Claiming against Norwegian Airlines

I am in receipt of your reply but your reply is utter rubbish.

1. Disruptions caused by mechanical issues are NOT extraordinary circumstances as per European Court of Justice Verdict C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann paragraph 25
"25 Consequently, technical problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft or on account of failure to carry out such maintenance cannot constitute, in themselves, ‘extraordinary circumstances’ under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004"

2. Disruptions not directly affecting the actual flight are not considered extraordinary circumstances as per European Court of Justice Verdict C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann paragraph 23
" 23 Although the Community legislature included in that list ‘unexpected flight safety shortcomings’ and although a technical problem in an aircraft may be amongst such shortcomings, the fact remains that the circumstances surrounding such an event can be characterised as ‘extraordinary’ within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 only if they relate to an event which, like those listed in recital 14 in the preamble to that regulation, is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin"

3. Also, it is up to the airline, in this case Norwegian, to proof that they took all reasonable measures to minimise the disruption, as per European Court of Justice Verdict C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann paragraph 40
40 It follows that, since not all extraordinary circumstances confer exemption, the onus is on the party seeking to rely on them to establish, in addition, that they could not on any view have been avoided by measures appropriate to the situation, that is to say by measures which, at the time those extraordinary circumstances arise, meet, inter alia, conditions which are technically and economically viable for the air carrier concerned

4. There is another requirementin the same judgement by the European Court of Justice Verdict C-549/07 Wallentin-Hermann paragraph 41, for the airline to have to demonstrate that
41That party must establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able – unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time – to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation of the flight.

5. The first message notifying me that the flight will be disrupted was received Sunday 15 Jan 2017 @ 03:25, that is some 43 hours before the flight was due to depart. Should it have been such a mechanical problem that it could be classed as an ‘extraordinary circumstances’ Norwegian had ample time to arrange an alternative plane or make other arrangements to transport their passengers to their destination. Not doing so is entirely an operational decision and is entirely within Norwegian’s control

6. I therefore do not accept your reply and expect you to honour your obligation under EU regulation 261/2004 and settle this matter within 14 days of this email. The compensation I am seeking is 600 Euros.

7. Should you not settle this matter within 14 days of this email I reserve the right to issue legal proceedings without giving you further notice.