Writing to regulators isn't a waste of time - a success story

[Deleted User]

I thought I would post this as I initially came on this forum to seek advice about claiming compensation for a 24 hour delay on a Norwegian flight from the US to Denmark. It seems that the standard approach from a lot of people on here (which is made pretty strongly in Vauban's guide) is that writing to national regulators (in my case the Danish Transport, Construction and Housing Authority as that's where the flight landed) is a waste of time and that you need to go down the legal route - involving lawyers or doing it yourself - if you want to get a result. My experience was completely different to that so I thought it would be worth emphasising this so people can learn from it.

After my delay, I initially wrote to Norwegian asking for compensation. They claimed "extraordinary circumstances", even though I knew this probably wouldn't stand up under scrutiny. I then wrote to the Danish regulators informing them of the case, they sent an email back saying it would take several weeks to review, then I simply received an email from them at a later date indicating Norwegian had accepted they would have to pay the full 600 euros compensation (which was then paid fairly swiftly into my account).

It was incredibly easy to do this as it required very little effort (essentially I just wrote a few emails). As such I find it a bit worrying that so many people on the threads I read here aren't even attempting this approach because there's a belief that "regulators are all useless and it's a waste of time". Of course this will vary depending on the regulator. I've no doubt the Danish regulators are a bit more helpful than their equivalents in other countries. But for all the effort it took to give this a try it does seem a bit odd to me that many people are jumping straight into using companies like Bott & Co or initiating legal proceedings when a simple email could have achieved the same thing without sacrificing any real time or any of the compensation you're owed.

I think we may have a case here of some anecdotal evidence being used to come to a concrete rule (regulators are all useless) which might not actually be true in many cases.

111KAB

Gordon - fully accept that your experience suggests the Danish Authority have more teeth than the CAA. The problem is generally though that the CAA are the party most turn to and I still doubt they have the passengers interest at heart given the airlines fund their very existence.

JPears

I have no problem with claimants writing to the relevant regulator. However, the overwhelming experience on this forum over many, many years, is that it will usually get you nowhere.
By all means contact said regulator, but carry on with alternate routes for gaining your compensation.

[Deleted User]

I accept I may have just got lucky, but I do see this message emphasised again and again (in fact I myself was told I'd have more luck "writing to the tooth fairy" when I mentioned this on here in my case). I think given the amount of time involved in doing this (i.e. about 5-10 minutes) and given the potential reward (it being completely resolved without any further involvement) this should really be the first port of call. I don't see that message being said much on here and as such I think it's worth drawing attention to it.

JPears

If its the UK regulator CAA then it probably is a waste of time and paper.
In my case (admitedly some years ago) the French regulator was useless, took 6 months just to respond. When they eventually replied I had already been to court....
Even if they agree with you, CAA have no powers to enforce. Indeed Thomas Cook (or was it Thomson) have blatantley ignored CAA directions.

Tyzap

Hi Gordon,

I believe that none of us here have much experience of other European National Enforcement Bodies (NEB's) other than the CAA and to a lesser extent AESA (Spanish NEB).

None of the NEB's can enforce their decision upon any airline, so much depends on the relationship between each NEB and the various airlines, particularly national airlines from that particular country.

Here in the UK the airlines, generally, treat the CAA with contempt and rarely accept their finding following a delay investigation.

In my personal dealings (twice) with NEB's the result was a complete waste of time. The CAA took fourteen months to inform me about my Qatar claim. This is a quote from their reply...

Due to the difference of opinion between the airline and us on the interpretation of the law, we are unable to take your case any further on the compensation part of your claim. We will now close your file.

By the time I received this information from the CAA, Bott and Co had already won my case for me. So you might wonder who knows more about the legal position of flight delay claims, the CAA or Bott and Co. I believe the result speaks for itself.

On the other occasion I asked AESA in Spain to investigate my Jet2 delay. They said that the delay was not an EC and the airline should pay. They refused, inviting me instead to take them to court. I did, and the judge said he would not be bound by a Spanish NEB decision as he pushed it aside!!

I did eventually win my case against Jet2 but not before the CAA tried to intervene in an effort to SUPPORT the airline. The judge saw the offer for what it was and refused them permission.

As many of the regulars here have been through similar circumstances we do tend to tar all NEB's with the same brush. Generally it is justifiable but I do accept that on a rare occasion the system works as it should. You were lucky on this occasion perhaps.

