Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

blindman

Rogernoted wrote: »

Hi, I can't see if this has been covered already - apologies if it has.

ONE whole page back:cool:

I had a 10 hour delay in 2007 with XL who subsequently went out of business. I assume that I am not in a position to claim?

Your assumption is correct.

blindman

Answers to FAQ's repeated AGAIN :cool: All blue words are links to relevant posts. Some are quoted just to save you doing that

WARNING
Claiming may not be a walk in the park. So research this (long) thread and the MSE article in order to discover useful information before you ask a question!

Airline bust= no claim

Anything from 17th Feb 2005 -you can claim but if the airline says no - you can't take them to court.

Small claims time limit

Anything over 6 years old you can't go to court to claim

Package holiday flights ARE covered.

Regulation261\2004

MSE article corrected

Technical fault with plane is NOT "extra ordinary circumstances" so you CAN claim
Extraordinary circumstances + Extra ordinary Circumstances
Technical issues
More Technical issues with background

Thomas Cook address

Compensation per person + Monarch email
Monarch Claim form example

Centipede100 Template letter
CAA Template letter


Airline claims 2 years maximum to claim

As the article states, there is a current ECJ case (Cuadrench More v KLM Case C-139/11) where the judgment is due to be handed down on 22nd November which will clarify the time limit issue with respect to the Montreal Convention but I believe the ECJ will rule as they have in the recent judgment that it is the Member States legal process which will determine the time limit for claims which in the UK is 6 years from the date of delay before a legal claim becomes time barred.

CAA Denied boarding
Right to Care
European small claims

Original Sturgeon judgment giving rise to delay compensation:

Legal challenge to Sturgeon judgment:

MCOL:

MCOL and the county court small claims are not quite one and the same but MCOL is an online route into the small claims track in some respects.

This allows the claimant to start a legal claim online and for the defendant to respond online with their defence. Once a defence has been raised the claim reaches the Allocation to Track stage which is similar to that reached if one starts a claim at your local County Court using form N1.

The benefit of MCOL is it takes some of the bother of serving your claim on the defendant as you would do via the CC issuing an N1. The downside is that the claim form only allows a certain number of characters to write your statement of claim online. That can be a major disadvantage if your claim is complex. There is also a small discount on the fee to start via MCOL.

achan891

Hi all,

I have a (hopefully) quick question:

More than 2 weeks before my return to London Gatwick on an Alitalia flight, they informed me that due to scheduling changes, the flight would no longer be operating. They offered me a flight landing at Heathrow instead, which I accepted. I therefore had to book a single bus ticket to my final destination (approximately 1 hour away).

My understanding of the EU regulations is that because my rebooked flight was to a different airport to my original flight, I am entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of transport to either my original destination or another "close-by destination."

I wrote to Alitalia explaining this, but they say that because I was informed more than two weeks in advance, I'm not entitled to have the cost of the bus ticket reimbursed. I agree that I am not entitled to compensation, but I think they are wrong to refuse to reimburse me for the cost of the bust ticket. It's not a lot of money (£23) but on principle, I think they should reimburse me!

I have replied explaining that I've claimed under Article 8.3 (and not Article 5) and that the 2 week rule therefore doesn't apply, but they have ignored my email (and my subsequent reminder).

Can anyone tell me whether my interpretation is correct - and if so, advise on the best next step?

Many thanks!

joerugby

Has anyone had a response from BA since the new ruling? I'm about to resubmit a claim for a 24 hour delay in Dec 2010 which was rejected at the time and would be interested to know their current stance.

Our delay met all the criteria for compensation and BA told us in writing it was due to "operational reasons" which we undertood from their staff to be a technical fault followed by non-availability of crew as they had exceeded their hours

Does anyone have any evidence of BA's current stance?

