe' indication warning light became illuminated in the cockpit' is considered EC.
That was clarified in Swiss courts check it out. Been there.

Justice13075

I think this is telling in their reply."Your file has been reviewed and I can inform you that our decision remains unchanged. Kindly note that as stated in Article 5 paragraph 3 of the EC Regulation No. 261/2004, an operating 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 have been taken. Why all the jargon Swiss Air could just have simply said that the Wallentin-Hermann case does not apply to Swiss Air. They didn't and even offered arbitration. A call to Bott & Co probably in order.

gm786

Thanks to all those who replied.
Sorry if its a dumb question but from all your answers I think there is still a chance for a case against Swiss Airlines and I should give it a fight? Planning to go via ADR Aand SÖP initially and if I don't get any joy then next port of call will be EUCLAIM.
THANKS

symphony63

gm786 wrote: »

Thanks to all those who replied.
Sorry if its a dumb question but from all your answers I think there is still a chance for a case against Swiss Airlines and I should give it a fight? Planning to go via ADR Aand SÖP initially and if I don't get any joy then next port of call will be EUCLAIM.
THANKS

From my part go ahead and claim try your luck. Please come back and let us know how you get on.