Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

111KAB

Centipede100 wrote: »

Your thinking is correct. A view from the CAA, whilst not a legal precedent, should carry some weight with the court.

IMO issue your court claim at the same time as you write to the CAA as you are likely to receive a response from the CAA before your case comes before a court.

Accept your comment Centipede however in my case after I submitted to MCOL the airline were given 28 days to respond. They defended then I was sent an Allocation Questionaire and given 14 days to submit. Section E of the questionaire refers to expert's report (in this case CAA) however some 60+ days since I submitted my claim I am still awaiting the CAA report/comment. I have spoken with them and assured it is on its way/favourable however my submission to the Court has had to state it is not yet available.

Vauban

111KAB wrote: »

Accept your comment Centipede however in my case after I submitted to MCOL the airline were given 28 days to respond. They defended then I was sent an Allocation Questionaire and given 14 days to submit. Section E of the questionaire refers to expert's report (in this case CAA) however some 60+ days since I submitted my claim I am still awaiting the CAA report/comment. I have spoken with them and assured it is on its way/favourable however my submission to the Court has had to state it is not yet available.

Thanks both. I think therefore, on balance, that this argues for pocketing an (hopefully favourable) CAA letter before going in front of a judge. We only get one shot in Court, of course.

111KAB: interesting and encouraging that CAA were nevertheless able to give you a helpful steer. Let us know when you do (eventually) hear from them!

richardw

Centipede100 wrote: »

There have been a number of cases heard under County Court small claims track which have interpreted technical issues as both "extraordinary circumstances" and the exact opposite!

Remember that each case will be determined on its own merits and sometimes it will come down to whether the presiding DJ is fully aware of 261/2004 and its precedent case law or not.

Although case law on technical issues seems to be in favour of passengers, I would estimate that rulings are 50/50 in the County Court from claims I am aware of and that is why airlines are prepared to allow many of these to be heard.

So it is absolutely imperative to refer to the appropriate ECJ cases so that the DJ has a chance to do their home work.

badbobby

badbobby wrote: »

Notice received from the court that TC are defending my claim in full.

They've admitted one journey and offered vouchers, so I'm not sure why they are not defending only in part.

I await their full response...

Anyone else gone legal on them?

I've been looking through this entire thread for info re "knock on delays" and would appreciate some advice...

The second part of the delay was caused by a an issue on the incoming craft - i.e. before it flew to the airport from which I was flying.

Leaving aside the actual cause of the delay on the previous craft, where are we with knock on delays?

thalia22

Vauban wrote: »

Has anyone received a "ruling" from the (UK) CAA on whether an airline's defence of "extraordinary circumstances" holds water? There was a useful post a couple of weeks ago (#4152) enclosing a letter from the Spanish equivalent.

Whilst I appreciate that the CAA has a limited locus (and no role as an ombudsman), I wouldn't want to be an airline defending a claim from someone in possession of an 'expert' CAA view that the EC defence does not apply: that would be reasonably compelling, surely (even if it is for the Court to take the decision)?

So two questions:

a) has anyone had a definitive view from the CAA on their own specific circumstances?

b) does it make for better tactics to solicit a supportive letter from the CAA before bringing the matter before the Courts? (I accept that Court action is inevitable, given the obduracy of some airlines - Monarch, I'm talking about you! - but sequencing is important.)

Hi their, In my long running case with Iberia, I have documented a whole raft of correspondence with the CAA. Nothing is definitive, but I shall copy for information sections out of the list for my court hearing sections case file 4a to 4n.

RE: Iberia 20/6/2011 from CAA

Thank you for your facsimile of 08 March regarding your recent flight disruption. I apologise for the delay in our reply but we have a considerable backlog due to unexpected events, and our response time is not as we would wish.

On the basis of your letter, we think that the airline may not have given you the assistance that it should have done under EU law. The law that we think applies most directly to your complaint is Regulation EC261/2004. I enclose some information about your rights under this Regulation.


