Now you can sue over flight delays

[viking9]

Families who have their holidays ruined by long flight delays will at last be able to claim compensation. A landmark ruling has opened the floodgates for hundreds of thousands of claims, and could cost airlines millions. It demonstrated that Britons have the right to compensation of up to £480, plus expenses, for hold-ups longer than three hours. Last October the European Court of Justice ruled that delays caused by airline failures, such as technical faults or a lack of flight crew, merited compensation. This week a judge in Staffordshire implemented that decision for the first time. He awarded a former teacher and his wife £680, after their flight home from Tenerife with Thomas Cook was delayed by 22 hours.

The decision is a major reversal for airlines, and consumer groups say it will ensure they treat travellers more fairly in future. Historically, critics say, the firms have rejected most claims as a matter of course. Airlines will still be able to deny payouts where delays are outside their control, such as during bad weather or strikes. But, in theory, travellers can now claim compensation for flight delays dating back to 2005. More than 200million passengers use UK airports each year. Crude estimates suggest that two million of these are delayed for more than three hours, with at least 400,000 eligible for compensation.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270725/Now-sue-flight-delays-Landmark-ruling-mean-payouts-hold-ups-3-hours.html#ixzz2JY2OtIyM

[Keef]

I was delayed over 6 hours each way with Monarch travelling to Fuerteventura back in 2011.
I wrote a letter claiming compensation under Regulation (EC) 261/2004 but got a reply saying that as claims had not been successfully pursued in UK courts they wouldn't pay.

Time to resend the letter methinks...

[viking9]

Let us know how you get on.

[Keef]

Will do 

[Keef]

Well,

After a long time I do have a final report.

Monarch paid out on the lesser of my claims, minus the allowed percentage at the time.
I can't remember the exact details and the rules have changed so I can't easily look that up now.
But from memory I got about £300 in compensation.

I engaged the services of a third party, who I have to say have been very good for the £20 they charged.

Here's a bit of copy and paste...


"Thank you for your patience while we assessed your claim.

The steps we have taken as part of our regular claim process haven't been adequate in convincing Monarch Airlines to pay you. They haven't responded to the notice of default we sent, which is something that can make an airline decide to pay compensation or a settlement after all. In some cases, we refer customers to our legal partner to take the claim further, which then entails entering into a separate agreement which the customer can either accept, or not accept if they do not want to continue.

As EU time limitations restrict us from doing that in this case within the set period of two years (when the flight is older than 2 years, and this is the time limit for cross-European law suits), we cannot take Monarch Airlines to Court ourselves, we won't be able to offer you the services of our legal partner since they're based in the Netherlands. However, you may be able to take your case to Small Claims Court yourself, as the time limit is different for UK cases than those within the rest of Europe and you are a UK resident battling a UK company.

This decision is of course completely up to you: the question is whether the potential gain would outweigh the cost. The steps we have taken would reduce the cost you would incur for a Court case: the notice of default, which is a required provision, has already been composed and sent, so this is naturally yours if you need it. We also have to say there isn't anything that we came across in our review of your claim that would mean you wouldn't be entitled to receive compensation. So it's possible they could still pay you, though it appears it requires them to be taken to Court in this particular case.

I'm sorry we weren't able to get them to pay you with our efforts, and if you need any of the documentation from us now or at any point in the future, please let us know. You can of course also use the files in your dossier to this end."

And from the CAA...

"Dear passenger,

We appreciate that you may not have heard from us for some time, and we would like to offer our sincere apologies for this.

The CAA have been receiving high levels of complaints from passengers this year following a ruling in the European Court of Justice last October that extended the rights of passengers to seek compensation for lengthy flight delays. This has impacted heavily on our resources and unfortunately we have not been able to deal with complaints as quickly as we would wish or provide passengers with timely updates. However, whilst we now have measures in place to deal with the increased volume of complaints we have been receiving, as ever, we are reliant on prompt replies from the airlines.

We have asked airlines to reassess claims in line with CAA guidelines, and to respond to us directly. Once we receive the response, we will contact you with an update. Until we have received the response from the airline, we are not in a position to provide any further information."

I have heard nothing more from the CAA so I assume they've taken the easy route and assume people will give up and go away.

So it seems like a big F*** Y** from both Monarch and the CAA. Small claims court is my only recourse for the money I an legally entitled to.
To be honest, life's too short for that, which is exactly what they rely on...

As a final point, I think the total compensation I should have received would be excessive for the inconvenience I suffered.
But If I break the law I can't wriggle out of the penalties imposed on me, so companies shouldn't be able to either.

Monarch have lost my custom for life, I will never again give them a penny of my money.

Well done if you got this far!

Cheers,

Keef.

[mhm]

Small claims court is fist part, you will find that most big firms fail to attend.

The courts usual find in your favour, if they don't pay up, you pay a fee to the sheriffs and they persue your claim to final payout.

Worth following

[Keef]

I didn't go to small claims court but it seems I was a little previous in dismissing the CAA, I received this from them today...

"Thank you for your patience with us while we investigated your complaint about the disruption to your flight MON1506 on 21st September 2011.

We have reviewed the information available to us in accordance with the guidelines about the "extraordinary circumstances" exception of EC Regulation 261/2004.

It is our considered view that the disruption of your flight is of a type which means that Monarch Airlines should pay compensation to you. It appears from the documentation provided, that the disruption was within the control of the airline and could have been avoided. It is our view therefore that this disruption does not fall under the 'extraordinary circumstances' exception of the Regulation. As such, in our opinion you are entitled to compensation.

