Claiming against Norwegian Airlines

Froggitt

symphony63 wrote: »

You all might be right re CAA but with a ruling from CAA I think my case in court will be that much easier.
At the same time I also put in a complaint with Norway's CAA. I hope between the 2 of them something good will come out.

Norway aren't in the EU, I doubt they give much weight to EU261.

Froggitt

Justice13075 wrote: »

Norwegian air won't pay as the CAA is in the UK and cannot force them to pay. Don't waste your time, court is the only way.

http://news.sky.com/story/airlines-told-to-compensate-passengers-for-flight-delays-10777522

The CAA has now launched enforcement action against the airlines and has pledged to take the companies to court if they do not start obeying EU law.

The airlines could face unlimited fines if the crackdown ends up in court.

Vauban

Froggitt wrote: »

Norway aren't in the EU, I doubt they give much weight to EU261.

Norway has opted into the 261/04 regime - so it's a legal obligation.

symphony63

Justice13075 wrote: »

Norwegian air won't pay as the CAA is in the UK and cannot force them to pay. Don't waste your time, court is the only way.

See 'Better Enforcement' document issued by the EC which are Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.
https://www.scribd.com/document/338415299/c-2016-3502-en#

8. BRINGING ACTION UNDER THE REGULATION
a. Jurisdiction under which action can be brought under the Regulation
For flights from one Member State to another Member State, carried out on the basis of a contract with a single air carrier which is the operating carrier, a claim for compensation under the Regulation can be brought, at the applicant’s choice, to the national court which has jurisdiction over either the place of departure or the place of arrival, as stated in the contract of carriage, in application of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council ('Brussels I'). Under Article 4(1) of Brussels I passengers also retain the option of bringing the matter before the courts of the defendant's (air carrier's) domicile.

Vauban

symphony63 wrote: »

See 'Better Enforcement' document issued by the EC which are Interpretative Guidelines on Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.
https://www.scribd.com/document/338415299/c-2016-3502-en#

8. BRINGING ACTION UNDER THE REGULATION
a. Jurisdiction under which action can be brought under the Regulation
For flights from one Member State to another Member State, carried out on the basis of a contract with a single air carrier which is the operating carrier, a claim for compensation under the Regulation can be brought, at the applicant’s choice, to the national court which has jurisdiction over either the place of departure or the place of arrival, as stated in the contract of carriage, in application of Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council ('Brussels I'). Under Article 4(1) of Brussels I passengers also retain the option of bringing the matter before the courts of the defendant's (air carrier's) domicile.

Yes - this says that you have the right to bring a legal action in either the country of departure, destination or the legal HQ of the airline. This is because of a case in the European Court (Rehder v Air Baltic). It has nothing to do with the CAA or National Enforcement Bodies.

To repeat the point that others have made: the CAA has no legal power (at least that it is willing to exercise) to force airlines to pay up, even if they find in your favour. Some airlines ignore the CAA; some honour their rulings. If Norwegian are in the latter camp (comment: I don't know) then a complaint to the CAA might be useful. Otherwise you're largely wasting your time.

symphony63

Froggitt wrote: »

Norway aren't in the EU, I doubt they give much weight to EU261.

Sorry quoted the wrong comment

rikki_fray

Hello,

I was delayed recently (3 hours, 6 minutes) on a flight from LGW to JFK on Norwegian. At the time, the announcement was something along the lines of "There is a problem with the toilets on the plane, and we are trying to contact Boeing to get it fixed". This sounded like a technical fault to me, ie not extraordinary circumstances, and so I claimed compensation for me and my 11 year old son. My understanding is we should be due 50% of the 600 euros per flight.

Here's the response I received this morning from Norwegian, after I submitted my claim through their system:

Response (27/11/2017 09.39 AM)
Thank you for contacting us with your claim. We regret the time it’s taken to respond to you and we thank you for your patience.

Unfortunately, Norwegian flight DY7015 (LGW-JFK) 25.10.2017 was delayed by 3 hours and 6 minutes. 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 your flight was delayed due to extraordinary circumstances. This is in accordance with the European Court of Justice Verdict C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann.

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,
Janne
The Customer Relations Team

______________________________________________________

* Flight disruption information

Norwegian flight: DY7015 (LGW-JFK) 25.10.2017
Disruption type: Delayed
Delay time: 3 hours and 6 minutes
Reason for disruption: This delay was caused by a possible fault with the aircraft that was later dismissed after inspection.

Can anyone advise me on how I should respond?

Thanks so much.

JPears

"Reason for disruption: This delay was caused by a possible fault with the aircraft that was later dismissed after inspection."
That is an admission of a technical issue which is NOT an EC.
They are hoping you will go away because they said no.
Download and read Vauban's guide and proceed with your claim.

Froggitt

Did Boeing recall all the 757s to fix this design problem with the plane? If they didn't, its a maintenance issue/technical fault, not extraordinary circumstances.

EmmaLD

Here’s my attempt to counter their rejection of my claim!!

The delay to my flight D81609 was caused by a delay to the incoming flight D81609 4 Nov 2017.

This delay was not caused by weather as you assert - please see below.

Aircraft B38M 737 MAX departed EDI 18:05 and landed at YUL 21:42 EDT

We were told there was a technical fault on B38M and it was diverted to YUL - records prove this

Aircraft B738 737-800 departed YUL 23:14 EDT arriving 00:00 EDT +1 BDL

Weather in your ‘network’ was not the reason for this delay - you changed the aircraft at YUL

I was expecting a 737 MAX to arrive rather than a 737-800 and gate staff confirmed there had been a technical fault and B38M was diverted to YUL. I also have the evidence that another customer was told exactly the same by your gate agent.

Within the Regulation and the case you quoted this is not considered to be an exception circumstance.

I have copied in the UK CAA and will raise a formal complaint if you fail to respond accordingly.