111KAB

I have posted before regarding the fact that the law as it stands (following the 23rd October judgement) really does need 'looking at' ~ my 26 hour delay from Palma to Birmingham attracts a 250€ compensation but had it been a 3 hour 2 minute delay from Manchester I would have received substantially more compensation. Whilst any delay is a PITA we can often put up with a reasonable delay but excessive delays = blood boiling point.
So you are on a Jet2 flight to Tenerife from Manchester and someone on the flight gets ill (exceptional circumstances one presumes) so the FO decides to land at Cork ~ ill person is taken off and then plane takes off only to have a bird strike (exceptional circumstances one presumes) ~ luckily Jet2 had a replacement a/c but delay in excess of 3 hours. Surely bad luck, and this must be bad luck cannot lead to 210 people claiming compensation? ..... report here .....

A Jet2.com Boeing 757-200, registration G-LSAB performing flight LS-917 from Manchester,EN (UK) to Tenerife Sur Reina Sofia,CI (Spain) with 210 people on board, diverted to Cork (Ireland) due to a medical emergency on board. In the flare to land on runway 35 a number of birds impacted the aircraft, the aircraft touched down and rolled out safely. After roll out and before the Jet2 reported the bird strike, tower cleared the next departure to backtrack runway 35 and report any debris on the runway, the departing crew reported a number of dead birds on the right hand side of runway 35.

A replacement Boeing 757-200 registration G-LSAE positioned to Cork, resumed the flight and reached Tenerife with a delay of 5.5 hours.

The incident aircraft was able to position back to Manchester departing Cork a few minutes after G-LSAE departed to Tenerife but has not yet resumed service (Nov 11th 12:40Z).o

Caz3121

achan891 wrote: »

They offered me a flight landing at Heathrow instead, which I accepted. I therefore had to book a single bus ticket to my final destination (approximately 1 hour away).

My gut feel would be that the time to negotiate on the bus fare was when you were offered a reroute or refund. Did you ask at the time if they would cover your expense?

scorpiouk

Mark2spark wrote: »

There doesn't appear to be much you can do except drum your fingers on the table until 16 Jan 13. Maybe prepare some documents for the court regarding the speed at which TUI should pay up after judgement, if you are succesful is the only thing I can think of.

Thanks for the reply.. Also Thnaks Centipede100.

I hope that they do pull out before the date. I have been trying to think what they could come back with this time..

Checked the reason for the claim being stayed in the first place. After checking its basicaly saying that a local district judge cant force compnetation to be paid, while action is still out standing in a higher court..

Now that court has ruled they either accept the outcome or what? find a new reason?

Has anyone been to court since the clarification on the ruling?

Agian thanks.
:beer:

111KAB

scorpiouk wrote: »

I hope that they do pull out before the date. I have been trying to think what they could come back with this time..
Has anyone been to court since the clarification on the ruling?

No I have not been to Court over this issue but I am following in your footsteps with Monarch. I have however used MCOL for a similar amount and reached a settlement just prior to the hearing as it would have been pointless the other party going to Court as their expenses (solicitor and travel) would have FAR exceeded my claim ~ I suspect you may see a similar result ~ hang on in there.

scorpiouk

111KAB wrote: »

No I have not been to Court over this issue but I am following in your footsteps with Monarch. I have however used MCOL for a similar amount and reached a settlement just prior to the hearing as it would have been pointless the other party going to Court as their expenses (solicitor and travel) would have FAR exceeded my claim ~ I suspect you may see a similar result ~ hang on in there.

I will do..

One thing that sticks out is how poor the airlines are!
They will do anthing to avoid paying..
The level of service just stinks!

achan891

Caz3121 wrote: »

My gut feel would be that the time to negotiate on the bus fare was when you were offered a reroute or refund. Did you ask at the time if they would cover your expense?

I did but the woman I was speaking to said that she could only do bookings and I should call/email another department if I wanted to claim compensation etc.

I then waited until after the flight as I assumed they would want to see the receipt to confirm the amount.

I did not think it would be a matter that needed negotiation, because Article 8.3 says:

"When, in the case where a town, city or region is served by several airports, an operating air carrier offers a passenger a flight to an airport alternative to that for which the booking was made, the operating air carrier shall bear the cost of transferring the passenger from that alternative airport either to that for which the booking was made, or to another close-by destination agreed with the passenger."

...which seemed pretty clear to me...?