Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

Caz3121

Andrew_Fish77 wrote: »

Reply from Monarch rejecting my claim - ZB228

Not sure what to do next, with the response from Monarch, to me the fault with the right hand main landing gear is a technical fault - is this Monarch trying to fob me off? What should I do next?

Our records show that the aircraft scheduled to operate your flight suffered a fault with the right hand main landing gear. As I’m sure you can appreciate safety is our priority, consequently the fault had to be rectified before the aircraft could be declared serviceable.

Having considered the factual background of this case in accordance with the published guidelines, we are satisfied that the disruption was caused by an extraordinary circumstance that could not have reasonably been prevented by Monarch Airlines. We are, therefore, unable to accept your claim for compensation for the reasons given.

when did they give this response....was it since the appeal was thrown out on Friday last week? if not then you may find they will be forced to have a "change of mind"

happy-traveller_2

Hi, I submitted a claim to Jet2 in April 2013, this claim was refused due to technical problems with the plane. We were delayed around 9 hours at Malaga in 2012.

I have the original claim paperwork, should I submit a new claim or refer to the claim that was refused in 2013. I am in Scotland does this make a difference. Thanks. Joan

JPears

refer to your original claim, perhaps include copies of original paperwork as most airlines are inept with the paper trail.
and go to Jet2 thread.

Andrew_Fish77

It was sent by email on the 22-09-14.

I have just come off the phone with Monarch and thier saying that the legal team are putting a response together (because of the appeal that was thrown out) for the complaints department to send (by email) to everyone holding complaints - which she said would be by the latest Monday but should it not arrive call back.

I also read on the complaints form that Monarch retain 50% of the paid fee - can they do that? Seems unfair to me?

Thanks.

sethcapes

Hi - I'm currently claiming compensation from Wizz air due to a 5 hour technical delay in 2012. They have rejected my claim on the following basis. Before I appeal to the CAA does anyone know if they have a leg to stand on?

Thanks
______________________________________________

Thank you for your reply.

I would like to explain that delay was caused by sudden technical failure. To operate without repair would consist a safety hazard, and safety must always come first, even before punctuality. The damage was found during flight operations and not during a regular maintenance rending it impossible to depart on time. Please kindly note that we tried our best to operate our flights with causing minimum damage to our passengers, we believe the fault could not have been predictable and this flight delay was absolutely outside of our control.

Please note that according to the decision of Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-549/07, technical problems are regarded as vis maior to the extent that they stem from events which are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and are beyond its actual control. In such cases compensation may be refused.

An air carrier is not however obliged to pay that compensation if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

As for the reports you have requested and category of extraordinary circumstances - let me inform you that they are considered classified due to commercial reasons, and consequently we will not be able to provide those documents for you. We will gladly provide all the documentation regarding the delay of your flight to relevant authorities if needed.

In the light of the above, we maintain our standpoint that no compensation is due. The decision of Wizz Air was based on the facts and in accordance with the above mentioned regulations.
Thank you for your time and understanding.

Yours sincerely,

Damian Tyl

legal_magpie

There is no such things as an "Appeal to the CAA". They are not an Ombudsman and, while they will look at claims their recommendations are not binding so don't waste your time with them. As in other cases their rejection was probably before the Supreme Court ruling last week so write to them asking them to review their decision in the light of that ruling and saying that if they still refuse you will issue Court proceedings.

sethcapes

legal_magpie wrote: »

There is no such things as an "Appeal to the CAA". They are not an Ombudsman and, while they will look at claims their recommendations are not binding so don't waste your time with them. As in other cases their rejection was probably before the Supreme Court ruling last week so write to them asking them to review their decision in the light of that ruling and saying that if they still refuse you will issue Court proceedings.

Hi. That response was this afternoon.

legal_magpie

It may have been dictated earlier but given their refusal to disclose the exact nature of the technical problems, I suggest that unless your initial letter was a NBA (or LBA) you send one now and if they still refuse, or don't respond within the time limit, sue them. They will have to disclose the full nature of the technical problem within the Court proceedings as it is up to them to prove that the problem was an extraordinary circumstance, not for you to disprove it.


Often the disclosure proves crucial. In my own case against Thomson they said that the problem was a fuel leak but when we saw their documents they revealed that the leak was because someone hadn't tightened up some bolts.
JJ

sethcapes

Hi.

I only emailed them this afternoon so the response was definitlely penned today.

Sounds like I will have to sue.

Star9272

I hope BBC Watchdog will broadcast the outcome of the Supreme Court as they've been following the story.