Vauban

I agree with Tyzap. Gordon makes a fair point that a few (non-British) airlines might be receptive to a few (non-British) NEB's but that's going to be a pretty niche market for folk on here. The CAA is useless: like Tyzap, it refused to deal constructively with my own case, did nothing for many months, and then finally wrote to me to say I hadn't got a case - a week after I had beaten Monarch in court. And even where the CAA do agree your claim has merit, they're quite comfortable signalling they have no intention of enforcing the claim. So it's no wonder they're ignored by the airlines. And, as Tyzap notes, writing to other EU NEB'S doesn't seem to get a different result either - UK airlines seem comfortable ignoring them too, at least based on the experience of people reported consistently on these pages.

One correction to your post though, Gordon: you anticipate that the advice of the regulars here (including me I guess) would be that you should have taken Norwegian to court. Actually I'm not sure about that - your flight was from the US to Denmark, which means there's no locus for a British court and you'd likely have to sue in either Oslo or Copenhagen. The ESCP might have been an option in these circumstances, but it's not obvious. So good job you got a positive result, because your legal alternatives weren't great!

[Deleted User]

Apologies for bumping an old thread here, but I just saw the post above and felt the issue is still relevant.

What I would say here is that I certainly don't want to second guess the advice people post on here. I only frequent this forum rarely and I think you all do a good job. But my experience of forums like this is that you quite often end up with anecdotal cases from forum respondents coming to be taken as cast iron rules and these viewpoints can then become somewhat entrenched (phrases like "overwhelming experience on this forum over many, many years" should come with a health warning in my view). There's also a slightly self-perpetuating nature to some of this: cases that go against the prevailing wisdom are often easily dismissed for the mere fact that they go against the prevailing wisdom. And if we advise everyone that writing to regulators is a waste of time then it would be unusual for a large number of success stories to appear on here from people who have written to regulators and had a result.

I think it is fair to say that my experience goes against the common view on here in that sense so I thought it was important to disrupt the consensus somewhat, particularly as the initial advice I received on here (from you personally Vauban it has to be said - though you were entirely friendly and well-meaning about it) is that it was a waste of time to try this. Again, the intention here isn't to undermine the great advice you're giving people on here, just to disrupt the consensus and hopefully give more information that people can learn from.

I also don't think this is that niche a situation. I fully accept most people on this forum will be flying into or out of the UK, but Norwegian is a major airline and it's not that uncommon for people to be flying long haul from other EU countries. This was just one case, presumably what is true for a Norwegian flight to Denmark is also true for many other airlines/EU countries (how many, we don't know, but the more people are encouraged to try it, the more information we're likely to get).

Tyzap

Hi Gordon,

Your post and your opinion are both welcome. It is genuinely nice to hear an opinion from time to time.

The way that the NEB's were set up in the first place could have been better. Particularly if they had been given the power to force airlines to pay up, rather than having to revert to the already busy court system here in the UK, when airlines refuse to follow CAA advice.

Given the existing regulatory set up, and the airlines refusal to fully accept their responsibilities without unnecessary delay and argument, it is hardly surprising that there is so much conflict in this area.

From what I have learned over the years, the airline companies here in the UK seem to show the most contempt for the regulations, the CAA and claimants, compared to other European countries. Because of this, in the UK, a huge claims assistance industry has emerged to help claimants who cannot fight their way through to the end of a fiercely contested procedure. There would be no need for this if the system worked properly.

When some airlines come to the small claims court to defend a claim worth €400 with a barrister, solicitor, manager and two witnesses, something is not right IMHO.

There is no doubt in my mind that pursuing a claim through the CAA, or any other NEB, is, in the overwhelming number of cases, is a waste of time where UK airlines are concerned. That is not just from anecdotal experience, it's from personal experience.

Perhaps it's just the case that Norwegian airlines respect the Danish NEB more than the UK airlines respect the CAA.

It worked well for you in Denmark, but in the UK it is not so easy, as many disappointed claimants could testify.

JPears

I am sure no one here will argue with you.
We do encourage people to complain to the CAA when airlines don't pay up on perfectly valid claim.
Bear in mind some of us have been here for 6 years or more. Favourable CAA comments are very few and far between....

Vauban

Gordon is absolutely right to challenge the consensus. And to be fair, there is some evidence of foreign airlines responding to pressure from foreign NEBs. (And I think I recall another case recently where the Danish NEB intervened and got Norwegian to pay).

But based on the many, many experiences reported here British airlines seem utterly unmoved by foreign NEBs and - almost always - don't care for the CAA's view either. As a matter of policy the CAA decline to try to enforce individual decisions, so airlines feel free to ignore. Outrageous but true.