MSE News: Flight delay compensation: More could claim thanks to new guidelines

"More passengers could be able to successfully claim compensation for flight delays, after new guidelines were issued..."
Read the full story:

Flight delay compensation: More could claim thanks to new guidelines

OfficialStamp.gif

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.
«13456

Replies

  • richardwrichardw Forumite
    19.5K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    So does the CAA now have the powers to force airlines to write cheques to passengers?
    Posts are not advice and must not be relied upon.
  • liviboyliviboy Forumite
    513 Posts
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭
    I REALLY don't like the wording of number 20 -
    In-flight damage to the aircraft during the preceding flight, caused by a foreign-object, and which requires immediate assessment and/or repair.

    The legislation has always clearly stated "of the flight concerned" - the fact airlines can now use something that occurred on a previous flight, albeit with the aircraft they have decided to use for "the flight concerned" is worrying and goes against the wording of the regulation.
  • edited 26 July 2013 at 4:15PM
    romanby1romanby1 Forumite
    294 Posts
    edited 26 July 2013 at 4:15PM
    liviboy wrote: »
    I REALLY don't like the wording of number 20 -



    The legislation has always clearly stated "of the flight concerned" - the fact airlines can now use something that occurred on a previous flight, albeit with the aircraft they have decided to use for "the flight concerned" is worrying and goes against the wording of the regulation.

    I agree the smaller airlines are going to use this as an excuse for delays because they are running on such tight schedules and do not have a spare aircraft.
    The whole point of EC 261/2004 was an attempt by the EU parliament to make airlines more user friendly.
    This is like giving them a green flag to do what they want with passengers and rescheduling.
    Passengers are going to have to make sure the airlines carry out their "Duty of care" responsibilities in line with the regulation. At least we could sue them for lack of care. It would be difficult to defend a £5.00 voucher was satisfactory if you were delayed for over 4 hours.
    A further point if you suffer a delay it will still be wise to get the airline to be specific about the cause of the delay (non of the vague and downright lying crap from them that has been repeated many times on this site) and then make a judgemet whether to go ahead with a claim.
  • romanby1romanby1 Forumite
    294 Posts
    MSE_Helen wrote: »
    "More passengers could be able to successfully claim compensation for flight delays, after new guidelines were issued..."
    Read the full story:

    Flight delay compensation: More could claim thanks to new guidelines

    OfficialStamp.gif

    Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.
    Anyone got any further comments on this article.
  • camcalcamcal Forumite
    1 Post
    our flight was cancelled on return from sharm el shiek to gatwick in may at total of approx 15 hr delay but they did put us up and feed us at the hilton. when we returned home put in a complaint firstly they offered fifty quid each which i declined and sent another email stating the new eu law, next thing i knew was they sent me a bacs transfer for a massive 1570 pounds more than our holiday to eygpt cost. I was amazed by just stating the eu law how the compensation change. They did try the onforseen circumstances rubbish which I replied, not knowing that your plane needed a service and was then grounded is not unforseen. Money in the bank and flights now booked for orlando for next year (with virgin) thanks thomas cook:j:j:j:j
  • romanby1 wrote: »
    Anyone got any further comments on this article.

    The bit that I find confusing is the wording of Note 1; "event has to meet the three criteria, unpredictable, unavoidable and external".

    External? I read this as meaning that the circumstances have to meet all three criteria, and the that external means an event entirely out of the control of the airline. In other words, it seems to confirm Wallentin, in that events must be "not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of the carrier on account of its nature or origin".

    I would welcome some thoughts on this.....
  • Where does the date of 2005 come from?

    I had a 12hr delay with Malaysia Airlines in 2006; they refused my complaint; CAA upheld it; Malaysia refused to pay compensation and cite 6yr limit on court action - effectively laughing in my face!
  • Where does the date of 2005 come from?

    I had a 12hr delay with Malaysia Airlines in 2006; they refused my complaint; CAA upheld it; Malaysia refused to pay compensation and cite 6yr limit on court action - effectively laughing in my face!

    2005 was when the EU 261 regulations came into force.

    Though your delay came after this, there is a 6 yr statutory limitation period after which it is not enforceable in the UK courts (5 years in Scotland)
  • 2005 was when the EU 261 regulations came into force.

    Though your delay came after this, there is a 6 yr statutory limitation period after which it is not enforceable in the UK courts (5 years in Scotland)

    Indeed. So why does the MSE article state "EU rules say passengers whose flights are significantly delayed can, in certain circumstances, claim up to €600 (£516) per person, dating back to 2005." ?

    Surely this should read "dating back to 2007 (2008 in Scotland)".

    As there was a stay on all cases within the UK, pending the appeal to the ECJ, does the 6yr statutory limitation still apply, or was this 'frozen' for want of a better word, until the stay was lifted?
  • AedusAedus Forumite
    47 Posts
    Indeed. So why does the MSE article state "EU rules say passengers whose flights are significantly delayed can, in certain circumstances, claim up to €600 (£516) per person, dating back to 2005." ?

    Surely this should read "dating back to 2007 (2008 in Scotland)".

    As there was a stay on all cases within the UK, pending the appeal to the ECJ, does the 6yr statutory limitation still apply, or was this 'frozen' for want of a better word, until the stay was lifted?

    Because EC261/2004 itself states that people can claim back that far, however the act of limitations prevents people in the UK claiming back past 2006.

    MSE will go by the actual ruling, the act of limitations is a loophole for Airlines to get out of paying compensation past a certain date.

    On note of the new guidelines, they're still not clear cut enough, they won't change anything at all, in fact in some instances they've given some new defense for the Airlines, no. 19, 20, 21, 23, 25 & 26 in particular. They say technical faults can't be EC's, yet on their list of what is an EC, there's clearly technical faults there, so if you think the new guidelines are going to help people gain compensation that was previously rejected by the airlines you're mistaken.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

Stoozing, sublets & summer sips

This week's MSE Forum highlights

MSE News

Martin Lewis quizzes Rishi Sunak

Watch the cost of living support Q&A here

Join the MSE Forum discussion

48 craft beers for £50 delivered

One-off bundle for newbies. Excludes Northern Ireland

MSE Deals