Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

airplane500

An update about my BMIBaby cancelled flight compensation: After several more letters sent, they've now paid the amount for taxi and hire car costs but are still refusing to pay the 250 euros per passenger compensation despite my repeated requests for proof of both the extraordinary circumstances and how the cancellation couldn't be avoided. The deadline for the letter before notice has now passed so am going to fill in the N1 form this week.

theboots

ian41 wrote: »

In the long term, the SIA reply is quite helpful to you. I will compose a reply to them to emphasise the key points if you wish. Its no trouble.

Just let me know. I say this because I am beginning to notice a number of members posting their travel upset in one post asking for help - and then failing to return to the forum to even read the advice!

Thanks that would be most helpful, I am a bit late getting back to the forum as I am travelling again unfortunately for work.

ian41

airplane500 wrote: »

An update about my BMIBaby cancelled flight compensation: After several more letters sent, they've now paid the amount for taxi and hire car costs but are still refusing to pay the 250 euros per passenger compensation despite my repeated requests for proof of both the extraordinary circumstances and how the cancellation couldn't be avoided. The deadline for the letter before notice has now passed so am going to fill in the N1 form this week.

I understand that BMI have not paid the compensation but did they make any comment on the issue in their letters/emails?

It is useful that the other costs have been settled now so that the focus is now on compensation.

If you are going down the legal route, may I suggest that you should continue the factual and unemotional format that was suggested for your LBA.

ian41

theboots wrote: »

Thanks that would be most helpful, I am a bit late getting back to the forum as I am travelling again unfortunately for work.

No problem at all and there is no rush. I knew that you would come back and say if you did not require any help but some others......

I will try to put something together before the end of the week - as I have travel plans over the next few weeks and therefore will be an infrequent visitor to the forum over that period.

airplane500

Ian 41, I agree with the factual and unemotional point and will continue in that vein.
After sending the LBA, they sent a couple of letters which I responded to, each time requesting proof of both the e.c. and how the cancellation couldn't have been avoided. They replied with the same statement about a crack in the keel beam, no copies of aircraft technical docs etc.
I just received a letter this morning saying they are not obliged to release these documents due to them containing confidential information but if I contact their legal team I can obtain them by paying a fee through the data protection act.

ian41

airplane500 wrote: »

Ian 41, I agree with the factual and unemotional point and will continue in that vein.
After sending the LBA, they sent a couple of letters which I responded to, each time requesting proof of both the e.c. and how the cancellation couldn't have been avoided. They replied with the same statement about a crack in the keel beam, no copies of aircraft technical docs etc.
I just received a letter this morning saying they are not obliged to release these documents due to them containing confidential information but if I contact their legal team I can obtain them by paying a fee through the data protection act.

The last sentence concerns me. I have seen documents covering well in excess of 100 such claims but this is the first time that I have seen such a suggestion – that the proof they are required to give you under Art 5.3, will only be provided after payment of a fee to their solicitors! What was the solicitor’s name and address and the fee involved?

In your shoes, I would want to make capital out of that response either pre-N1 or in the Claimants Statement e.g. this response is against both the spirit and requirements of the M of J Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and will be brought to the attention of the District Judge.

A couple of other points. You mention “no copies of aircraft technical docs”. In my suggested draft LBA for you, I didn’t use those words – we reminded BMI that they had not supplied any proof. We laid out the case and then under Item 1 went through a preamble, before making points 1.1 – 1.5 which need to be read together and are critical to your case. Nuances and flow are important. For example, don’t forget that point 1.4 remains extremely important to you – did BMI ignore that point totally?

However, it is silly for me to speculate on unseen letters – yours and theirs – it’s guessing on my part. So it is better to say that the case is winnable in my view as a layman and to wish you luck.

No doubt, if you have any specific questions to ask then you will give the full and specific details and background at the appropriate time.

airplane500

The letter they sent today says, "In respect of further reports, as these contain confidential information, we are unable to send these directly to you. However, you are able to request these inline with the data protection act and all requests should be sent in writing to our legal team. They will provide you with the relevant forms and advise of the fee imposed".

No details as to the fee or where to write to their legal team. It does strike me as odd they haven't readily sent me any "proof" (with redacted confidential info) to prove e.c. As I said, the info they sent was on BMIBaby headed paper with the statement I posted in #1158 with a heading:
Flight Reg Sector STD ATD STA ATA
1104 GTOYF GVABHX 08:35 CANX 10:35

Your draft LBA was sent almost as you wrote it (I removed the part about right to care as we had no receipts for this). Item 1 preamble then the points 1.1-1.5 remained. No reference to point 1.4 has been made by BMIBaby. There have subsequently been more letters sent by BMI denying compensation to which I replied reminding them the onus is on them to offer supporting proof (including, but not limited to aircraft technical documentation). I am more than happy to fully post all correspondence sent and received.
Again, many thanks for your comprehensive help and your view that the case could be winnable.

luci1838

ian41 wrote: »

Yes it is but please remember, only once a positive ECJ ruling has been handed down and assuming that Virgin's defence does not persuade you otherwise.

Thanks for the above Ian41.

Please see Virgin's response to my most email, in blue and quotations which leaves me uncertain whether, even with a favourable ECJ ruling, I can build a case.

"Virgin Atlantic is very proud of our safety and maintenance records and we maintain our aircraft above and beyond the minimum requirements outlined by the CAA. The technical fault that caused the delay to your flight was most certainly an unforeseen safety shortcoming that could not have been avoided.

The European Court ruled that a technical delay cannot be deemed as an extraordinary circumstance if minimum safety and maintenance requirements have not been met."

Does anyone know whether that final paragraph is correct? I wasn't aware of this caveat.

"I’m afraid, as our maintenance records are commercially sensitive documents, I will not be providing you with a copy of these,"

which means I won't know whether they have maintained minimum standards of maintenance.


Any ideas most welcome.

dzug1

luci1838 wrote: »

which means I won't know whether they have maintained minimum standards of maintenance.

I'm intrigued as to how would would know even if you did see the records

But the answer in principle is you go to court saying that the airline has failed to provide evidence of necessary maintenance

richardw

dzug1 wrote: »

I'm intrigued as to how would would know even if you did see the records

But the answer in principle is you go to court saying that the airline has failed to provide evidence of necessary maintenance

Perhaps it may be best to read up on Wallentin Hermann v Alitalia and wait for the ECJ ruling.