Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

Afia2k8

Hello,

The airline has accept to give me compensation on a cancelled flight to Malaysia. However, they demand that I sign a very long-winded Receipt and Discharge form that they provided with a witness present to sign. It was full of Law jargon and grammatical structures.

It basically says that it will release the Airline from any further claims, that this does not constitute as an admission of liability, and that I will agree not to disclose/discuss anything further via any mode to anyone.

Do they have a right to do this? It seems like they are buying my silence, not compensating me.

JPears

If you are claiming under regulation 261/2004 and they have accepted you are due compensation then strictly no. This is a fixed statutory payment, not goodwill on their behalf.
This is some overpaid legal jobsworthy justifying his or her pay cheque.
However, to get your money easily and quickly, you may have to.
Equally, you could subtly amend (in same typeface etc) the release with something like " You reserve the right to make this order null and void at any time without due notice", embeded in it, sign it and send it back. Thy may not notice. Obviously keep a copy

Davy_F

My family and I flew to Florida from Belfast with FlyGlobespan, 6 years ago. The flight from Belfast was delayed for 3hrs 30mins due to an engine problem. The return flight was also delayed for over 4hrs, so eventually we decided to use a MSE template letter and sent it off, but had no response, after another couple of months I sent another letter only to discover FlyGlobespan had gone into receivership, so, because of this is there no point in trying to claim? or where do we stand?

Many thanks
Davy

Caz3121

Davy_F wrote: »

because of this is there no point in trying to claim? or where do we stand?

correct - airline bust = no claim

Vauban

Davy_F wrote: »

My family and I flew to Florida from Belfast with FlyGlobespan, 6 years ago. The flight from Belfast was delayed for 3hrs 30mins due to an engine problem. The return flight was also delayed for over 4hrs, so eventually we decided to use a MSE template letter and sent it off, but had no response, after another couple of months I sent another letter only to discover FlyGlobespan had gone into receivership, so, because of this is there no point in trying to claim? or where do we stand?

Many thanks
Davy

Over six years = no claim
Airline bust = no claim

Afia2k8

JPears wrote: »

If you are claiming under regulation 261/2004 and they have accepted you are due compensation then strictly no. This is a fixed statutory payment, not goodwill on their behalf.
This is some overpaid legal jobsworthy justifying his or her pay cheque.
However, to get your money easily and quickly, you may have to.
Equally, you could subtly amend (in same typeface etc) the release with something like " You reserve the right to make this order null and void at any time without due notice", embeded in it, sign it and send it back. Thy may not notice. Obviously keep a copy

Haha I like your style. Yes, it is under the EC regulation 261/2004. I wonder if it will work! It is crazy. I don't like the wording at all. It's something along the lines of I will have to compensate for suits, proceedings, demands, claims, liabilities, damage, losses, payments, judgments including legal costs and expenses which may be suffered accrued by the Company if the provisions of the non-disclosure aforementioned was not met.

Then I have to print it out, sign it with a witness present to sign too, write my bank account details, then scan it back and email it to them. After which it will take 3-4 weeks for the total compensation EUR1,200 to reach my bank account.

I am not sure what kind of stunt they are trying to pull. I don't like signing documents I do not fully understand.

JPears

If they have accepted the payout under regulation 261/2004, personally I would refuse to play their stupid games and brinkmanship. There is no requirement for this stupidity under the regulation.
Write back pointing out that this is statutory payment made under EU and UK law, not a goodwill payment, and they cannot attach conditions.
Report their behaviour to the CAA,
If they don't pay then take them to court. You can't loose.

peter2016

So Ive went down the resolver route then onto the CAA and received the following, which doesnt fill me with much confidence:

It appears to us that due to the disruption of your flight departing from the UK, you missed a subsequent connecting flight. The CAA’s view, which has been provided to Etihad airways is that missed connections on directly connecting flights outside the European Union on a non-EU airline where the first flight was from the UK are within the scope of EC261/2004. Therefore compensation may be due depending on the circumstances which led to the disruption.

However, Etihad airways takes the view that missed connections outside the European Union on a non-EU airline are not covered by EC261/2004 regardless of what caused the missed connection.

We are not an ombudsman scheme and therefore are unable to impose our view of this matter on Etihad airways. In light of this, I am sorry to inform you that we are not in a position to take your claim for compensation any further.

I understand that this may be disappointing for you. You should be aware that you do still have the option of going to court, which is entirely for you to decide whether you wish to pursue or not. You can find information on how to take court action at .....i couldnt post the link as im a new user.

Has anyone actually went to court and won?

jdubz123

Hi, I'm trying to claim for a flight cancellation coming back from Bermuda to Glasgow via Gatwick. BA have agreed to pay comp but say it's just based on the delayed flight (Gatwick to Glasgow), not the delayed total journey. Which is correct and does anyone have any legislation to support?

Vauban

jdubz123 wrote: »

Hi, I'm trying to claim for a flight cancellation coming back from Bermuda to Glasgow via Gatwick. BA have agreed to pay comp but say it's just based on the delayed flight (Gatwick to Glasgow), not the delayed total journey. Which is correct and does anyone have any legislation to support?

The Folkerts judgement is the one that talks about compensation on connecting flights. If your flight was booked all on one ticket, you should be able to claim for the full distance.