Holiday disrupion

lisyloo

mdann52 said:

Hoenir said:

Mystified2024 said:

on ou outbound flight we then got diverted to Doha due to a technical issue . 

What was the nature of the "issue" ?   The plane being diverted and grounded caused a change reaction of events beyond the airlines control. Not least that it involved numerous other parties. 

Huzar v Jet2 would disagree with you there. A diversion due to a technical issue isn't automatically an exceptional circumstance for the purposes of UK261, unless it's a freak failure. Unless it's a hidden manufacturing defect or deliberate sabotage, it's not deemed exceptional under EU law. It's a pre-Brexit judgement, so it's also binding on UK courts.


The airline would, even if the diversion was extraordinary, need to prove they took "all reasonable measures" to reduce the delay or reroute on other flights/carriers (Blanche v easyJet)

Or they could just ignore and not pay.

Mystified2024

Hoenir said:

Mystified2024 said:

on ou outbound flight we then got diverted to Doha due to a technical issue . 

What was the nature of the "issue" ?   The plane being diverted and grounded caused a change reaction of events beyond the airlines control. Not least that it involved numerous other parties. 

We were advised by the captain it was a technical issue with the weather navigation system don’t think we even got as far as turkey as we had to fly a further 4.5 hours to Doha from when the announcement was made 

Mystified2024

I can wait 8 weeks and if they still have not compensated then I can contact the CAA and ask them to act as an intermediary 
I have also decided to compose a complaint letter to Trail finders head office and ask them for written confirmation why they don’t feel we should be compensated for the nightmare of a holiday ( worded more professionally) 

lisyloo

I have a judgement/ruling from the CAA in my favour. So they've told me I'm right.
They do NOT act an intermediary in enforcement, they simply deliver a judgment.

Just FYI: Sri Lankan airlines have ignored me, the CAA and the solictors acting on my behalf.
We may be going to court but it's now 2 years and I have to sacrifice some of my compensation to the legal company.

Your case might be different but I'm definitely challenging the idea that just because you're rightly entitled to something means you're going to get it.

lisyloo

Mystified2024 said:

I can wait 8 weeks and if they still have not compensated then I can contact the CAA and ask them to act as an intermediary 
I have also decided to compose a complaint letter to Trail finders head office and ask them for written confirmation why they don’t feel we should be compensated for the nightmare of a holiday ( worded more professionally) 

I think you need to specify why you think Trailfinders are liable.
I mean which particular events they are liable for and under which regulations.

mdann52

lisyloo said:

mdann52 said:

Hoenir said:

Mystified2024 said:

on ou outbound flight we then got diverted to Doha due to a technical issue . 

What was the nature of the "issue" ?   The plane being diverted and grounded caused a change reaction of events beyond the airlines control. Not least that it involved numerous other parties. 

Huzar v Jet2 would disagree with you there. A diversion due to a technical issue isn't automatically an exceptional circumstance for the purposes of UK261, unless it's a freak failure. Unless it's a hidden manufacturing defect or deliberate sabotage, it's not deemed exceptional under EU law. It's a pre-Brexit judgement, so it's also binding on UK courts.


The airline would, even if the diversion was extraordinary, need to prove they took "all reasonable measures" to reduce the delay or reroute on other flights/carriers (Blanche v easyJet)

Or they could just ignore and not pay.

I mean, yes - but the fact the airline have a UK presence makes it much easier to recover monies, as you have the County Court route 

lisyloo

mdann52 said:

lisyloo said:

mdann52 said:

Hoenir said:

Mystified2024 said:

on ou outbound flight we then got diverted to Doha due to a technical issue . 

What was the nature of the "issue" ?   The plane being diverted and grounded caused a change reaction of events beyond the airlines control. Not least that it involved numerous other parties. 

Huzar v Jet2 would disagree with you there. A diversion due to a technical issue isn't automatically an exceptional circumstance for the purposes of UK261, unless it's a freak failure. Unless it's a hidden manufacturing defect or deliberate sabotage, it's not deemed exceptional under EU law. It's a pre-Brexit judgement, so it's also binding on UK courts.


The airline would, even if the diversion was extraordinary, need to prove they took "all reasonable measures" to reduce the delay or reroute on other flights/carriers (Blanche v easyJet)

Or they could just ignore and not pay.

I mean, yes - but the fact the airline have a UK presence makes it much easier to recover monies, as you have the County Court route 

I don't think just having a UK office will suffice (from my experience) but I wish the OP the best on this.

mdann52

lisyloo said:

mdann52 said:

I mean, yes - but the fact the airline have a UK presence makes it much easier to recover monies, as you have the County Court route 

I don't think just having a UK office will suffice (from my experience) but I wish the OP the best on this.

Well, no - but having that gives the UK courts jurisdiction, so you can claim via the county courts, and makes it possible for bailiffs to seize any assets, or the courts to seize any monies, going through their UK offices or bank accounts. It's much much easier than taking out a judgment against a foreign-established airline, as we've seen in the cases around Maleth Aero, who are based offshore with no UK office, where any claims have to go through the Maltese courts.

You can start the court claim yourself as a Litigant In Person, you don't need to pay a legal company. The CAA don't award judgements, they just advise on who they think is liable and won't intervene in a court case, so largely they are useless unless you can't go down the court route.

lisyloo

Are you sure an office/desk and a phone number/email avails you of the county courts?
Or does there need to be some sort of business based here?
I had a check on wikipedia and couldn't find anything.

Caz3121

mdann52 said:

 and makes it possible for bailiffs to seize any assets, or the courts to seize any monies, 

looks like this is just a rented mailbox. There are over 20,000 companies listed on Companies House that use or have used this address. (previously Metro Bank building) Unlikely to be any people or assets for Malaysian Airline ...maybe some mail forwarding though