Compensation claim against airline

wealdroam

goater78 wrote: »

There is debate whether this counts applies for airlines. There is a test case going through at the moment which says airlines are only liable for 2 years. They're probably going to lose but it's not set in stone until next year.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has already pronounced once on this:

The time-limits for bringing actions for compensation for flight cancellation are determined in accordance with the national rules of each Member State

But as is said "discussions are still taking place".

Crazy_Jamie

krisdorey wrote: »

Agreed with DCFC, the defence will also argue why it has taken so long for the OP to bring the matter to ahead.

Highly unlikely. Even if they do it won't get them anywhere. There shouldn't be a debate as to whether or not the plane was delayed; they will be easily confirmed. The issue will be whether or not the delay was due to extraordinary circumstances. Technical issues in and of themselves do not constitute extraordinary circumstances, as airlines are expected to have reasonable systems of maintenance in place and to have other planes on standby ready to use. It is fairly common for airlines to be robust in cases like this and then settle as the case approaches trial. They have to pay the court issue fee when they do that, but no doubt they save overall because many, if not most, people will just not bother to pursue legitimate claims when they realise they have to go through the small claims court.

mattyprice4004

Why post all over the place? Stick to one thread in the appropriate forum, this doesn't belong here.
There's a specific forum for this EXACT issue, which you've already posted in.

unholyangel

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Highly unlikely. Even if they do it won't get them anywhere. There shouldn't be a debate as to whether or not the plane was delayed; they will be easily confirmed. The issue will be whether or not the delay was due to extraordinary circumstances. Technical issues in and of themselves do not constitute extraordinary circumstances, as airlines are expected to have reasonable systems of maintenance in place and to have other planes on standby ready to use. It is fairly common for airlines to be robust in cases like this and then settle as the case approaches trial. They have to pay the court issue fee when they do that, but no doubt they save overall because many, if not most, people will just not bother to pursue legitimate claims when they realise they have to go through the small claims court.

Was going to say something along these lines too! Airlines will also defend claims because their interpretation of "outwith their control" is different to the courts. Airlines were trying to class all technical issues as outwith their control but the courts don't always agree. Especially if, in practice, it was under their control/could have been avoided.