Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

nwolsten

Cityboy wrote: »

It is a straightforward technical problem but you will have realised by now that you have received the standard Easyjet response i.e. excuse of 'extraordinary circumstances'.

You might like to write back to them (not email) stating your claim and enclosing a copy of the email they have sent to you along with a copy of the Wallentin-Hermann judgement: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62007J0549:EN:HTML, stating that unless they pay your compensation within 7 days of the letter, you will have no further option than to take them to small claims court.

Furthermore, that you will ensure that the correspondence sent to you admitting that the problem was of a technical nature rather than evidence of extraordinay circumstances will be submitted to the court as evidence that the airline is acting unreasonably in refusing your claim under the Regulation and for that reason you will be asking the court for costs to be awarded in this case.

Send the letter via RM special dleivery to the Co Sec at the registered office address in Luton.

I shall be surprised if the next missive you receive doesn't refer to ATC as the root cause of the cancellation!!;)

Hi Guys

well I issued a claim via MCOL and have just received this from one of their legal guys:

I write to you in relation to the claim you have submitted in the Northampton court for £257.77.

I must apologise for the cancellation of your flight. The reason for the cancellation was a last minute technical fault in the hydraulic systems with the aircraft assigned to fly you to Alicante. The technical fault was detected unexpectedly on the day of departure. The cancellation caused by a technical fault constitutes an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ under the governing regulation, that is, the occurrence was outside the reasonable control of the airline.

The technical failure in the Wallentin- Hermann case was discovered the day before and no adequate measures had been taken to mitigate the knock on effect. In the case of the flight EZY8667, 24 September- the technical fault was reported on the day of departure and I can assure you that every step was taken to minimise the disruption from that point. Switching to an alternative aircraft on that day, rather unusually, was somewhat compounded by French Strikes and an aircraft accident (not easyJet’s aircraft) in Palmero. Flights were being delayed and cancelled extensively on that day and I am sorry to say that your flight was one of those affected.

Let me point out that reading point 14 of the Preamble to the Regulation (EC) 261/2004, you will recall that an “unexpected flight safety shortcoming” can give rise to an extraordinary circumstance. The technical failure of the aircraft in this instance was an unexpected shortcoming with an obvious consequence to the safe completion of the flight.

In the light of the above I need to confirm again that you are not entitled to EU compensation stipulated in regulation 261/2004 as the technical event is deemed to be an extraordinary circumstance and is therefore excluded from the provisions of Article 7 of EC261/2004.

I hope you appreciate just how much damage was done to easyJet’s operations on 24th September and that easyJet strives to avoid a cancellation whereever possible.

I would like to reach a compromise settlement with you and would therefore like to offer you your court fee and a further £50.00 as a gesture of goodwill in full and final settlement of the claim. I believe that a settlement at this stage is far better than the expense of trial (approx £300.00 which will be paid by yourself at a later stage) and therefore look forward to your response.


Thoughts guys?

ming_the_mercyless

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could confirm if I am or am not wasting my time.

On 15th September a my wife and I were subject to a seven and a half hour delay on a Thomson flight from Manchester to Verona.The original aircraft had suffered a major problem and had to be replaced.During the delay we were fed and watered via vouchers issued on behalf of Thomson.

On our return to the UK, having read an article on this site my wife wrote to Thomsons requesting compensation for the delay.

We received a response declining our request and suggesting we need to contacy our travel insurance to make a claim from them.

The following is a word for word copy of their response (excluding the pleasantaries)
I can see from your letter you’ve quoted EU regulation 261/2004 and the EJC ruling. Just to explain, article 7 “Right to compensation” states “Where reference is made to this article, passengers shall receive compensation amounting to :- 250,400 or 600 euro. Article 6 “Delay” does not have any reference to article 7 “Right to compensation”; it only refers to article 9 “Duty of care”. The only reference in this regulation to article 7 is in article 4 & 5-Denied boarding and cancellation. This information is from the Official Journal of the European Union, and what we adhere to. We do not adhere to any publications on some consumer websites, or information given by anyone else. We do not support the recent decision of the European Court of Justice as it conflicts with superior decisions already made. The ruling is vague and possibly makes the whole of the EU regulation invalid. We do not recognise that the law requires compensation to be paid in the event of a delay. However, we will offer all assistance to the appropriate EU and national enforcement bodies to clarify this matter. With this in mind unfortunately I’m unable to compensate you for your delay. You’d need to make a claim through your holiday insurance.

