Claiming against Norwegian Airlines

owenjt

Justice13075 wrote: »

You say your flight was delayed 3hrs 23 mins, was that leaving or arriving. EuClaim say you are not due compensation as your flight arrived less than 3 hours late

Tyzap wrote: »

I have rarely read such a lot of inaccurate, unknowledgeable pure rubbish.

You are due compensation so I would take your case to AviationADR here...

https://www.aviationadr.org.uk/how-to-complain-about/airline-complaints/

Good luck.

Thanks. Wasn't sure if they were talking rubbish or not. Will see where I get to with AviationADR.

Herongull

My husband and I were on a flight from London to Copenhagen last August which was delayed by over 6 hours. We never told the cause of the day but received a text on the morning of the flight telling us about the 6 and a bit hour delay and give us the revised departure time which they adhered to.

To try to work out what has happening, we found a website that gives information on particular aeroplanes (ie using their registration number) and from I worked out that our plane was used to make an extra flight to somewhere else at the time it was originally supposed to be flying to Copenhagen and that is why it was over 6 hours late. This makes me suspect that there might have been a problem with another plane and so used ours for this other flight but I don't know for certain. There wasn't a strike or bad weather or anything like that on the day we travelled as other flights were not affected.

I put in a claim via Resolver which was ignored (ie no response whatsover) and escalated it twice via Resolver (again no response whatsoever) so now complaining to ADR.

Although it looks like an operational problem with one of their planes, I don't know for certain and Norwegian will probably just continue to ignore the claim.

Will ADR rule in my favour because Norwegian just continues to ignore claims for compensation?

JPears

If Norwegian don't respond to the ADR then they may well find in your favour, but its not a default decision, as far as I am aware.
The problem is that the ADR have no powers to force Norwegian to pay up if they find in your favour.
And my experience of the ADR is that is very very slow.

Herongull

Is going to the CAA any better?

Or Bott and Co?

Or small claims court?

Or should I do them in a certain order?

JPears

CAA won't want to know. They washed their hands of the whole fiasco by adopting the ADR system.
Bott & Co. will cost you if sucessful.
Small claims - issue there is finding Norwegian Airlines assets in UK to enforce payment if you are successful.
If you are not in any hurry I'd go for ADR. If they don't find in your favour, option 2 and 3 are still open to you. And if you go option 3 the ADR process will have given you some insight into the work involved

DrA_Harrogate

Theory - (some) airlines have a policy/tactic of erecting a series of barriers, some of which they just make up, which succeed in putting off claimants. Each time they put somebody off they save £x. The determined, and exhausted, minority who make it through are just that, a minority.

bubieyehyeh

I finally received compensation for a delay flight on Norweigan, after nearly 3 months.



I originally submitted claim through resolver, and after 5 weeks they agreed I was due compensation and asked for bank details. However then Norweigan started ignoring emails via resolver. Finally I phoned Norweigan and they said they never received emails, I gave them bank details over phone and they paid a week later.


So if your getting no-where with Norweigan through resolver, I'd suggest ringing them.

Froggitt

JPears wrote: »

CAA won't want to know. They washed their hands of the whole fiasco by adopting the ADR system.
Bott & Co. will cost you if sucessful.
Small claims - issue there is finding Norwegian Airlines assets in UK to enforce payment if you are successful.

There were two or three large assets at Gatwick Airport this morning. Can you picture the "Cant Pay We'll Take it Away" guys putting a clamp on one of them?

owenjt

owenjt wrote: »

So I flew from Gatwick to LA on 22 August. The flight was delayed for 3 hours and 23 minutes.

I opened a case with Norwegian and have just had a reply saying the following:



Does anyone know whether I can take this further? Should I refer it to the AviationADR? From what I've read a technical fault (which in face turned out to be nothing in this case) cannot be an 'extraordinary circumstance'?

So update:

I responded to Norwegian and referred to 'Huzar V Jet2 [2014] EWCA Civ 791', where it was ruled that technical problems are not considered an extraordinary circumstance under EU261 rules, and airlines still have to pay flight compensation in these cases.

They have now responded saying:

"We kindly inform you that the reason for the disruption has been confirmed and that there was no technical fault found. As a result, the technicians released the aircraft after inspection. We declined your claim based on the Wallentin-Hermann verdict as the reason for the delay/cancellation was an extraordinary circumstance which was outside of our control."

From what I've read, the Wallentin-Hermann case clarified that 'a technical problem with an aircraft that was detected during aircraft maintenance or that is caused by failure to maintain an aircraft can’t be considered an extraordinary circumstance'.

Can anyone confirm? My plan is to respond and say I'm going to refer the case to the AviationADR..

jpsartre

That's a ridiculous interpretation of the Wallentin-Hermann ruling. Definitely pursue the case.