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

results

Centipede100 wrote: »

Succinctly and well put, Vauban.

In the event that any judge makes a ruling in an airline's favour quoting the contents of these guidelines as the basis for such a ruling, I trust that the claimant would immediately appeal any such judgment on the basis that the guidelines are neither law nor do they supercede precedent case law.

I don't believe that any judge would be so bold as to misdirect themselves in that way.

Obviously hope you're right Centipede.

Received this today,, so they have started already!

We do understand your disappointment by the outcome of your claim. We can assure you that your claim was thoroughly investigated in line with the applicable legalisation. However, as the European Commission’s (EC) have now issued guidelines regarding extraordinary circumstances we have reviewed your claim again in line with these.



Following this review we are satisfied that our initial assessment of your claim was correct and delay compensation will not be paid.



For your information please find attached the link for the EC guidelines we have referred to.



http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb-extraordinary-circumstances-list.pdf

maghater

Vauban wrote: »

Do I think it is a helpful document to claimants? Clearly, no. Do I think it adds a further opportunity for airlines to make mischief and try to misdirect the judge? Yes, I do. But do I conclude that this makes winning in court significantly harder? Not if you properly explain the context of the document to the judge - which is why your peremptory dismissal of my post above was unwise, if you'll let me be honest.

You linked Maghater losing his case to the emergence of this document. But - he'll correct me if I'm wrong - this document was never presented to his court: it didn't feature at all. He was unlucky, as JP and a small number of others have been, with a judge who was unsympathetic and not across the case law. But you can lose with such people whether this document exists or not. I share 111KAB's view that most judges are across the law, and apply it fairly: which is why most airlines are continuing to settle, on the proverbial steps of the court often, rather than have their arguments tested.

Bottom line? People lost before this document was published, and they will continue to do so. But many more will continue to win their cases too - either in front of a judge or just before. But the key will be to understand this latest ruse and have the arguments at hand to knock it down: the principal one being that it has no legal force.

Correct this document was not presented to the court, TC did however inform the court that they had the support of the CAA on this case, no documentary evidence, and as we were flying from Spain, nothing to do with the CAA anyhow. Am planning on continuing the fight against TC (not using EC261), so fingers crossed

111KAB

I expressed my concern to the CAA regarding the potential lack of passenger representation when they were formulating their latest 'guidelines' as I am of the opinion they are biased towards the airline industry (whereas CAA are meant to be impartial) and as such detrimental to any delay claims a member of the public could have. Their reply ....

Dear xxxxxx

Thank you for your email.

There were no passenger or consumer groups represented at the meeting. The meeting was hosted by the European Commission and was a meeting of the National Enforcement Bodies across the EU. These are the bodies that have responsibility for enforcing the Denied Boarding Regulations.


Yours sincerely

Mr Kim Savage
Information Rights and Enquiries Officer
Civil Aviation Authority
Information Management
Aviation House
Gatwick Airport South
Crawley
RH6 0YR

friendofbillw2

111KAB wrote: »

I expressed my concern to the CAA regarding the potential lack of passenger representation when they were formulating their latest 'guidelines' as I am of the opinion they are biased towards the airline industry (whereas CAA are meant to be impartial) and as such detrimental to any delay claims a member of the public could have. Their reply ....

Dear xxxxxx

Thank you for your email.

There were no passenger or consumer groups represented at the meeting. The meeting was hosted by the European Commission and was a meeting of the National Enforcement Bodies across the EU. These are the bodies that have responsibility for enforcing the Denied Boarding Regulations.


Yours sincerely

Mr Kim Savage
Information Rights and Enquiries Officer
Civil Aviation Authority
Information Management
Aviation House
Gatwick Airport South
Crawley
RH6 0YR

The immediate follow up which springs to mind is...

Then if you are the body that has 'responsibility for enforcing the Denied Boarding Regulations', why are you not doing that, ignoring the case law precedents, and lobbying the EU to widen what is deemed 'extraordinary', i.e. OUTSIDE the Denied Boarding Regulations?

Because as the industry regulator you are supposed to show a lot more concern for your industry's consumers than you currently do.

What a shower!

Star9272

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

The immediate follow up which springs to mind is...



Because as the industry regulator you are supposed to show a lot more concern for your industry's consumers than you currently do.

What a shower!

Our Role About the CAA
From their site...........
Improving choice and value for aviation consumers now and in the future by promoting competitive markets, contributing to consumers' ability to make informed decisions and protecting them where appropriate.

maghater

The European parliament and the European Courts through various rulings have set out the law, and have set in their words the bar very high. NEBs are charged with enforcing this law, not with changing or adjusting it! The ultimate responsibility lies with the government of the member state, who should impose sanctions to deter airlines from breaches of these regs.
I am not aware of a single airline being sanctioned against, either in the UK, or on the continent. Until the airline is hit significantly in the pocket, things will never improve, and shelling out the odd 400 Euros or defending the odd court case is nothing more to them than a gnat bight is to an elephant. Complain to your MP and MEP

Vauban

maghater wrote: »

The European parliament and the European Courts through various rulings have set out the law, and have set in their words the bar very high. NEBs are charged with enforcing this law, not with changing or adjusting it! The ultimate responsibility lies with the government of the member state, who should impose sanctions to deter airlines from breaches of these regs.
I am not aware of a single airline being sanctioned against, either in the UK, or on the continent. Until the airline is hit significantly in the pocket, things will never improve, and shelling out the odd 400 Euros or defending the odd court case is nothing more to them than a gnat bight is to an elephant. Complain to your MP and MEP

I agree very much with this point: the CAA do seem rather to be reinterpreting the law, rather than ensuring it is adhered to. We can all of us offer thoughts on why that may be - but it's not hard to fathom.

I'll share with you just two personl experiences of the CAA. First, I reported my own delay (24 hours with Monarch) back in January. I have had no substantive reply from the CAA, so I rang them this week (not easy to do, as they no longer give progress updates). They confirmed that, despite writing to Monarch on a number of occasions, Monarch have not responded to their letters on my case. They have sent a further letter and were hopeful, apparently, of getting a reply within the next few weeks. If we had a serious and robust regulator, do you think the airlines would be comfortable ignoring their letters?

Separately, I send an FOI request to the CAA asking for copies of correspondence between them and Monarch about 261/04. The CAA sent me, in return, 50 pages of blanked out text (seriously), explaining that as they might need to sanction an airline at any point in the future on enforcement issues, it wasn't appropriate to share their correspondence. The CAA sanction Monarch? Laugh? I nearly did.

111KAB

Vauban wrote: »

The CAA sanction Monarch?

How can the CAA be impartial and represent the consumer AND the airline industry? .... http://www.monarchholdingslimited.com/about-us/management-team/non-executive-directors-mhl-board/sir-roy-mcnulty/

richardw

They can't. It's really quite bad.

Star9272

The lid is being kept on flight delay compensation by somebody as they don't want a scandal like PPI.
Airlines give EC excuse and then shut the door to any correspondence
There is no method to question their response only court unless someone knows different ?
How dare they patronise & think that my time waiting in an airport lounge is not important enough to compensate.