Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

LBD

Lol Marks2sparks.... here is the response I sent yesterday lunchtime....

Dear David Bulut,

I refer you to all previous correspondence and 3 telephone calls confirming you received ALL documentation .

It was sent recorded delivery, so we have that confirmation along with Kate Greens that it has been received.

Quite frankly this is in my view a very serious issue that within your company you have lost the photocopied details of a passport and will now require further urgent action.

I also not that your email is generic “one size fits all” so it has been sent to many people, why?

You have also failed to state who’s passport page you have lost! Please do so by immediate return. ...

You will love the response lol....



Hello, thanks for your email.

The reason for your email in particular was that your front sheet was detached from the rest of your party and your passport, and therefore there wasn’t a copy of the passport attached to it and you were sent an email in error. Your front sheet has now been attached to the correct claim form with the rest of your information.

The emails were typed by myself yesterday, and it certainly wasn’t a “One size fits all”, as there was a wide variety of information missing, ranging from a signature missing, to a whole sheet not being filled out.

Apologies for the confusion on this matter, but all has been resolved.

Kind Regards
David Bulut
Monarch EU Claims Advisor
euclaim@monarch.co.uk

You could'nt make this up could you!!!!!

LBD

You will note in the response they have failed to say which of the 3 passport pages they misplaced!!!

monkeyspanner

richardw wrote: »

monkeyspanner, there's no point claiming Article 7 compensation with regard to http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32004R0261:EN:HTML because it is highly likely that a County Court Judge would agree that the snow was 'extraordinary circumstances' and no Article 7 compensation is due.

Yours was a package holiday so you could argue with Inghams for significant loss of holiday time
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3288/regulation/14/made

BTW see post 3200 below.

Thanks Richard,

We thought that this was probably the case and your second link doesn't seem to shed light on our argument with Ingahams:(
Very grateful for your response and have read post 3200 but can't seem to make sense of it as there appears to be so many caveats and exceptions. We did contact Inghams at the time of the event but were given the brush off and referred to our insurers. We argued that our contract was with them and as such they had a duty of care to us but to no avail.

Could you confirm that refunds for flights delayed over three hours or cancelled by the operator are only applicable if you did not travel? As explained in my op we were delayed for over 24 hours with NO assistance, no Ingham representatives including ground handling staff acting as agents for Inghams and so we were not made aware of our rights to accomodation or to cancel our booking.

Thanks so much for trying to help, it's much appreciated!

Cheers

richardw

monkeyspanner,

Article 6 and Article 9 of EU Reg 261/2004 advises what TC should've done at Gatwick when it was known about the delay.

Do a list of what the difference is between what TC should've done and what they actually did do, put a monetary value to it and claim for it referring to the relevant bits of the EU reg.

Perhaps claim from Inghams under the package travel regulations Regulation 14 for the "difference between the services to be supplied under the contract and those supplied". But you can't claim for all of the difference, because some of that was due to the snow, just the bit that was TC's fault. You'll have to demonstrate TC's fault from your records though. More http://www.holidaytravelwatch.net/2010/06/12/package-travel-regulations/ perhaps read up on successful claims under this regulation, before writing back.

They are giving you the brush off cos it saves them money, this "claim on your travel insurance" is in addition to your rights under the EU Reg 261/2004 and the package travel regulations, NOT instead of your rights.

leec79

Centipede100 wrote: »

The question posed by Germanwings has effectively (and possibly legally) been answered by the ruling on 23 Oct in the other 2 cases. Whilst I cannot tell whether the case is still pending, it would seem likely it could be withdrawn altogether as it asked virtually identical questions which have been answered twice now by the ECJ.

I would press on with writing back to the airline pointing out the ruling on 23 Oct is definitive and inviting the airline to pay up within a further short time period.

If their only defence is that they don't believe the law applies, then your next step should be starting legal proceedings.

Thanks for your reply - that seems a sensible approach to take.

Another thought I had, I wonder if it is worth waiting a period of time to see if EC-413/11 is indeed deemed irrelevant now and thrown out - it would make a return letter to the carrier a lot more effective, being able to state that their defence in their first rejection letter has been thrown out. Otherwise I can see a tit for tat exchange of letters with the carrier, resulting in small claims proceedings. Or am I just being naive and it'll end up in small claims, regardless of their defence being thrown out.

Just thinking aloud on the above really, rather than asking specific questions. Key to this approach I guess would be to have an understanding of a) how likely/long it would take for 413/11 to be thrown out, and b) how long it takes for 413/11 to be heard at the ECJ. Two questions I dont know the answer to!

Marmotta_2

I was wondering if my claim would be covered under EC Regulation or not? My flight from Tokyo to Helsinki was delayed by 26 hours due to a faulty engine, for which a part apparently needed to be flown in from Finland.

Of course, when I contacted Finnair to complain at the time, they insisted it qualified as an exceptional circumstance and I wasn't due any compensation, other than the two meals and hotel I'd been provided in Japan.

Is this the case and, if not, is there any case law I can refer them to when I complain again?

Thanks
Jared

Aidy1972

LBD wrote: »

Lol Marks2sparks.... here is the response I sent yesterday lunchtime....

Dear David Bulut,

I refer you to all previous correspondence and 3 telephone calls confirming you received ALL documentation .

It was sent recorded delivery, so we have that confirmation along with Kate Greens that it has been received.

Quite frankly this is in my view a very serious issue that within your company you have lost the photocopied details of a passport and will now require further urgent action.

I also not that your email is generic “one size fits all” so it has been sent to many people, why?

You have also failed to state who’s passport page you have lost! Please do so by immediate return. ...

You will love the response lol....



Hello, thanks for your email.

The reason for your email in particular was that your front sheet was detached from the rest of your party and your passport, and therefore there wasn’t a copy of the passport attached to it and you were sent an email in error. Your front sheet has now been attached to the correct claim form with the rest of your information.

The emails were typed by myself yesterday, and it certainly wasn’t a “One size fits all”, as there was a wide variety of information missing, ranging from a signature missing, to a whole sheet not being filled out.

Apologies for the confusion on this matter, but all has been resolved.

Kind Regards
David Bulut
Monarch EU Claims Advisor
[EMAIL="euclaim@monarch.co.uk"]euclaim@monarch.co.uk[/EMAIL]

You could'nt make this up could you!!!!!

Hi LBD,

I have recently written to Monarch Airlines exactly 14 days ago today using the MSE letter from the website. Not heard anything yet. Did you use the same letter or have you tried a diferent way?

Jamie_Carter

richardw wrote: »

What easyJet really mean't to say

"We know all about the outcome of Wallentin Hermann v Alitalia and that we should probably compensate you in accordance with this case under EU Reg 261/2004, but nobody is actually forcing us to do so, so as a cost conscious airline who doesn't give a monkeys about repeat business, we aren't going to."

No. What they meant to say was exactly what they said. If it was down to adverse weather conditions, then it wasn't their fault. So why would anyone expect any compensation.

They can claim of their travel insurance instead.

richardw

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

No. What they meant to say was exactly what they said.

Nope. easyJet didn't mention the weather.

Jamie_Carter

richardw wrote: »

Nope. easyJet gave them the brush off to save money, because they can.

You can't say that unless you know all the details.

Do you know the flight number, and the weather conditions on that day? As well as how many other flights were cancelled on the same day?

Stop putting our fares up by telling people to claim when they aren't entitled. :mad: