Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

blondmark

richardw wrote: »

What would a judge think if you didn't tick the mediation box?

There's plenty of case law on this and the upshot is that an unreasonable refusal to engage in mediation can result in cost sanctions against you, win or lose, e.g. you *may* be ordered to pay all of the airline's legal costs even if you win your claim.

An exception to this rule is when the parties are so far apart that mediation would be a waste of everyone's time, or if the matter being litigated is a matter of public interest, and should be aired and reported publicly.

Having said that, small claims mediation through the county court is free, done over the telephone with the mediator shuttling between you, and you don't need to offer any serious concessions. Perhaps a discount of 1% if they settle the entire claim in full within 7 days could be the largest carrot you offer.

34Clayton

I have recently submitted claim to Air France via their website for a flight delay of nearly 4 hours from Paris CDG to Montreal in May 2010 using the MSE template and attached associated booking documentation check-in docs etc. I've received the following response:

Dear Mr XXXXX

Thank you for your recentcommunication regarding the disruption to your flight AF344 from Paris toMontreal on 24th of May 2010. I am sorry for any inconvenience this situationmay have caused you.

Air travel is governed by theinternational body of law known as the Montreal Convention of 1999. Article 35of this regulation sets a time limit of two years from the date of the plannedor actual arrival of a flight to claim for damages.

We have carefully consideredyour request and taken into account all relevant details for your delayedflight. Consequently, we confirm that you have made this further claim outsidethis two year limit and so I must respectively decline your request on thisoccasion.

Thank you for allowing usthis opportunity to explain our position in this matter. I do hope that we willhave an early opportunity to service your travel needs again in the future.

Yours sincerely

XXXXXXXXXX
Customer Care Europe

What's my next step?

blondmark

34Clayton wrote: »

I have recently submitted claim to Air France via their website for a flight delay of nearly 4 hours from Paris CDG to Montreal in May 2010 using the MSE template and attached associated booking documentation check-in docs etc. I've received the following response:

Dear Mr XXXXX

Thank you for your recentcommunication regarding the disruption to your flight AF344 from Paris toMontreal on 24th of May 2010. I am sorry for any inconvenience this situationmay have caused you.

Air travel is governed by theinternational body of law known as the Montreal Convention of 1999. Article 35of this regulation sets a time limit of two years from the date of the plannedor actual arrival of a flight to claim for damages.

We have carefully consideredyour request and taken into account all relevant details for your delayedflight. Consequently, we confirm that you have made this further claim outsidethis two year limit and so I must respectively decline your request on thisoccasion.

Thank you for allowing usthis opportunity to explain our position in this matter. I do hope that we willhave an early opportunity to service your travel needs again in the future.

Yours sincerely

XXXXXXXXXX
Customer Care Europe

What's my next step?

What's the French for 'You're having a laugh'?

Invite them to google "More -v- KLM (Case C-139/11)" to see how that argument worked out for KLM.

thalia22

richardw wrote: »

What would a judge think if you didn't tick the mediation box?

Hi richard, and vaunbaum,

I have refused mediation, and would not entain it at all. I do not care what the District judge thinks, in Court I can prove that arbitrtaion, or mediation would not work, in my specific case, it has been ongoing since 12/2010, and will be two years 4 months before I get them into court (30/4/2013).

My airline involved Iberia, have consistently failed to answer correspondence, has changed the excuse three times, has ignored the official findings of the Spanish regulator the AESA, who upheld my claim rejecting Iberia's information provided, and basically substantiating my claim in full, and defining that no extraordinary circumstances existed.

I have just issued one final letter to their legal counsel, offering that if they settle before the 7 day minimum of the Court hearing date, I would forgo certain items as depicted.

i) Interest from the 1/11/2012 until hearing date of 30/4/2012 totalling to £39.82.
ii) The claim for food under the montreal Convention circa £20.00.
iii) The saving of Court hearing costs of £110.00
iv) The saving of travelling, and legal costs of counsel attending court, London to Colchester travel, and Court apperance fees, probably a loss of a full day with a minimum of circa £500+ or more.

So in essence I have offered if they settle before the Court hearing date, they can save at the very least circa £169.82, and adding in the £500 it could well be in excess of £669.82 plus.

I have stated that if they fail to settle, then I shall ask the District judge for the full claim of £1,436.43, made up of 2 x 600 euros at 12/12/2010 rates (fx 0.83740),equating to £1,004.88, Plus interest from 12/12/2010, to 30/10/2012, @ £0.22p per day, x 719 days equates to £158.18, (date I initiated Court action), plus interest from 1/11/2012 to 30/4/2013, 181 days @ £0.22 equates to £39.82. Total Court fees of £80 + £110 equates to £190, and my initial legal Dutch international claim submission documentation, which cost £22.50, plus postage costs of circa £21.05 ongoing.