Can I conclude that I am an imbecile (quite prepared to, we all get it wrong sometime!!!!) and that we are not entitled to compensation or is there any more mileage in this course of action?

Much appreciation if anyone could help


cheers

dzug1

nwolsten wrote: »

The technical failure in the Wallentin- Hermann case was discovered the day before and no adequate measures had been taken to mitigate the knock on effect. In the case of the flight EZY8667, 24 September- the technical fault was reported on the day of departure and I can assure you that every step was taken to minimise the disruption from that point. Switching to an alternative aircraft on that day, rather unusually, was somewhat compounded by French Strikes and an aircraft accident (not easyJet’s aircraft) in Palmero. Flights were being delayed and cancelled extensively on that day and I am sorry to say that your flight was one of those affected.

The W-H case is often summarised with the statement that technical reasons are NEVER a cause to deny compensation.

Easyjet are saying that this is an oversimplification and that in some cases they can constitute extraordinary circumstances - which is what they are trying to argue here.

Whether they are right - no idea. You'd have to take them to court to see if that court agreed with their justification

richardw

nwolsten wrote: »

I believe that a settlement at this stage is far better than the expense of trial (approx £300.00 which will be paid by yourself at a later stage)

Not sure if this is strictly correct.

Voyager2002

ming_the_mercyless wrote: »

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could confirm if I am or am not wasting my time.

On 15th September a my wife and I were subject to a seven and a half hour delay on a Thomson flight from Manchester to Verona.The original aircraft had suffered a major problem and had to be replaced.During the delay we were fed and watered via vouchers issued on behalf of Thomson.

On our return to the UK, having read an article on this site my wife wrote to Thomsons requesting compensation for the delay.

We received a response declining our request and suggesting we need to contacy our travel insurance to make a claim from them.

The following is a word for word copy of their response (excluding the pleasantaries)
I can see from your letter you’ve quoted EU regulation 261/2004 and the EJC ruling. Just to explain, article 7 “Right to compensation” states “Where reference is made to this article, passengers shall receive compensation amounting to :- 250,400 or 600 euro. Article 6 “Delay” does not have any reference to article 7 “Right to compensation”; it only refers to article 9 “Duty of care”. The only reference in this regulation to article 7 is in article 4 & 5-Denied boarding and cancellation. This information is from the Official Journal of the European Union, and what we adhere to. We do not adhere to any publications on some consumer websites, or information given by anyone else. We do not support the recent decision of the European Court of Justice as it conflicts with superior decisions already made. The ruling is vague and possibly makes the whole of the EU regulation invalid. We do not recognise that the law requires compensation to be paid in the event of a delay. However, we will offer all assistance to the appropriate EU and national enforcement bodies to clarify this matter. With this in mind unfortunately I’m unable to compensate you for your delay. You’d need to make a claim through your holiday insurance.

Can I conclude that I am an imbecile (quite prepared to, we all get it wrong sometime!!!!) and that we are not entitled to compensation or is there any more mileage in this course of action?

Much appreciation if anyone could help


cheers

No, you are certainly not "an imbecile". You could contact the AUC but don't expect a reply for at least six weeks. You could also reply to the airline, stating that while you know that court cases of this kind are at present 'stayed' pending a judgement from the European Court of Justice, as soon as the 'stay' is removed you will take legal action against them -- unless they would care to offer a reasonable settlement in the meantime.

richardw

Yes, do complain to the AUC, it is very important that they know what airlines are doing, and if enough people do this then they might get teeth with bite from the government for Christmas.

nwolsten

Cityboy wrote: »

Thoughts? Yes plenty but the main one is that maybe EZ and you should look more closely at the judgement in Wallentin-Hermann:

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.
3. The fact that an air carrier has complied with the minimum rules on maintenance of an aircraft cannot in itself suffice to establish that that carrier has taken ‘all reasonable measures’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 and, therefore, to relieve that carrier of its obligation to pay compensation provided for by Articles 5(1)(c) and 7(1) of that regulation.

