Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

Muppetman69

Hi. Sent claim details via the Resolver.co.uk link and just received a response from BA with a €250 refund each which will be bank transfered (£353 total). Thanks MSE !!!!!

Craigsup

safsnowball wrote: »

They didn't refer to the actual cause of the delay, just that it was "a problem that was encountered".

I think they were trying to avoid the phrase "technical problems"

I replied to them pointing out their omission and that I understood the delay had been caused by technical problems with the aircraft's refuelling system. Other than an automated response I have had no reply to this, hence my sending of the NBA.

They have part admitted my claim as they re doing it per person...not for the two persons. I'm certain you'll easily get a full pay out - just make it very clearly how many people you are claiming for.

Just a quick question for people who have had claims part admitted before; TAP have admitted £284, which is 400 EUR. However this excludes the £60 fee and interest owed. If i accept the £284 will the £60 fee + interest get added on later, or will I only receive £284?

Vauban

No - you will get what you settle for. Unless you get a court order, the figure is the sum agreed by both parties. So if you want your fees and interest added, you will need to be explicit.

To be honest, since TAP appear to have admitted the claim then you will definitely win in court. In which case you would get the amount claimed p,us court fees. You might also get interest, but that's at the discretion of the judge. So if TAP don't prove responsive hang in there until the hearing if necessary.

Craigsup

Thank you Vauban, I'll reject their offer and take it as far as I need to to get the full amount owed.

safsnowball

Well done for getting it this far Craigsup.

cartbeforethehorse

Apologies if in wrong place but not managed to work out how these forums work.

Anyway my query is about the following and if anyone has a good response for me to go back to Virgin with.

On a delayed flight in August 2009. Sent in claim in October 2015 so strictly over the '6 year rule' however i note that the 6 year limit is if you were to go to court. I have also read somewhere that the 6 year rule also states that is 6 years from when you became aware you could claim s32(1)(c) limitations act 1980 which in my case was Oct 2012 by Martin Lewis...

Have received this letter from Virgin:
"We regret to advise that we have declined your claim on the grounds that your application for compensation was not made within 6 years of the scheduled arrival of the flight. This time bar is in accordance with the UK time limit for bringing a claim to court for compensation.
As you have not started court proceedings within the time allowed we are not progressing your claim any further.

We offer our sincere apologies for the inconvenience caused by the disruption to your flight and any disappointment this decision brings."

As such I would like to respond to them along the lines re the 6 years and when that time limit commences that I have stated above, that we would not be thinking of taking them to court as they know they were at fault and as goodwill they should honour it - not that we should have to take them to court to get the money back. that we have asked for compensation in vouchers and not cash that would have to be used with them for another flight and Martin in his advice page says can go back to 2005...

Anyone who is good at putting these things together to sound very professional and legal like?? Please help.

Thanks in advance

howticklediam

cartbeforethehorse wrote: »

Apologies if in wrong place but not managed to work out how these forums work.

Anyway my query is about the following and if anyone has a good response for me to go back to Virgin with.

On a delayed flight in August 2009. Sent in claim in October 2015 so strictly over the '6 year rule' however i note that the 6 year limit is if you were to go to court. I have also read somewhere that the 6 year rule also states that is 6 years from when you became aware you could claim s32(1)(c) limitations act 1980 which in my case was Oct 2012 by Martin Lewis...

Have received this letter from Virgin:
"We regret to advise that we have declined your claim on the grounds that your application for compensation was not made within 6 years of the scheduled arrival of the flight. This time bar is in accordance with the UK time limit for bringing a claim to court for compensation.
As you have not started court proceedings within the time allowed we are not progressing your claim any further.

We offer our sincere apologies for the inconvenience caused by the disruption to your flight and any disappointment this decision brings."

As such I would like to respond to them along the lines re the 6 years and when that time limit commences that I have stated above, that we would not be thinking of taking them to court as they know they were at fault and as goodwill they should honour it - not that we should have to take them to court to get the money back. that we have asked for compensation in vouchers and not cash that would have to be used with them for another flight and Martin in his advice page says can go back to 2005...

Anyone who is good at putting these things together to sound very professional and legal like?? Please help.

Thanks in advance

Sorry to say, I don't think you have any chance with this, however cleverly you word it.

legal_magpie

I'm afraid that this is correct. However you dress it up, you are out of time.

cartbeforethehorse

many thanks for your really prompt responses. Any comment on the 2005 as stated by Martin Lewis? or when the time limit starts? - they say from when the flight should have arrived but I have read it is from when you become aware you can make a claim?

Many thanks

JPears

Unfortunately it is a fundamental error thats has been pointed out many many times to MSE site.
Limitations act is timed from when you became aware of the issue arising, is this case your flight arrival time. Alas, the fact that you were ignorant of the actual legisltion is irrelevant.