Compensation for delayed flights Discussion Area

Dopey1980 wrote: »

Thank you for that. I'm going to put here a copy of all communication between KLM and myself and hopefully you can advise what next.

1. I submitted my claim

2. Their response... (by email)

"Dear Mr Barker,

I have been requested to contact you by our Social Media department regarding the delay to a flight from Amsterdam to Calgary on 1 October, 2009.

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your request and should clarify that according to Article 35 of the Montreal Convention the right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped.

Thank you for your understanding.

I can assure you that we are well aware of our commitment to provide excellent customer service and so I do hope you will allow us the privilege to serve your travel needs again in the near future.

Yours sincerely,

J Silverstone (Mr)
Customer Care Europe"

3. My reply (incidentally, my initial claim and all subsequent replies have had to be passed to Mr. Silverstone through the KLM facebook page as their complaints/claim page of their website doesn't seem to like my Mac)

"Dear Mr. Silverstone,

Thank you very much for getting back to me so promptly, this is most appreciated.

I was disappointed to read that you are unwilling to proceed with my claim.

May I draw your attention to the following article posted on a long running, very well respected money saving advice website here in the U.K.

w w w money savingexpert.com /news/travel/2012/10/flight-delay-compensation-floodgates-open

The article states that due to a change in legislation claims may be submitted for flights that departed on, or after the 17th of February 2005. The article does not state that only people who had submitted a claim which had been put on hold are allowed to proceed. In fact, the article states that anyone can claim, regardless of whether they had a claim on hold or had no claim submitted at all.

I put it to you that you aren't aware of the new ruling. May I suggest you familiarise yourself with regards to the new ruling and process my claim promptly.

Regards
Mr. Barker"

4. KLM's response (by email)...

"Dear Mr Barker,

Thank you for your message and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your request for compensation following the delay to flight KL677 on 1 October 2009 from Amsterdam to Calgary

Our records confirm a delay of 3 hours and 40 minutes due to repairs of three unserviceable toilets.

According to EU recommendations, airline passengers are entitled to compensation in case of delays longer than 3 hours - unless the delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances over which we could not exercise any influence.

We have carefully reconsidered your request and taken into account all relevant details for your delayed flight. Consequently, we confirm that the circumstances which caused this delay are considered 'extraordinary' according to the European Union regulation. As a result, I must respectively decline your request once more.

Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to clarify our position in this matter. Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to clarify our position in this matter. I do hope that we will have an early opportunity to service your travel needs again in the future.

Yours sincerely,

J Silverstone (Mr)
Customer Care Europe"

5. My reply...

"Dear Mr. Silverstone,

Thank you for your email of 1st of November 2012.

I was interested to note that you specified a delayed time of 3 hours and 40 minutes. The article I directed you to states...

"Passengers can claim compensation if the following conditions are met:
The flight arrived at its destination three hours or more late."

Note, the key word here being "destination". According to the 'flightstats' website that the article recommends the flight arrived at YYC at 8:44pm and was scheduled to arrive at 4:20pm. This gives a delay of 4 hours and 24 minutes. I have attached a screen shot at the bottom of this message for your inspection
.
With respect, the delay was caused by a blocked toilet(s). This is a maintenance issue and therefore within your control.

I again submit my claim to you and trust you will deal with it expeditiously or I will have no alternative but to refer the matter to the appropriate regulatory authority.

*screen shot from flightstats*

Regards
Mr. Barker"

6. Their response, this time it wasn't emailed it to me. It was passed to me through the KLM facebook page social media team via private message...

"Dear Liam,

Thank you so much for your patience! We wanted to let you know that we received a reply from Mr. Silverstone about your file 6073*****, where he is informing the following:

Blocked toilet is often caused by actions of other passengers. If on a previous flight the aircraft had recently arrived into Amsterdam or another destination and this was discovered during pre-flight checks prior to aircraft departure for Toronto, it could not have been foreseen. Therefore we consider extraordinary circumstances as per EU261 article 5-3.

We have been informed that your file has been handled and closed. If you do not agree with the reply of Customer Care or are dissatiesfied, we kindle refer you to the Civil Aviation Authority.

We regret very much that we can not inform you more positively about the outcome of your file, Liam.

If you have any other questions for us, please let us know.

Kind regards,
KLM Facebook Team"

7. My response (I'm still waiting for a response to this...)

"Dear Mr. Silverstone,

I appreciate the time you have taken to respond to me. However, over the weekend I have joined an aviation forum and asked for advice on there. I have also been following a thread on the MSE website that carried the article regarding compensation. I have included a link below for you to look at one post in particular. The general consensus from those in the know, of which 2 have successfully sued airlines over delays is the fact that you are using "extraordinary circumstances" for a blocked toilet to get out of paying is laughable. All gave examples of "extraordinary circumstances" as being things like unexploded WWII bombs found near the runway during excavation works, mass staff walk outs, and ash clouds from volcanoes. Not once was blocked toilet(s) given as an example of an "extraordinary circumstances".

I was also advised on the forum that I should also try taking my complaint to the media due to the lack of satisfactory service and response and lack of empathy in dealing with my case
.
I'd also like to point out that at the time we were informed that it was only one blocked toilet but since putting in a claim this has suddenly became 3 blocked toilets. I can't help but feel that the actual number of blocked toilets has been exaggerated in order to try and make the use "extraordinary circumstance" seem more plausible.

May I also bring to your attention this post and information and links within it, particularly the parts that quite clearly state that technical issues with the aircraft can't be classed as "extraordinary circumstances"

w w w money savingexpert.com /showpost.php?p=57023411&postcount=174

I'm a fair man and I am willing to give you one final opportunity to settle my claim before I take things much further.

Regards
Mr. Barker"

I've had to put some spaces in the links to be able to post them.

Centipede100 wrote: »

You are entitled to cancellation compensation and may be entitled to 250 euros compensation depending on the reason for the cancellation.

Centipede100 wrote: »

The answer to your first question is 'probably not' but the compensation is not there to provide for financial loss but for loss of time, a subtle but important distinction as far as the Reg is concerned.

The answer to your second question is rather obvious.

Claims against airlines are rather different to the PPI mis-selling or a personal injury claim. The ECJ anticipates that "the proportion of flights for which delay confers entitlement to the compensation provided for under Regulation No 261/2004 is less than 0.15%".

Given that this type of claim is routinely defended in court by airlines with the assistance of both solicitors and barristers, it is unlikely to lead ultimately to a massive increase in either successful claims or in air fares, the Regulation has been around for nearly 8 years after all.