Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

Mark2spark

jaycee_111 wrote: »

Hi
I registered a complaint in January after a 24 hour delay due to mechanical problems with the plane on my holiday to Cuba last Xmas. I was stranded at Gatwick. I have exchanged emails with Thomas Cook and the last one is below can anyone comment o nthe validity of the claim made?
Dear Mr Jaycee_111

Thank you for taking the time to contact us.

I understand that you have questioned whether you are entitled to compensation as result of a flight delay you have experienced with us. Please note that the judgement in question present has been passed in the European Court of Justice and not yet been accepted in the UK Courts. It is for this reason that we are unable to consider any compensation at this stage.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact us.

Yours sincerely

I believe that the UK Courts are duty bound under Statute (Maastrict Treaty? Lisbon Treaty?) to accept any rulings by ECJ.
So a UK court can't break the law and not accept it IMO
I believe that The Charter of Fundamental Rights has something to do with this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_Union
IMO it means that a UK *Law* can't be overidden by a EU *new* law without G'ment say so, but adopting rulings by the ECJ is a given.
Especially seeing as the UK courts deferred back to the ECJ for a final ruling on this compo question.

blindman

Mark2spark wrote: »

A few people are popping up with this Montreal Convention excuse from the airlines.
Aside from Centipedes news that a further ruling on this from ECJ is imminent, it also strikes me that a compensation claim isn't a claim for damages?
I'm not a lawyer, just using a layman's interpretation of the English words used.
Opinions?

Further reading :eek: gives this

The fact that the rewriting of the Regulation, so as to give fixed-rate compensation to passengers delayed by 3 hours or more,

infringes Article 29 of the Montreal Convention, which provides that non-compensatory damages for delayed flights are not recoverable.


As the compensation for delay under the Regulation is based on fixed amounts, determined by reference to flight distance, which does not relate in any way to the damage suffered by the passenger, this would make them “non-compensatory damages” under the Montreal Convention.

So (literally) the jury is out on this until 22nd Nov.

blindman

It's a few pages back so I'll repeat thes FAQ's with links (updated with BA address)


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 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
Thomas cook incident Oct 26 2012

KLM Address Quote:
KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES PLESMAN HOUSE/2A CAINS LANE, BEDFONT TW14 9RL FELTHAM, MIDDLESEX
Phone: 020 87509200 Fax: 020 87509090
Ryanair address Quote:
Ryanair Customer Service Department, P.O. 11451, Swords, Co. Dublin, Ireland.
BA Address
British Airways Customer Relations, EU Compensation Claims, PO Box 5619, Sudbury, Suffolk, CO10 2PG, United Kingdom.
BA complaint web-site


Compensation per person + Monarch email
Monarch Claim form example

Centipede100 Template letter
CAA Template letter


Airline claims 2 years maximum to claim
CAA Denied boarding
Right to Care
European small claims

Original Sturgeon judgment giving rise to delay compensation:

Legal challenge to Sturgeon judgment:

MCOL:

nettesteve1

Archer_Able wrote: »

were was the flight from nettesteve1?

It was from London Luton to Majorca, we was told on the day tecnical difficulties. Assuming that could cover a number of issues

Inga

In March 2011 My partner and I were delayed 5 hours leaving Liverpool to Amsterdam with Easyjet and I was pleased to read that we may be able to claim compensation. I had a look on the flightstats web page linked from MSE where it showed we were delayed by only 4.5 hours which was near enough.

We remember the delay was caused because there was a fault with the plane and a part had to be flown to us although we were not told this officially by any Easyjet representative. All the other flights on the flightstats web page for the same day were shown as on time.

I am preparing to complete the template letter but on checking the site again I find the delay details are now not available and several others are showing as having been cancelled!

What has happened?
Is there another source of this information?

We have not retained any documentation or emails and have only our word and credit card statement to prove we paid for the flights and actually travelled on the delayed flight.

spooney10

Hi..I'm new to forums but have been reading with interest ans just wanted to let you know that my family and I were delayed Aug this year by Easyjet..total delay 4hrs 55 mins. I called Easyjet tonight regarding being delayed....the Customer Agent was very helpful..gave him all details and he confirmed over the phone we would get compensation. He called me back 15 mins later and advised £1600 EUR would be refunded back onto my card within 7-10 days......fantastic result ...very happy..hope this helps :j

Dopey1980

Am I correct in thinking that a blocked toilet is a 'Technical Issue'?

Dopey1980

delvey wrote: »

You need to reply to KLM with something along the lines of:
"You have claimed that the aircraft had a technical fault but gave no details. If you wish to use this to substantiate a defence of extraordinary circumstances, I ask you to submit proof to me that meets or exceeds the very high standards set out by the ECJ in both the Wallentin-Hermann and Sturgeon rulings dated 22/12/2008 and 19/11/2009 respectively. In this context, it is insufficient to merely claim extraordinary circumstances, as the Regulation requires you to prove it and I would like to examine such evidence"
Make sure you have a read of the 2 rulings as well

KLM finally got back to my request for the above...

"Dear Mr Barker

Thank you for your message dated 11 November regarding the delay to your flight KL677 on 1 October, 2009 from Amsterdam to Calgary.

I have been in contact with our Operations Control Centre in Amsterdam who confirm that the flight was delayed due to a number of toilets being inoperable.

I regret that this situation was entirely unforeseeable and not one that could have been avoided even if all measures had been taken to present it from happening. This may have been caused by customers on the previous flight the aircraft had operated.

Additional ground time was created to solve the problem and give the maximum service to our customers.

We maintain our position that this is not a situation where there is an entitlement to compensation according to EU Regulation 261/2004.

I am sorry our response cannot be more favourable and regret that we are unable to enter any further correspondence on the issue.

Yours sincerely,

J Silverstone (Mr)
Customer Care Europe"

I'm guessing EU Regulation 261/2004 is the extraordinary circumstances thing?

Emmajae76

Having read my MSE email last week I thought I'd give it a go! I used the template and posted it to Virgin Atlantic. I received an email response today with a template they'd like me to use and an automated phone line to leave my address if I'd like them to post me an application pack. Obviously I don't know the outcome but so far so good!

richardw

Dopey1980 wrote: »

...I have been in contact with our Operations Control Centre in Amsterdam who confirm that the flight was delayed due to a number of toilets being inoperable.

I regret that this situation was entirely unforeseeable and not one that could have been avoided even if all measures had been taken to present it from happening. This may have been caused by customers on the previous flight the aircraft had operated.

Additional ground time was created to solve the problem and give the maximum service to our customers....

Is that 'proof'?