Lufthansa Cancellation claim rejected

Punjabputer

Hi All

So our flight was cancelled in April from Amritsar to London with Lufthansa. This was made up of Amritsar to Delhi, Delhi to Munich and Munich to London. They cancelled the flight due to the cockpit strike. We were booked on an alternative carrier the next day.

I submitted a compensation claim but it was rejected.with the following reason

Kindly note that Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 applies to flights departing from EU member states and flights arriving in EU member states from third countries. As your journey starts in India and ends in the United Kingdom we cannot accommodate your request for compensation according Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004.

I then replied with the following

Application of Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 (and UK261):

Your point only applies to flights arriving in the EU from a third country (Article 3(1)(b)). For flights departing from the EU, the origin of the overall booking is irrelevant.

Even though our journey began in India, we are protected for the cancelled flight because of two specific criteria in the law:

Point of Departure within the EU: Article 3(1)(a) of the Regulation states that the law applies to all passengers departing from an airport located in a Member State, regardless of the airline's nationality or the passenger's citizenship. Since the cancelled flight was scheduled to depart from Munich (Germany), it is a departure from an EU Member State, bringing it directly under the scope of EC 261. Hence the regulation applies to our cancelled flight.

Operating Carrier is a "Community Carrier”: Under Article 3(1)(b), the regulation also applies to flights arriving in the EU/UK from a non-EU country if the airline is a Community carrier (an airline licensed in an EU Member State). Lufthansa is an EU-based airline. Because an EU carrier was operating the leg into the UK, we have the protection of the regulation.

Please reconsider your position and offer, as outlined in this response before I escalate this case to CAA.

But they rejected my reply with the following

We understand your wish to receive compensation. Please allow us to clarify why we are unable to fulfill your request.

Our decision has been carefully considered, taking into account, we already informed you that as per non-EU routing we are unable to compensate you.

Of course, our decision was made after assessing carefully considering the legal liability along with goodwill considerations. Therefore, we kindly request your understanding that we choose to uphold our decision and consider the case closed.

Should you wish to use Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), please be advised that Schlichtungsstelle Reise & Verkehr e.V. is competent to deal with your complaint and Lufthansa is prepared to submit to an ADR procedure operated by this arbitration body.

Do I still have a claim or are they correct.

Either way I won't ever book with Lufthansa again

Thanks

eskbanker

Lufthansa are correct that the EU regulations don't apply here, based on case law, which determined that journeys both starting and finishing outside the EU don't fall within scope just because of a stopover within the EU, i.e. it's the end to end journey that counts, rather than breaking it down into individual legs.

However, the UK regulations do apply - you may have been trying to convey this to them but insufficiently clearly IMHO.

As they appear to have given their final response, you'll need to follow their direction to the German ADR service rather than the CAA…

Punjabputer

Thanks for the reply.

How would you have conveyed the UK regulation. Do you have any text I can use.

I have filed a case with the German ADR service now.

Woodstok2000

Youve claimed under the wrong legislation (or Lufthansa have misunderstood due to your mention of the EU rules). It is UK261 which applies here. You could try that tack with the airline, or you may need the ADR now.

Punjabputer

I have responded with regards to UK261 and also submitted ADR claim.. hopefully I will be successful

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82039424#Comment_82039424

It just seems to me that your message to them didn't clearly highlight the fact that this scenario is outside the scope of the EU regulations but within the scope of the UK equivalent - Lufthansa will naturally be more familiar with the EU ones and it would have been necessary to expressly tease out the distinction, rather than incorrectly challenging their position about your journey not being within the scope of the EU regulations.

Hopefully you'll have made the exact basis of your challenge clear to the German ADR service, i.e. that you accept that the EU regulations don't apply but that the UK ones do?

Punjabputer

Update

After 1 more email to Lufthansa direct, they have agreed to pay the full compensation.

What really annoys me is that they knew that they owed the compensation but tried to fob me off with the EU law when the clearly new my compensation claim came under UK law.

Companies should be fined for this type of behaviour.

Isthisforreal99

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82040438#Comment_82040438

Not sure I agree with you.

Maybe customers should be charged for wasting companies time by claiming under legislation that does not apply. You clearly applied under no longer applicable EU regs so that's all they could consider it under.

Punjabputer

I didn't apply under any EU rules. I filled in the Lufthansa compensation claim form. It was Lufthansa that mentioned the EU law when they clearly know most passengers don't know what law is applicable and why would they.

eskbanker

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82040438#Comment_82040438

Glad you got the result you were after but think your criticism is unduly harsh - the vast majority of their claims will be handled under the EU regulations and the scenarios where these don't apply but the UK ones do are relatively niche, so I'm unconvinced that their initial rejection was the deliberate misleading you're choosing to characterise it as.

Woodstok2000

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82040438#Comment_82040438

To be fair to them, your response quoted in the original post shows that you also tried to argue (incorrectly) that EU261 applied to your case, so there was obviously confusion on both sides. Glad it got sorted in the end....time to move on.