Comments Needed: Draft Guide to Claiming Flight Delay Compensation 19 August 2014 at 8:51PM edited 25 November 2015 at 8:47AM in Flight delay compensation 175 replies 50.4K views

Vauban

Update from 1 November: I have revised the guide, following the Supreme Court's decisions on Huzar and Dawson. I have also updated with some other developments since the Guide was first written.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w6hmpy5ysxpck6k/Vauban%27s Guide to Claiming Flight Delay Compensation.pdf?dl=0

As ever, happy to take on board any comments and keep revising.

Perhaps it's too much to hope, but maybe this guide might not be needed for too much longer? Here's hoping!

PtLV

Edit: I have fixed the link!

JPears

Excellent. Good work. Perhaps the veterans on here should look at the regular newbies FAQs/postings and see if anything needs to be added

111KAB

Vauban - well done for both writing and spending the time to sort. As mentioned on numerous occasions tenacity and patience are required in abundance to take on the airlines and you have displayed this in drafting this out. Try and get included as a sticky and once in final form let me know and I will arrange for inclusion on any other forums by way of a link.

Dr_Watson

Vauban- my friend, excellent work as always, as 111KAB states let's get it made as a sticky for all the new claimants that find these threads.
One point -my post 622 has become post 569 on the Ryanair thread after Centipedes departure, if you could edit your link to this.
I'm always auto alerted to the Ryanair thread when new posts arrive- my work there continues....as you have heard, their silly games continue..
Speak soon.

Vauban

Thanks for the comments so far.

Dr. W: the link I've posted seems to work okay for me - let me know if it doesn't for you.

I have added an extra paragraph on the CAA - how could I have forgotten them? Let me know if you think it is incorrect or unfair in any way:

5.12 Passengers may be tempted to approach the CAA for assistance, but the anecdotal experience of people on this forum is that this has been mostly a waste of time - or even damaging to their case. The CAA is funded by the airline industry, and it has failed to press airlines to respect their obligations under the Regulation. They were instrumental in drafting “Guidelines” on extraordinary circumstances which favoured the airlines and did not reflect the true legal position - consequently depriving passengers of their legal rights. Even when the matter was clarified by the Court of Appeal, the CAA initially attempted to claim that the judgement only applied to new delays . In those cases where the CAA have agreed that a passenger should be compensated, there are plenty of examples of the airline simply ignoring the CAA’s request. So they add no real value in this process at all and you are advised to ignore them – like the airlines do!

I also thought I would add at the end a list of resources and external links. Do please offer additions to these:

EXTERNAL LINKS OF INTEREST

THE RELEVANT LAW:-

Regulation 261/2004 – This is the original Regulation, that came into force in early 2005:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:439cd3a7-fd3c-4da7-8bf4-b0f60600c1d6.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

The Wallentin-Hermann Judgement: This is the European Court judgement from December 2008 that ruled technical problems were not extraordinary, unless they stemmed from causes “not inherent in the operation of the airline” and “beyond its actual control”. It also defined the “all reasonable measures” that an airline must take to prevent delay, even from extraordinary circumstances, as everything short of “intolerable sacrifice”: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=73223&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=226657

The Sturgeon Judgement – This is a European Court judgement from November 2009 that ruled that passengers delayed for three hours or more should be treated identically under the Regulation as those whose flights were cancelled. It also reinforced the Wallentin ruling on technical failures: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=73703&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=226470

The Eglitis Judgement – This European Court judgement from May 2011 said that airlines must take account of the risk of delay caused by extraordinary circumstances and consequently provide for a certain reserve time to allow it, if possible, to operate the flight in its entirety once any extraordinary circumstances have come to an end:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=82052&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=226994

The Nelson Judgement – This is the European Court judgement from October 2012 which essentially reaffirmed the Sturgeon judgement:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62010CJ0581:EN:HTML

The Finnair Judgement – This European Court judgement, also from October 2012, ruled that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ resulting in an air carrier rescheduling flights cannot give grounds for denying boarding on those later flights or for exempting that carrier from its obligation to compensate a passenger to whom it denies boarding on such a flight (ie so-called “knock-ons”):
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=128005&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=227374

The More Judgement – This European Court judgement from November 2012 confirmed that the time limits for claimants to claim under the Regulation were determined by national laws on statutory limitation (ie 6 years in England/Wales, 5 years in Scotland):
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=130243&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=227186

