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

Vauban

Star9272 wrote: »

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.

The airlines have opposed this Regulation since its inception, but their hostility increased significantly when the ECJ ruled (in Sturgeon in 2009) that the Regulation should be extended to cover delays as well as cancellations.

Because they had already lost the case where technical failures were not to be considered as extraordinary (Wallentin, 2008) they instead fought the principle of delay. They managed to bring this before the Grand Chamber of the European Court in October 2012, but lost all their grounds of appeal (including on incompatability with the Montreal Convention).

So they have instead decided to revisit Wallentin in an attempt to unpick it. When weather and industrial action are taken out of the mix, almost all other delays are caused by technical failures. So you can see why they hate Wallentin - and are working to distort it (eg by saying that if the failure is unpredictable it is extraordinary, or that if the plane is subject to regular (and legally necessary!) maintenance, any failure is extraordinary). All this is simply bunkum.

For those of you fighting in court, the following letter - published on a dutch aviation industry website - might be useful. It is from almost all the UK airlines, and was written in 2009 to the then UK Secretary of State for Transport. It states clearly - as is signed by the Chief Executives of the airlines concerned - that:

It is worth remembering that following the ECJ’s decision in the Wallentin Case, regarding the meaning of extraordinary circumstances, the starting point for courts and regulators in EU member states is to no longer accept technical delays as a force majeure event. The result is that as things stand in the vast majority (around 80%) ofclaims for compensation under the regulation, airlines do not have the benefit of the extraordinary circumstances defence available to them.

I think this is worth bringing to the attention of any judge considering the matter, don't you?

You can find the letter here: http://www.barin.nl/docs/DeniedBoardingUkCEOletterReECJ19nov09verdict8Dec09.pdf

Star9272

Thank you thank you thank you

results

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

If that's your attitude you may as well forget your claim now. But forgive me if I press on. Because this airlines' wish list has NO FORCE in law, and if the defendant in my claim tries to introduce it I will point that out with as much bluster as I can muster!

Probably won't do you any good if Davidvgoliath's case is anything to go by.. Judge used the list exactly as I said they would!

111KAB

12 April 2013 > Guidelines dreamt up by CAA/NEB and airlines marked as preliminary and non binding - http://www.scribd.com/doc/187964205/Neb-Extraordinary-Circumstances-List-Version-1
Summer 2013 > Guidelines issued and complaints flood in
19 September 2013 > Issue of Guidelines challenged by representation to EU Ombudsman - http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/cases/caseopened.faces/en/51767/html.bookmark
28 November 2013 > Ombudsman apologises that examination of reasons why NEB list was included as EU document is taking longer than she thought and accordingly they have instructed NEB's to reissue marking as Draft, not legal and non binding. NEB's reissue however they do not change the date (12 April 2013) so there is nothing to stop them just sending out version 1. - http://www.scribd.com/doc/187964637/Neb-Extraordinary-Circumstances-List-Version-2
The standing of the NEB list is also discounted in the Huzar case > "I am informed that a meeting of European national enforcement bodies has provided guidance on this issue which would tend to support the respondent’s argument. However its provenance is unclear and in any event the guidance is just that. It does not purport to be definitive or binding. Whilst it is drawn up by a body whose view deserves some respect, that body is not part of the legislature and is not tasked with interpreting the intention of the legislative body in any particular case."

OldManAhoy

Spot on 111KAB. I have downloaded from Scribd but where do you get the date of 28th Nov from and other notes in your post? Have checked the Ombudsman link too. Thanks

111KAB

OldManAhoy wrote: »

Spot on 111KAB. I have downloaded from Scribd but where do you get the date of 28th Nov from and other notes in your post? Have checked the Ombudsman link too. Thanks

