Claiming against Norwegian Airlines

Herongull

owenjt wrote: »

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..

My 6 hour delay (from London to Copenhagen) was refused initially due to "Structural damage which they regarded as "extraordinary circumstances". When I asked them for more information, they changed their mind and gave me exactly the same excuse as you got "...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."

When I asked for more information about that, they reverted back to structural problems being extraordinary circumstances.

This makes me think it must an open and shut case of being required to pay compensation but making up excuses to put people off.

People on this thread seem to think that ADR takes ages so I was thinking of Bott & Co (who would take a cut).

But can Bott & Co actually do anything with stubborn airlines like Norwegian. They could take them to court when it is an open and shut case but do they actually bother or do they just give up when the airline stubbornly refuses?

Could I got to ADR and Bott&Co at the same time?

Tyzap

Herongull wrote: »

Could I got to ADR and Bott&Co at the same time?

NO, don't do that!

Go down one route at a time only. You could try ADR first as it is free. There are different ADR companies working on behalf of different airlines, not all of them are crazy busy...

https://www.aviationadr.org.uk/completing-the-form-eu/

There is a prescribed timetable so have a read up of their rules.

Good luck.

owenjt

owenjt wrote: »

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..

So I finally heard back from AviationADR at the end of the last month and I'm getting compensation! They said they received the following from Norwegian:

''After reviewing this case and its supporting documents, we have decided to accommodate the passenger’s claim for compensation. In accordance with EC Regulation 261/2004, article 7 (2) (c), the total compensation amount may be reduced by 50% when the arrival time is greater than 3 hours, but less than 4 hours. As such, the compensation amount due is 300 EUR per passenger, EUR total 600."

It's taken a while but my persistence paid off. Can't believe airlines can get away with fobbing people off with blatant lies so they don't have to pay compensation.

bieh

Hi all,

My Norwegian flight was delayed for 5h flying Miami -> Gatwick back in July. I filed it on Resolver at the end of July, and they finally got back to me.

Unfortunately, Norwegian flight DI7044 (MIA-LGW) 25.07.2019 was delayed by 5 hours and 8 minutes due to an earlier disruption within our network that had a direct effect on this flight. The original disruption was caused by adverse weather conditions. This disruption was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

Although we respect your request for compensation, we’re unable to honour your claim as this flight was delayed due to extraordinary circumstances. This is in accordance with the European Court of Justice Verdict C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann.

So if I'm reading this right, they're saying the previous flight was delayed due to weather, OK. I did a bit of googling around.

It also isn’t an extraordinary circumstance if your flight is delayed because a previous flight was disrupted due to bad weather. Your flight must be directly affected by the bad weather in order for it to be an extraordinary circumstance.

(from Which consumer-rights page on flight compensation)

They go on to say that I should look up the historical data for the airport and see if other flights were taking off around the same time. That'll cost me a small amount from flightstats, I guess. But I'm happy to do it if might work.

So I guess my question is -- what do you guys think? Have I got a good enough case to pursue this? Or should I not bother? I can escalate on Resolver to the ADR in seven days, if that'll help.

Thanks!

UPDATE: decided to splash out on a flightstats subscription so I could look up what other flights were taking off around that time. This looks hopeful, I think -- while there were some cancellations from other airlines too, lots of other flights were taking off around or immediately after Norwegians scheduled departure time.

imgur.com/a/LTVGzYU (sorry, can't make it link as I'm a new user...)

I think I'll follow up with them and cite this and the above consumer advice page and see what they say.

bieh

Update: they replied with

Whilst we respect your request for further consideration of your claim, there are certain conditions which we must adhere to, in order to ensure that we are providing a fair and equitable service. In accordance with the guidelines outlined in our previous correspondence, unfortunately we are unable to reconsider our decision in relation to this matter.

I guess I'll take it to the ADR now.

DrA_Harrogate

You are correct. Not having an aircraft available owing to a delay to a previous flight is not extraordinary. If you have not already done so check with Boot & Co and EU Claim to see what they say. Also, of course, download Vauban's guide toguide you.

pteiavn

Hi,
Here is the email I got back from Norwegian about my flight delay:

Thank you for contacting us with your claim.

Unfortunately, Norwegian flight D81763 (DUB-SWF) 29.07.2019 was delayed by 4 hours and 19 minutes due to an unidentified object that caused structural damage to the aircraft. This disruption was caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

Although we respect your request for compensation, we’re unable to honour your claim as this flight was delayed due to extraordinary circumstances. This is in accordance with the European Court of Justice Verdict C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann.

Unfortunately, we're unable to cover the expenses claimed as we're not liable for such costs. For information regarding the legal basis for the reimbursement of financial losses in the event of a flight disruption, please see below*.