I have highlighted the main general tenet of the ruling but you should also read the detail behind the ruling which gives even less credence to EZ's defence.

---

Part 3 of this saga, below is a new resonse and updated offer to settle from EJ:

Dear Mr x

I am familiar with the case law and the technical fault in this instance would, I believe, fall into the category of being highly unusual and beyond easyJet’s control- especially given the activities occurring on that day.

easyJet can show that it carried out the required maintenance and checks on the aircraft and can show the fault was unusual. On this basis it is for the national court to decide whether the cancellation was therefore extraordinary. As I said before, this is a £300.00 risk that you can avoid. (the figure I quote is the amount a claimant paid to go to court when I last attended on Monday. I find this a terrible waste when it is possible to compromise earlier)

I do not think you can doubt that French strikes were in operation on that day. I do not know why you cannot see cancellations from London Gatwick. Here is a list of some of the flights the DGAC asked us to cancel that day, some of which are from LGW. easyJet had 50 other cancellations as a result of the strikes on the day:

DATE


FLIGHT


DEP


ARR


24.09


EZY2779


MXP


CDG


24.09


EZY2782


CDG


MXP


24.09


EZY2795


MXP


BRU


24.09


EZY2796


BRU


MXP


24.09


EZY2431


LTN


CDG


24.09


EZY2432


CDG


LTN


24.09


EZY3701


CDG


BIQ


24.09


EZY3702


BIQ


CDG


24.09


EZY3985


CDG


NCE


24.09


EZY3986


NCE


CDG


24.09


EZY5065


LGW


NCE


24.09


EZY5066


NCE


LGW


24.09


EZY7065


LPL


NCE


24.09


EZY7066


NCE


LPL


24.09


EZY921


FCO


PMO


24.09


EZY922


PMO


FCO


24.09


EZY3902


MAD


CDG


24.09


EZY3905


CDG


MAD


24.09


EZY5333


LGW


TLS


24.09


EZY5334


TLS


LGW


24.09


EZY5474


MAD


LGW


24.09


EZY5477


LGW


MAD


24.09


EZY423


BRS


EDI


24.09


EZY6905


EDI


GVA


24.09


EZY6154


GVA


BRS


24.09


EZY6113


BRS


NCE


24.09


EZY6114


NCE


BRS


24.09


EZY5005


LGW


LYS


24.09


EZY5006


LYS


LGW


24.09


EZY2121


LTN


NCE


24.09


EZY2122


NCE


LTN

So, in summary, your flight cancellation cannot be taken out of the context of what was happening on the day. Here is the NOTAM confirming what I have just said:

LFFA-A5792/10
A) LFBB LFEE LFFF LFMM LFRR
2010 Sep 24 05:00 C) 2010 Sep 30 05:00
E) DUE TO STRIKE AFFECTING FRENCH PUBLIC SERVICES, SOME DISTURBANCES
MIGHT AFFECT FRENCH ATS,AIS AND COM SERVICES:
1)A MINIMUM SERVICE WILL BE ENSURED IN ACCS AND AT LFPG/ LFPO/ LFSB/
LFST/ LFLL/ LFLC/ LFMN/ LFML/ LFKB/ LFKC/ LFKJ/ LFBD/ LFBI/ LFBL/
LFBO/ LFRG/ LFRS AND OVERSEAS AIRPORTS.
ACTUAL ATC CAPACITY WILL BE DETERMINED ACCORDING TO AVAILABLE STAFF.
2)AT OTHER AERODROMES,ATS SERVICES MIGHT BE UNAVAILABLE DURING
CERTAIN PERIODS NOTIFIED BY NOTAMS.
RMK : INFORMATION ON THE REAL TIME SITUATION WILL AVAILABLE ON THE
FOLLOWING INTERNET WEBSITE: HTTP://DSNADO.CANALBLOG.COM
© SIA.

