Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

williamh1

My flight was on 23/12/06 from Edinburgh to Gatwick with easyjet and, after 2 months, I've finally received easyjet's rejection letter invoking the Montreal Convention which states that the limitation period for claims is 6 years i.e. I'm 3 months too late! Am I in a postion to press my claim, based on any other precedents, or am I out of luck on this occasion?

Marmotta_2

Can't find a dedicated Finnair sub-forum, so I'll post here...

I've been trying to communicate with Finnair since November, but progress is very slow. I've received no response to the letter I sent just over a month ago, so have messaged them again giving them another 6 weeks to reply before taking legal action. This is the latest letter I sent:

"My interpretation of your response is that the delay of the flight was caused by ‘unexpected flight safety shortcomings’, as per EC Regulation No 261/2004 (14). While I commend Finnair’s impeccable safety record, I do not believe the intention of the wording of the regulation is meant to absolve airlines of responsibility for maintenance issues, regardless of their unpredictability.

While the European Court of Justice does not observe the rule of legal precedent, there are two salient cases which illustrate my point; Wallentin-Hermann v. Alitalia – Linee Aeree Italiane SpA (2008) and the joint cases of Sturgeon v. Condor Flugdienst GmbH and Böck & Lepuschitz v. Air France SA (2009), which both deal with the interpretation of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ found in EC Regulation No 261/2004.

This is clearest in the ruling from Wallentin-Hermann v. Alitalia – Linee Aeree Italiane SpA, which ruled that:

1. Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, must be interpreted as meaning that a technical problem in an aircraft which leads to the cancellation of a flight is not covered by the concept of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of that provision, unless that problem stems from events which, by their nature or origin, are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. The Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, concluded in Montreal on 28 May 1999, is not decisive for the interpretation of the grounds of exemption under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004.

2. The frequency of the technical problems experienced by an air carrier is not in itself a factor from which the presence or absence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 can be concluded.

(1) specifies that technical faults are not covered by ‘exceptional circumstances’ and (2) that the rate of occurrence of a given fault does not affect whether it should be classified as an ‘exceptional circumstance’.

Having worked in customer service myself, I appreciate your prerogative is to reduce any claim made against Finnair, whether it be by refuting a claim and/or offering a voucher. However, at the risk of playing devil’s advocate, the decision to offer a voucher to the value of 600 euros would seem to be rather arbitrary one, if you believed the legislation above was not relevant in this scenario.

Should you decide to adhere to your current stance of a voucher for compensation, before deciding whether to proceed with legal action, I would like to know if the one year of validity means it has to be used for flights within that period or if it could be used for future flights (e.g. Summer 2014), as long as the ticket purchase was made within a year.

Regardless of the outcome, I’ve enjoyed flying with Finnair on numerous occasions and it shouldn’t affect whether I decide to do so again in the future.
Regards"

They initially offered me a 40 euro voucher (:rotfl:), then 560 euros and finally 600 euros, but seem to be stalling massively when it comes to monetary compensation.

samtravel

If claiming from Thomson do not fall for their claim system which asks for so much detailed information and states that you must include your flight ticket and boarding passes.
This information is neither needed or required by law.
I filled in their forms but sent a covering letter stating "You know the time passengers boarded, the take-off time, and the landing time. After all it was your aircraft
You know the passengers that travelled. If we did not travel on this flight you would have previously rejected the claim as fraudulent .
It is totally unreasonable to request documents after a long period particularly in view of the fact that you have spend the time since the flight consistently seeking to deny your legal responsibilities"

They still rejected my claim and I have lodged a claim with the CAA, but at no time did they request the missing information or documents.

allang

I was delayed by over 9 hours on a Continental Airways flight from BHX to EWR in 2011. The first time I wrote to them to complain was shortly after the flight and they sent me a voucher against future flights which I didn't want. I used the example letter format from this website to send to United who have now taken over Continental. They sent me a short form to complete and about 4 weeks later I received a cheque for 600 Euros which I have now banked. Thank you Moneysaving Expert...

l.walton

Have had a default judgement against Singapore Airlines for around 2 months now and still no word from them so I forked out the £100 for an enforcement of judgement today. Hoping to hear something now

Davidgeorge

Can anyone PLEASE recommend a no win no fee company? I have written to Thomson and got the standard reply, not their fault some rubbish about the flight before being damaged, but ALL Thomson flights that day were delayed! So very confused by the reply we received. So need some expert help now.
So any recommendation would be good

JPears

l.walton wrote: »

Have had a default judgement against Singapore Airlines for around 2 months now and still no word from them so I forked out the £100 for an enforcement of judgement today. Hoping to hear something now

Keep us updated, should be interesting.

thalia22

with references to previous postings: #2016, page 101, #2187 page 110, #3285 page 165, #3245 page 168, #3917 page 196, #4512 page 208, #4819 page 241, #4983 page249, #5826 page 265.

My court date was 30/4/2013, but I have now received a Tomlin order from Iberia's solicitors agreeing to pay me a figure I offered earlier. I will not confirm any details until I have received the money.
Thalia22:T

little_princess

Hi,

Could anyone help my Aunt, she was delayed on a first choice flight last October for 15 hours and lodged a complaint under the new regulations with TUI.

They were delayed twice during this time, once as they arrived at the airport and again the following morning after being taken to a hotel for the night.

They were told that the original flight was delayed due to it going "Tech Air" during its flight to them.

The following day they were told by the pilot that he could not fly them as it was his day off and his managers were refusing to allow him to take the day back at a later date! Which delayed them by a further couple of hours as he tried to sort out the problem with his bosses.

The response she has now received back from TUI states that she is NOT entitled to compensation as her as her flight was delayed due to bad weather at the aircraft's original airport!

Can anyone help with regards to our next steps as we cannot prove or disprove what she was told about the "Tech Air" problem (although who would make up that phrase unless you had been told it) or that bad weather was occurring at the first airport and as the second delay was under 3.5hrs we cannot use that as an option either.

Many thanks for any help

Vauban

little_princess wrote: »

Hi,

Could anyone help my Aunt, she was delayed on a first choice flight last October for 15 hours and lodged a complaint under the new regulations with TUI.

They were delayed twice during this time, once as they arrived at the airport and again the following morning after being taken to a hotel for the night.

They were told that the original flight was delayed due to it going "Tech Air" during its flight to them.

The following day they were told by the pilot that he could not fly them as it was his day off and his managers were refusing to allow him to take the day back at a later date! Which delayed them by a further couple of hours as he tried to sort out the problem with his bosses.

The response she has now received back from TUI states that she is NOT entitled to compensation as her as her flight was delayed due to bad weather at the aircraft's original airport!

Can anyone help with regards to our next steps as we cannot prove or disprove what she was told about the "Tech Air" problem (although who would make up that phrase unless you had been told it) or that bad weather was occurring at the first airport and as the second delay was under 3.5hrs we cannot use that as an option either.

Many thanks for any help

The FAQs and the links therein show you what to do next - write a NBA letter to the airline giving them 14 days to settle your claim or provide a satisfactory defence of extraordinary circumstances (poor weather at another airport doesn't count anyway, IMHO, especially as your were at a hub airport).