Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

111KAB

Mark2spark wrote: »

Can I just ask 111KAB, whether you filed two separate MCOL claims, or a joint claim?
Just asking, seeing as Monarch are asking people to make separate claims, when clearly if it's all on one booking, then all parties should be compensated, and that the lead passenger can make this claim on their behalf.

Two passengers, one claim (organisation v organisation) however I have already received confirmation that my wife and I (2 pax) can have the case heard in our local court (Birmingham) rather than Luton (Monarch). I am just trying to be sensible and reduce the court costs, time taken, interest etc as the two claims would be exactly the same (other than claimants) as I submitted.

Dopey1980

Centipede100 wrote: »

Further to this post where the airline claims that Article 35 of the Montreal Convention means that claims should be brought within 2 years of the date of delay, I have discovered this commentary from 2 solicitors at Stephenson Harwood: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2a14e697-5d2c-494e-a5fa-b65e639acc0f

In case this article is withdrawn fom public view the relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:

It is anticipated that the delivery of the present judgment will prompt a flood of claims by passengers in relation to flights delayed for 3 hours or more going back to 17 February 2005.

That raises the question of how far back passengers can claim compensation for delayed flights. There is no guidance on this point from either the CJEU or the Regulation. It may be possible to defend old claims for compensation on the basis that they are time-barred under the laws of limitation or prescription that apply to those claims. By way of example, if a claim is brought before the English courts by a passenger for compensation on a flight that was delayed for more than 3 hours in March 2006, the carrier can argue that that claim should not proceed, because the relevant limitation period for bringing such claims – 6 years – has expired. (We may have more clarity on this point soon when the CJEU rules in the case of More v KLM on whether the limitation period for claims under the Regulation should be two years as per the Montreal Convention, but as the CJEU has ruled that claims under the Regulation fall outside the scope of Montreal, this is unlikely).

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.[/QUOTE]


What was the outcome of this.

I've been unable to follow the thread the last few weeks due to one thing and another..

Dopey1980

Bradford904 wrote: »

Has anybody actually had a successful claim with monarch & been paid out?

Has anyone had a successful claim with KLM Air France?

richardw

111KAB wrote: »

This was actually a delayed not a cancelled flight so Articles 6/7 are more relevant but thanks for your response.

Article 5 still applies.

poet123

Dopey1980 wrote: »

Has anyone had a successful claim with KLM Air France?

Or Ryanair or Jet2.com?

Mark2spark

AFAIA only BA and Easyjet have paid out so far.

So, no success yet recorded against Monarch, KLM, Jet2, or Ryanair.

rusty_frog

Mark2spark wrote: »

AFAIA only BA and Easyjet have paid out so far.

So, no success yet recorded against Monarch, KLM, Jet2, or Ryanair.

Dont forget Thomas Cook Airlines!

Lapduc

New to all this, but I am now going to claim against Monarch for a six hour delay to a flight from Birmingham to Rome in April.
But...my Air France flight from Johannesburg to Birmingham (via Paris) in November last year was delayed by 10 hours. I was in a hurry to get back so accepted a seat on a South Afrrican Airlines flight to Heathrow instead. My wife drove around 100 miles to pick me up. Would this qualify for a compensation claim? Advice gratefully accepted.

thalia22

Mark2spark wrote: »

What I mean 111KAB, is that Monarch's brief might well attempt to hoodwink the Court by 'quoting' the CAA as per Andy's post below, so your reply from the CAA, when it comes, might be vital evidence.

It was posted a table of the CAA list regarding compensation for delays, with published guidance for delays caused by extraordinary circumstances, detailing a) to k). Firstly I cannot find this on the CAA website, can anyone help me albeit i have copied the same. Secondly I feel this list could be used by airlines as a get out clause, by defining the specific flight delay as being one of this list, which hardly leaves any circumstances left for claimants to take on the airlines. I can understand some of these like most of b), g), h), i) (with limitations), j), & k). But some of this list certainly does not match the ECJ court case definitions?.

I also noticed on the CAA wbsite under Consumer legislation enforced by the CAA in anex A page 10 of 12, under regulkation EC 261/2004 the rights to compensation and assitance for denied boarding, or cancellation and long delays. it can apply criminal sanctions of a £5000 fine. under part 8 EA02.
Why has no arline been taken to task yet, like those who are deliberately trying to get out of the regulations, and readers of this website are well aware of who they are.

Mark2spark

thalia22 wrote: »

It was posted a table of the CAA list regarding compensation for delays, with published guidance for delays caused by extraordinary circumstances, detailing a) to k). Firstly I cannot find this on the CAA website, can anyone help me albeit i have copied the same.

My post at 3756 contains links to the CAA website where their listed reasons for extraordinary circumstances differ somewhat from the list that Monarch have been sending out on their claim form.