As throughout the whole period iberia has not furnished the data as consitently requested, failed to acknowledge correspondence, except a couple for my MEP, and the utter intransigence by them, it would be futile to go to mediation, as we are poles apart, Iberia are rejecting outright the whole claim. I suspect, I will get a rebuttle from Iberia's counsel, but will have to wait and see if they respond or act on my final offer for settlement, which if they have any sense, they should accept, as my case file is very substantial?

So if the judge looks at the case file, then he will see I have acted resonably througout these shenanigans, and Iberia have have acted what I would call with utter contempt. As previously stated I will fight tooth and nail for my rights.

Sorry Richard if I do not concur with your statement, but it should be based on individual cases, and circumstances.

Regards Thalia 22

[Deleted User]

About a year ago I flew via KLM from Amsterdam to Dubai.

The flight was cancelled, we were put up in a hotel ( and had a very enjoyable evening sampling the combustible delights of that fine city ) and eventually departed the following day arriving about 24 hours late.

I was also given a €50 KLM travel voucher.

A pal of mine used an EU Claims company to secure compensation from KLM ( €600 minus €120 fee ) but, as I hadn't kept my ticket stubs or booking information the company wouldn't take on the case for me.

I emailed KLM for details of the flights and was surprised to receive a reply back stating that my connecting flight into Amsterdam had arrived late and therefore I was put on the following day's flight.

Which was completely untrue.

Last week I followed the MSE guidelines and used www.flightstats.com to discover that my connecting flight had actually arrived early.

Furnished with this information I emailed KLM once again requesting compensation and this morning received a reply offering €600 cash or an €800 KLM travel voucher.

That's €850 of flights and a night on the lash in the Dam - thanks to KLM and MSE.

Result.

samwardill

Deleted_User wrote: »

A pal of mine used an EU Claims company to secure compensation from KLM ( €600 minus €120 fee ) but, as I hadn't kept my ticket stubs or booking information the company wouldn't take on the case for me.

What was the name of the claims company your pal used?

34Clayton

blondmark wrote: »

What's the French for 'You're having a laugh'?

Invite them to google "More -v- KLM (Case C-139/11)" to see how that argument worked out for KLM.

Thanks for this. I've sent them another email with the details of the above case. Will relay back their response.

Mark2spark

Re: Mediation.
It's not really applicable in a EU claim... there's no middle ground to meet on (excepting conceding on the interest I suppose).
You're either entitled to the full amount or nothing.
So IMO, tick the box, if in the outside chance their counsel agrees to mediation, then simply ask if they agree that the claim is valid ie no EC's exist, or not. If not, mediation ends.

LBD

Thank you for taking the time to contact us in respect of your flight.



I am sorry to learn of the disappointment that prompted your correspondence. Providing our passengers with safe and efficient service is our first priority. I would like to reassure you that every effort is made to ensure the flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so, we aim to get you to your destination at the earliest opportunity. That said, our ability to keep disruption to a minimum is always dependant on the resources available to us on the day.



In some circumstances, passengers may be entitled to compensation under European Union laws.

However, any monetary payments are subject to certain criteria being satisfied. Where the disruption is caused by an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ which the airline was reasonably unable to prevent, the carrier is not obliged to pay compensation. Extraordinary circumstances have been defined by the courts and the European Regulations themselves provide a non-exhaustive list of which circumstances can indeed be categorised as extraordinary. In addition, the CAA has provided some guidance on its views of “extraordinary circumstances” (please see the guidance notes accompanying the 261 compensation claim form).



Our records show that upon arrival of a previous flight, the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight was found to have a fuel valve fault. Engineers attended the aircraft and were able to establish the fault, however unfortunately as the rectification work was carried out it became apparent that several replacement components would be required. These components were transferred to Luton via taxi from the airports at which they were stored and then fitted. It was also unfortunate that, due to the nature of the defect, this was a time consuming process and the aircraft was taken out of service for your flight. As a result and in order to minimise the length of your delay, passengers on your flight were transferred to the first available aircraft from within the Monarch fleet.



Having considered the factual background of this incident, I am satisfied that this was indeed an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch. I am unable to agree to your claim for compensation.

[Deleted User]

samwardill wrote: »

What was the name of the claims company your pal used?

https://www.euclaim.co.uk