We apologise for the inconvenience caused on this occasion and hope to have the opportunity to welcome you on board a Norwegian flight when you next choose to travel.

Kind regards,

The Customer Relations Team

______________________________________________________

* Legal basis for the outcome of flight disruption claims

In the event of a flight disruption, we will always provide assistance (e.g. overnight accommodation, meals, telephone calls, transport) according to EU Regulation 261/2004. In the event that a passenger incurs such costs during a disruption, we will reimburse within reasonable limits if the expense was deemed necessary and an itemised receipt can be provided. We will not reimburse such costs if the passenger did not allow us the opportunity to provide this type of assistance, or if the costs were incurred following a missed onward flight with Norwegian in a separate booking, or if the alternatives available to the passenger were not suitable. We're also unable to refund the cost of our ticket if the passenger travelled on the disrupted flight. A refund of the Norwegian ticket will only be provided if the flight is cancelled or delayed by 5 hours or more and the passenger chose not to travel. If the passenger is entitled to a refund of a new ticket (with Norwegian, or another carrier), we will only refund the cost of the new ticket, or the difference between the new ticket and the Norwegian ticket if the Norwegian ticket has been refunded.

Any consequential losses incurred as a result of the disruption will only be reimbursed if the reason for the disruption is within our control. If we do not consider that adequate measures have been taken by the passenger to ensure that they will reach pre-booked arrangements (e.g. connecting transport, accommodation, events etc.) we will not cover these costs even if the disruption is within our control. Likewise, we're unable to cover consequential losses that cannot be documented, expenses that the passenger would have incurred even if the flight had not been disrupted, or unnecessary legal representation for the submission of such claims. According to the Montreal Convention and the decision made by the Norwegian National Enforcement Body in case 1222/2016, the passenger is not entitled to reimbursement of consequential losses if all reasonable measures were taken by the airline to avoid the technical difficulties that caused the flight disruption. According to EU Regulation 261/2004 Article 12, extra costs not directly associated with the provision of assistance outlined in this regulation may be deducted from standard compensation. For more information regarding your rights, visit [link redacted].

The outcome of this claim is based on the confirmed reason for the disruption of the flight/flights in question and can be used for insurance purposes if necessary.

If you are not satisfied with the outcome of your complaint or claim with us, you may wish to contact the National Enforcement Body in the country where your flight took place. Visit [link redacted]. Please be advised, we are not currently signed up to an Alternative Dispute Resolution provider.

We are also required to inform that an Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform has been set up by the European Commission providing access to alternative dispute resolution [link redacted]. We are currently not subscribed to the ODR platform and any complaints or claims submitted here will not reach us.

Questions for the forum:

• What is the next step I should take? Is there a point replying to this email, I should I immediately go over to legal action, ODR, or NWNF? Maybe, as per Vauban's guide, I should write a NBA, but is there a point in arguing with Norwegian before that? I have noticed that it never gets people anywhere in itself, but maybe it aids future legal action by showing that they are recalcitrant?
• What do they mean by the last sentence? Does this mean ODR won't work?
• My friend was on the flight with me and has submitted a claim separately. Is there a way to pursue legal action, ODR, or NWNF for both of us together so that we don't need to redundantly do the same work?

Thanks!

Antti

Norwegian had cancelled my flight from Nice to Oslo in October. They put me on another flight 8 hours later when I called them after finding out about the cancellation the day before the flight. So they never informed me about the cancellation (a system glitch, I guess). It seems they have been combining two daily flights into one throughout October 2019 (I flew Oct 17), probably due to low booking rate (?).

Anyway, here's the answer I got from Norwegian after sending a complaint and a claim:

---

Flight disruption information

Norwegian flight: DY1405 (NCE-OSL) 17.10.2019
Disruption type: Cancelled
Reason for disruption: This disruption was caused by the grounding of all Boeing 737 MAX aircraft, as imposed by European aviation authorities.

______________________________

Although we respect your request for compensation, we’re unable to honour your claim as this flight was cancelled due to extraordinary circumstances. This is in accordance with EU regulation 261/2004 Article 5(3).

---

Sounds like total BS to me. Can they still claim that the 737 MAX grounding since March 2019 constitutes an extraordinary circumstance? Anyway, they should have managed to inform me about the cancellation well in advance?

Would be interesting to hear if the 737 MAX grounding is some standard answer they use in cases where they don't find any better excuses?

JPears

IMHO, that is NOT a valid EC, 8 months on from the grounding. More thn enough time for the airline to make alternative arrangements.
And they certainly have no excuse for not informing you well in advance of the cancellation.

Antti

Thanks, JPears! I replied to Norwegian now, trying to get them to settle outside court. I'll keep you guys updated.