We have given our view to the airline and have asked them to pay compensation to you as required in Regulation EC261/2004. They have confirmed they will be contacting you to arrange payment. We have therefore closed your file as the complaint has been resolved.

Please allow time for the payment to be processed. If you do not hear from the airline within 4 weeks, please contact them directly with a copy of this email."

So maybe, two and a half years late, I might get what I am legally entitled to?

[Anmer]

Well done Keef.  Persistence won this time.

Now you have to get the compensation before Monarch stops trading. 

[Keef]

I finally got my cheque from Monarch today!

From their first response (refusing to pay) to the cheque arriving was 927 days, not exactly a speedy resolution.

They have also stated "Please note that the settlement amount and terms of settlement are strictly confidential between the parties concerned."
I'm not sure that statement can be legally binding, I'll have a word with someone who might know...

Cheers,

Keef.

[Anmer]

When agreeing to the payment did you agree to a confidential clause as a condition of acceptance?

[Keef]

Hi Anmer,

As the claim was made under EU legislation I don't think they can put their own T&Cs on it, but I might be wrong.

I didn't have to agree to the payment as such, I just made a claim under the relevant law and pursued them for payment when they initially refused.
The payments are fixed by a combination of distance/delay so anyone knowing my flight route and time delayed could look up the amount of compensation I have received.

The email they sent me was as follows:

"I am sorry to learn of the disappointment that prompted your correspondence.  Providing our passengers with safe and efficient service is our first priority.  I would like to reassure you that every effort is made to ensure the flights depart on time and in the unlikely event we are unable to do so, we aim to get you to your destination at the earliest opportunity.  That said, our ability to keep disruption to a minimum is always dependant on the resources available to us on the day.

I can confirm that your claim for compensation has now been assessed and you are entitled to compensation in accordance with EU Regulation EC261/2004 due to your delay.

In line with the above a cheque to the value of (edited out - you can look up the compensation amounts onlinehttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32004R0261!) will be forwarded to each claimant within twenty one days. Please be aware that payments for children will be incorporated in the total value of the cheque forwarded to the adult who submitted the claim on their behalf.

Please note that the settlement amount and terms of settlement are strictly confidential between the parties concerned.

Anyhow, I've got what I wanted which is a far cry from what they first wrote, excuse the poor scan...




[Attachment deleted by Admin to save file space]

[Anmer]

I don't think they can or would try and enforce the confidentiality requirement.

Personally I'd tell everyone who wants to know but that's my choice.  You must make up your own mind.

[Keef]

I think you're reading my mind!

I just want to check first before I go in to print...

[Keef]

This is some more copy paste from an email I received from the CAA about a claim I put in, this time with regard to a Thomas Cook flight.
I only put in a claim because of the poor treatment I received and lack of information provided at the airport.

Treated fairly at the airport I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and not claim, but here we are...

It's a bit long, but I thought it was worth posting.

"We are writing because you contacted us about a disrupted flight.  You might have seen coverage in the press about a recent court ruling about treatment of technical faults.
Your claim relates to a flight disruption caused by a technical problem. This issue was considered in the recent Jet2 v Huzar ruling handed down by the Court of Appeal on 11 June. Jet2 have now sought leave for a further appeal, so the final impact may not be clear for many months yet. However, as it now stands, the "extraordinary circumstances" exemption is still in the law, but will be narrower as it will not apply to the kind of technical problems that are normal in running an airline.  The Court decided that the technical fault in the case, namely a wiring defect in the fuel valve circuit which could not have been prevented by prior maintenance or prior visual inspection, was not "extraordinary", and compensation was due.

Unfortunately, there will continue to be a period of uncertainty until the Supreme Court makes a decision on whether it will hear the appeal.  We expect that decision to be taken later this year.  If the Supreme Court refuses the appeal, then the current judgment will apply.  If the Supreme Court accepts that it will hear the appeal, then it will take some time until the case is actually heard, and its judgment issued. 

Given this uncertainty, we intend to postpone handling your compensation claim until we have had further clarification from the Supreme Court. I would like to reassure you that we have not closed your compensation claim, but rather we will hold your claim open until with have had further clarification from the Supreme Court, at which time we will be in touch with you again to advise you on how we will be taking forward your claim.

You should be aware that, until the Supreme Court makes a decision on whether it will hear Jet2's appeal, any action you take through the courts may be stayed. You should also be aware that, if the Supreme Court decides to hear the appeal, they may take a different decision to the Court of Appeal."

Cheers,

Keef.

[Keef]

Patience is a necessary virtue with these complaints it would seem.

However, credit to the CAA as they are keeping me informed, something the airlines seem unwilling to do.

I recently received this from the CAA for a claim I filed 6 months ago:

"I am writing to you further to our correspondence about TCX---- with Thomas Cook Airlines on --/04/2014 where we explained we were unable to progress your case due to pending court action on the Jet2 v Huzar case.

On the 11th June 2014 the Court of Appeal issued a decision in the Jet2 v Huzar case and found that ordinary technical problems that cause flight disruption, such as component failure and general wear and tear, should not be considered an 'extraordinary circumstance' and compensation would be payable in these cases. Jet2 sought leave to appeal from the Supreme Court. On 31 October 2014 the Supreme Court announced they had decided to refuse Jet2 permission to appeal the ruling. Therefore the Court of Appeal Judgment applies.

In light of this decision, we will now be contacting the airline again about your case. We will be in contact with you when we have received a response from them. We expect this to be within the next 8 weeks."

I'll update the thread when I get more information, which if past experience is anything to go by will probably be a while