Francois
Subject: mouvement social - situation nominale dans les services de la navigation a!rienne

bonjour,

la situation !tant nominale dans l'ensemble des services de la
navigation a!rienne, l'audioconf!rence pr!vue à 10h30 est annul!e.
Vous êtes invit!s à suivre les informations post!es sur le blog de la
direction des op!rations
http://dsnado.canalblog.com

cordialement

--
Jean-Michel Boivin
direction des services de la navigation a!rienne
directeur du cabinet


I hope you will forgive me if I find your claim for compensation deeply unfair, whether grounded in law or not. On a normal operations day easyJet would have operated a rescue flight for you and your fellow passengers.

In the interest of seeking a compromise I will increase my offer and leave you with a choice. I will either give you the full amount you are claiming plus court fee in easyJet vouchers or half the total amount being claimed (£129).

I hope you can accept this amount and we can close the case.

---

Thoughts everyone?

I notice EJ have a policy of scare tactics whilst slowly increasing the compensation per email

Now, here is where I think my angle should be (please tell me otherwise), I wrote back previous to the response above and amongst other things claimed that there were no other flights cancelled out of LGW that day and asked for proof if I was mistaken
Now, they have replied as you can see and identify that there were four LGW flights cancelled.
Checking on flightstats, two of them were so early they were originating from LGW. As they were cancelled there is a case to put to them that unless the planes were reused for other flights that indeed EJ could and should have utilised them on my flight as stated:

"I hope you will forgive me if I find your claim for compensation deeply unfair, whether grounded in law or not. On a normal operations day easyJet would have operated a rescue flight for you and your fellow passengers."


Thanks for all your help, sorry for the size of the post, the formatting went all a bit funny

richardw

nwolsten wrote: »

As I said before, this is a £300.00 risk that you can avoid. (the figure I quote is the amount a claimant paid to go to court when I last attended on Monday. I find this a terrible waste when it is possible to compromise earlier)

easyJet hasn't described the circumstances for this and they may not be exactly the same as yours, it would be interesting to know a bit more about what they are talking about.

ronster1

The situation with compensation for flight delays is that any UK court cases are currently stayed (in abeyance) until the legal challange to the Sturgeon ECJ judgement has been resolved (18 months-2 years time).

By all means put your airline on notice that once the challenge has been resolved that you will be forwarding your claim for 400 euros per passenger.[/QUOTE]

Re: the above 'stay' on UK cases, my question is this:

Since my gripe is with Ryanair Ltd (Dublin HQ) on both delay compensation and non-reimbursed expenses, is it worth (or legal) pursuing them through the Irish courts, rather than English ones? i.e. does the stay not apply outside the UK?

Cneers all.

Voyager2002

ronster1 wrote: »

The situation with compensation for flight delays is that any UK court cases are currently stayed (in abeyance) until the legal challange to the Sturgeon ECJ judgement has been resolved (18 months-2 years time).

By all means put your airline on notice that once the challenge has been resolved that you will be forwarding your claim for 400 euros per passenger.

Re: the above 'stay' on UK cases, my question is this:

Since my gripe is with Ryanair Ltd (Dublin HQ) on both delay compensation and non-reimbursed expenses, is it worth (or legal) pursuing them through the Irish courts, rather than English ones? i.e. does the stay not apply outside the UK?

Cneers all.[/QUOTE]

Before responding, I shall ask you a key question: do you have insurance to cover legal expenses? This is often provided as part of home contents insurance policies. Your answer is of crucial importance in deciding what to do next.

Anyway, yes, you do have the option of commencing legal proceedings against Ryanair, either in the Irish court system or by using the European small-claims process (there is a link for this posted a long way back in this thread). If you use either of these avenues, there is a risk that if you were to lose you might be faced with paying for Ryanair's legal expenses, and since they could be huge that is not a risk worth taking. Of course, if you have an insurance policy then you don't need to worry. The distinctive thing about the Small Claims procedure in English law is that neither party can claim their legal costs from the other, which removes this risk.