The McDonagh Judgement – The European Court ruled in January 2013 that even if extreme “extraordinary circumstances” (the ash-cloud from the Icelandic volcano) airlines still have a duty of care to provide for food and accommodation for stranded passengers:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=133245&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=228357

The Dawson Judgement (Judge Yelton) – Cambridge County Court ruled in July 2013 that the limitation period for bringing legal action against an airline under the Regulation was six years, not two as claimed by Thomson:
http://www.bottonline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Judgment.pdf

The Huzar Judgement (Judge Platts) – Manchester County Court ruled in October 2013 that just because a technical problem was unexpected or unforeseen did not make it “extraordinary”, and thus Jet2.com were liable to pay Mr. Huzar compensation:
http://www.bottonline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/179933236-Jet2-appeal.pdf

The Dawson Judgement (Court of Appeal) – The Law Lords ruled in June 2014 that the UK Courts were bound by the More ruling that the Regulation existed outside of the Montreal Convention, and therefore that six years, not two, was the limitation period under English law:
http://www.bottonline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Dawson%20v%20Thomson%20Airways%20Approved%20Judgment.pdf

The Huzar Judgement (Court of Appeal) – The Law Lords also ruled in June 2014 that, though Judge Platts reasoning was incorrect, Mr. Huzar’s case against Jet2.com was upheld because technical problems were generally inherent in the operation of an airline (the Wallentin test):
http://www.bottonline.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/img-611094038-0001.pdf


INTERESTING ARTICLES:-

Travel Law Group Case Updates – From July 2014, commenting on the Huzar and Dawson Court of Appeal judgements: http://www.9sjs.com/assets/files/travel_law_case_update_july_2014.pdf

John Balfour, EU Air Passenger Rights - Focus on Regulation 261/2004 – Written in 2011, it offers an interesting commentary on the Wallentin and Sturgeon judgements:
http://whoswholegal.com/news/features/article/28878/eu-air-passenger-rights-focus-regulation-2612004

Bird & Bird: Denied Boarding Regulations – Are aircraft technical problems “extraordinary circumstances”? – Written in 2009 this article (which no longer appears on the 2Birds website, oddly) offers the view that the Wallentin judgement means technical problems are not extraordinary:
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cff38104-f340-404b-aa41-157ca2d7a292

Daily Mail reports on passengers successes:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2338887/Our-victory-thousands-left-stranded-flight-delays-Couples-payout-26-hour-ordeal.html

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/holidays/article-2567703/Man-won-3-200-flight-delay-compensation-Monatch-court-case.html

David_e

Excellent effort V. Just a pity those it would help won't read it!

Dr_Watson

Vauban wrote: »

Thanks for the comments so far.

Dr. W: the link I've posted seems to work okay for me - let me know if it doesn't for you.

I have added an extra paragraph on the CAA - how could I have forgotten them? Let me know if you think it is incorrect or unfair in any way:

Vauban,
The link does still work, not sure how but the post has shifted in the RA thread?
But as long as it works,
You may like to include this 'media tart' to your news links:-

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/apr/28/flight-delays-compensation-ryanair-airlines

legal_magpie

I have saved Vauban's brilliant work as a word document for ease of amendment. Because of the way in which the threads work on this site, can those who know about these things perhaps make the final version into a closed thread of its own so that it won't be lost in the dozens of people who comment later.

razorsedge

Vauban wrote: »

2.0 Are you due compensation?
c) Was the incident within the last six years?


6.10 You should ensure that the other side hand over their documents when instructed, and bring it to the court’s attention if they do not.

For 2.0 c) perhaps add 'because six years is the current legal time limit to start Court action in England and Wales (if the airline refuse to pay) but a limit of five years applies if you are going to be using the Scottish Courts.

Can somebody confirm the time limit for Northern Ireland?

For 6.10 perhaps add something to manage expectations about the Court process in that many airlines do not follow Court procedures or Court ordered timelines (not just about the 'bundle' exchange) but some Courts will still let them off without penalty or sanction.

JPears

bump to top

Vauban

Okay. Many thanks to you all for these useful comments. I have revised accordingly, and turned into a pdf document for ease of reading:

http://db.orangedox.com/GdfSa4xUZdZI5GJadr/Vauban's%20Guide%20to%20Claiming%20Flight%20Delay%20Compensation.pdf

I can still make subsequent changes if folk have further suggestions to make.

Note sure how many "newbies" will actually read this, but at least my conscience is now clear!