Every Member State of the EU is required to have a body to receive complaints that fall under the Regulation. These bodies deal with complaints about flights from airports within their country. We are acting as a post box only and have therefore sent your complaint to Spain, whose contact details can be found on the enclosed list. We have not kept a copy of your complaint. However, we have logged basic details on our database under the reference number above.
We have asked this body to contact you directly, as necessary, about your complaint, and to let you know the outcome. It can take a long time to investigate and deal with complaints, especially during busy periods. However, if you have not heard anything within three months and would like us to find out what is happening, please do not hesitate to contact us, quoting the above reference number.
Yours sincerely

Frances Walther
Consumer Affairs Manager
Regulatory Policy Group

letter issued to CAA

RE: Iberia / Spanish NEB
Thank you for your letter of 12th January about your complaint that we referred to the Spanish National Enforcement Body (NEB).
I am sorry to learn that you are no further forward with your claim against Iberia, but regret that we are unable to step in and assist, for the same reasons that we had to forward your claim to the Spanish NEB in the first place.
The procedure for referral of complaints to the NEBs in the relevant Member State, came about following detailed discussions between NEBs and the European Commission. The UK CAA argued for complaints to be handled by the NEB in a passenger’s country of residence. But we were a lone voice and eventually had to concede the argument.

However, since having fallen into line with the majority, we have been focussed on trying to make sure that handling of complaints under Regulation EC261/2004 works in the best interest of the passengers. We have provided feedback to the Commission and to individual NEBs, and will continue to do so. I assure you that your feedback is important to us and has not been ignored, but I am sorry that we cannot assist further on this occasion.
Yours sincerely

Andy Thompson
Consumer Affairs Officer
Regulatory Policy Group
Civil Aviation Authority
Room 401
CAA House, 45-59 Kingsway, London WC2B 6TE
Telephone: 0207 453 6888

Spanish regulators letter dated 19/10/2011
Quote, “I now have received the final result of the Ministerio De Formento investigation, which upholds my original claim for 600 euros each, 1200 in total, pursuant of (EC) resolution 261/2004. The letter also states (last paragraph), my rights for further compensation under the International carriage by air (Montreal Convention of 28th of May 1999). I therefore
repeat I wish to further claim currently running at £--.-- or circa --- Euros, for my financial loss incurred, in issuing my claim against Iberia £--.--, plus ongoing postage costs. Some receipts are available should they be required.

I further point out that the Ministerio De Formento in page two 4th paragraph states quote, "Taking into consideration all of the aforesaid, AESA considers that the reason for the delay invoked by the company, would not constitute extraordinary circumstances pursuant to Regulation (EC) 262/2004, Accordingly, the air carrier should pay you
compensation for the amount of 600 euros per passenger, considering that the distance between Guarulhos and London, final destination is more than 3500 kilometers.”


my latest letter to CAA dated 19/12/2012

Re IBERIA 13/12/2010 CASE REF NO:
URGENT
THIS EMAIL LETTER IS FOR THE ATTENTION OF FRANCES WALTHER OR MONICA BONELLO


Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing this final letter to you at the CAA as advised by my MEP Andrew Duff. I have now issued County Court Proceedings against Iberia airlines, and have received their defence statement for which I enclose a copy of the same below. I have yet to be issued with a County Court hearing date for my case in the Colchester County Court.

I am writing this final letter to you at the CAA for your thoughts, advice, and specific comments, that could assist me in Court, based on this case, and based on the attached correspondence betwen the parties, the change of excuses, the failure to comply with the full investigation and recomendations of the Spanish Regulator the AESA, and the continual
failure to answer correspondence issued, and the continual failure to supply the specific requested reasons, along with the arrogant attitude.

Part of a letter dated 26/4/2011 issued to Iberia requesting details never furnished or ever answered:-
1 therefore require a detailed explanation in writing of the following:-

i) What was exactly the technical issue that could affect safety.
ii) Did this specific technical issue actually affect safety, and define the cause, the nature, and action involved
iii) Define that the circumstances are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of Iberia as the air carrier.
iv) Define and demonstrate that Iberia could not have acted differently if all reasonable measures had been taken.

v) At the time of the incident the airline failed to inform me of my rights in the prescribed manner, therefore already in breach of the regulation. As I was not appropriately informed of my rights it was not possible for me to request proper compliance of my rights to which I was entitled, giving rise to a claim for damages as per article 15 sub 2 EC regulation 261/2004.
vi) Moreover Iberia is pursuant to the Montreal Convention 2001/539/EC under article 19 and 22, liable for any damages I incurred as a result of the delay.