By writing to the various parties and - eventually - receiving a reply. From experience MEP's tend to reply within 21 days, the EU within 40 days, 'foreign' NEB's 60 days and MP's/CAA never! What I find really annoying re the 'guidelines' is that the NEB's/CAA re-issued and toned down but kept the original date when they convened to discuss so if you search/follow some links you will be directed to the original (false) guidelines. The CAA have confirmed that there was no consumer/passenger representation when the guidelines were prepared and I believe not all NEB's were represented and some were only contacted by 'phone. Efforts to obtain the minutes of the meeting have drawn a blank and the Spanish NEB (for example) have refused to comment on whether they attended or were a party to the guidelines.
The CAA have recently set up a so-called public interest group but they are still funded/affiliated with the CAA so as the CAA cannot be independent from the airlines this group cannot be either.
As the major EU airlines are UK/Irish based I cannot help but think the airlines are pulling the CAA strings.

David_e

Vauban wrote: »

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.

Disgraceful. How could disclosure of documents prejudice "enforcement", which as you say won't happen anyway? Who polices FOI compliance??

OldManAhoy

111KAB wrote: »

By writing to the various parties and - eventually - receiving a reply. From experience MEP's tend to reply within 21 days, the EU within 40 days, 'foreign' NEB's 60 days and MP's/CAA never! What I find really annoying re the 'guidelines' is that the NEB's/CAA re-issued and toned down but kept the original date when they convened to discuss so if you search/follow some links you will be directed to the original (false) guidelines. The CAA have confirmed that there was no consumer/passenger representation when the guidelines were prepared and I believe not all NEB's were represented and some were only contacted by 'phone. Efforts to obtain the minutes of the meeting have drawn a blank and the Spanish NEB (for example) have refused to comment on whether they attended or were a party to the guidelines.
The CAA have recently set up a so-called public interest group but they are still funded/affiliated with the CAA so as the CAA cannot be independent from the airlines this group cannot be either.
As the major EU airlines are UK/Irish based I cannot help but think the airlines are pulling the CAA strings.

Again thank you. Not sure about naming names but I have just emailed the CAA CEO Mr?? (he does respond if you keep at him!) with the 'new' guidelines, a copy of 'your' EU complaint and a letter I had previously sent to MEP's asking how the CAA can assess (my mothers) claim based on a non binding & non exhaustive list AND NOW they also turn out to be draft and come with a specific disclaimer that they don't represent the position of the legislature (the Euro Commission) but the CAA still send them out as EU guidelines.

steve1500

:beer:

David_e wrote: »

Disgraceful. How could disclosure of documents prejudice "enforcement", which as you say won't happen anyway? Who polices FOI compliance??

Information Commissioner www.ico.gov.uk

111KAB

Dear Mr xxxxxx,

Following our e-mail exchanges of September and in reply to your latest messages of October, I would like to tell you the following.

Indeed the European Ombudsman has received a complaint against the European Commission in relation to the publication on the Commission's website of the document 'Preliminary list of extraordinary circumstances following the National Enforcement Bodies (NEB) meeting held on 12 April 2013'. In light of the comments received from the Ombudsman, the Commission has now revised the first page of the document. In the title of the document the word "Preliminary" is replaced by "Draft". The phrase "Understanding between NEB-NEB" is added as well as a new disclaimer which states: "This document has been published at the request of the NEBs. This document is for information and guidance. The content of this document has not been adopted or in any way approved by the European Commission and should not be relied upon as a statement of the European Commission's position." The new version of the document has been uploaded on our website.

I also take this opportunity to recall that the Commission proposed the revision of air passenger rights on 13 March 2013. This proposal is now being further discussed by the legislators. As part of this revision, the Commission has proposed a clear definition of extraordinary circumstances (in line with Wallentin Case C-549/07) and an annex with a non-exhaustive list of circumstances considered as extraordinary.

I hope you will find these clarifications useful.

Yours sincerely,


Jean-Louis Colson
Head of Unit


European Commission
Directorate General for Mobility and TransportUnit D4 - Passenger rightsDM28 5/57B-1040 Brussels/Belgium+32 229-60995[EMAIL="jean-louis.colson@ec.europa.eu"]jean-louis.colson@ec.europa.eu[/EMAIL]
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/passenger-rights/en/mobile.html