I am currently awaiting a court hearing date. I cannot go into further details for obvious reasons, but see posts #2016 page 101, #2187 page 110, #3285 page 165, #3345 page 168, # 3917 page 196, #4512 page 208. The AUC initially, now dealt with by the CAA, appears to be unable cannot enforce anthing in direct relation to EU261/2004. They can only refer you to the appropriate regulator in the counrty applicable. But the term extraordinary circumstances is widely being abused by airlines, trying to negate payment, no morals are evident, and a total failure of their duty of care is prevalent.
Hope this might help.

badbobby

Centipede100 wrote: »

To a large extent that depends on what you have 'left aside'...

It was apparently a refuelling issue. Awaiting full information.

My thoughts were that the actual problem was not with my flight so it was not extraordinary, regardless of what the fault was.

The fault happened some 3-4 hours (perhaps even longer) before my flight was due to take off so they could have provided a replacement plane should they have wished to. They chose not to due to the cost of doing so.

Ultimately I'm not sure that passengers should be punished for airlines trying to "sweat" the planes as much as possible by minimizing tarmac time... Of course, prices would be higher but delays would be fewer.

a5827

Centipede100 wrote: »

If you have read the FAQs, they helpfully link to at least one draft of a possible letter for you.

Thanks, I have now found the Centipede100 Template letter which I think is what you meant. I missed that previously as I was focussing on the links under the heading "Technical fault with plane is NOT "extraordinary circumstances" so you CAN claim".

EugeneB

Sharing my success story:

May 2012: Got my flight from Edinburgh to Nice delayed for more than 3 hours.

October 2012: Read MSE article about possible compensation, made up my own claim letter and sent it to easyJet.

October 2012: Got reply from easyJet:

I would like to confirm that as the flight was delayed due to extraordinary situation, as easyJet being affordable airline it is hard for us to go ahead and proceed with the refund and the EU compensation.

Something I would expect, so straight after that I've escalated complaint to Civil Aviation Authority.

November 2012: Got reply from CAA that they looking into my complaint.

November 2012: Got update from CAA that easyJet uses exempt clause to justify the delay:

The problem was discovered shortly prior to the scheduled time of departure of the flight, giving rise to extraordinary circumstances. easyJet took all steps that could reasonably be expected to avoid the circumstances leading to the delay, namely it (1) complied with the regime of technical checks; (2) undertook an engineering intervention as soon as the fault was discovered; (3) arranged a replacement aircraft as soon as it transpired that the aircraft would not be serviceable.

CAA continues with deeper investigation.

December 2012: easyJet contacts me in order to give me compensation.

January 2013: Happy New Year!

So in total it took about 2 months and 7 days to get my compensation.

topyam

EugeneB wrote: »

Sharing my success story:

May 2012: Got my flight from Edinburgh to Nice delayed for more than 3 hours.

October 2012: Read MSE article about possible compensation, made up my own claim letter and sent it to easyJet.

October 2012: Got reply from easyJet:

Something I would expect, so straight after that I've escalated complaint to Civil Aviation Authority.

November 2012: Got reply from CAA that they looking into my complaint.

November 2012: Got update from CAA that easyJet uses exempt clause to justify the delay:

CAA continues with deeper investigation.

December 2012: easyJet contacts me in order to give me compensation.

January 2013: Happy New Year!

It seems the CAA ruled Easyjet shouldn't have compensated you, yet they did??

EugeneB

topyam wrote: »

It seems the CAA ruled Easyjet shouldn't have compensated you, yet they did??

No, at that point (Nov2012) CAA haven't decided anything, quoting:

We will investigate your complaint and to do that we will need to request some further information from the airline. Once we receive that information, and based on that and any other information available to us, we will take a view, (alongside technical expertise from other colleagues within the CAA), on whether we consider the airline’s claim of extraordinary circumstances to be reasonable.

So I reckon upon closer look by CAA easyJet had to admit that they can't use exempt clause.