EU261 claim rejected

andrew1977

Hi

I posted this in the travel forum, perhaps its better here, apologies if not.

Flight arrival time ex Dublin was subject to a delay of 4 hours 11 minutes as confirmed by the airline

I submitted my claim for EU261 compensation and it has been rejected due to the reason being an extraordinary event
"due to an earlier flight disruption as a result of foreign object, which caused a knock-on effect to the daily schedule of the aircraft.

However this is a complete lie, our flight boarded on time, moved away from the stand and within 2 minutes the flight went technical.

The captain announced this to all the passengers that we had a technical issue and engineers would take 1 hour to repair, the attempted repair failed and the replacement part they used turned out also to be faulty, again the captain announced this.
After sitting on the plane for 2.5 hours, they took us off the flight back to the terminal and eventually put us on a replacement craft , again which was delayed moving.

I have submitted my appeal to the aviation authority for review.

Can the airline really give me a false reply like that ? And have I any chance of recourse with the airline regulator ?

The airline have 100% given me a false reply .

Thank you.

Locker10a

Yeah just chase it up and you’ll get your comp.
The airline are either trying to intentionally fob you or have genuinely made a mistake and are mixing your case up with another flight.
Anyway if you chase it you’ll eventually get your payment

andrew1977

Thanks, let see what the aviation regulator comes back with .

The reply I got from the airline is completely inaccurate , I replied back to them querying it again , I got told " that's it, we are not changing our mind, and have nothing further to say to you " , I have followed up with more emails, zero reply,

We regret the delay of your flight XXX from Dublin - DUB to XXX on the 2019-08-03, which was due to an earlier flight disruption as a result of foreign object, which caused a knock-on effect to the daily schedule of the aircraft.

As this delay was unexpected we wish to inform you that no compensation is due under EU261/2004 as this was caused due to extraordinary circumstances beyond XXXX control.

Complete and utter lies, how will the aviation regulator verify I am telling the truth?

My flight boarded on time, moved away from the stand on time, then went technical and arrival time late by 4 hours 11 minutes, no extra ordinary event whatsoever ?

L1011

Knock on isn't even a valid get out anyway

goingnowhere

Each flight is separate, so what happened before your flight started to board is not relevant.

Given they indicated they could fix the issue within an hour indicates the issue wasn't exceptional either.

andrew1977

They have point blank refused to reply to any of my follow up emails now.

I assume the aviation regulator will knock some sense in them or am I wasting my time ?

I wouldn't waste my own time if I thought it was pointless, but its a clear blatant lie by the airline.

billy few mates

andrew1977 wrote: »

They have point blank refused to reply to any of my follow up emails now.

I assume the aviation regulator will knock some sense in them or am I wasting my time ?

I wouldn't waste my own time if I thought it was pointless, but its a clear blatant lie by the airline.

That's what they're hoping you'll do...

California Dreamer

andrew1977 wrote: »

They have point blank refused to reply to any of my follow up emails now.

I assume the aviation regulator will knock some sense in them or am I wasting my time ?

I wouldn't waste my own time if I thought it was pointless, but its a clear blatant lie by the airline.

Would you like to give me some free money for nothing? Probably not.

So they roll the dice, deny the claim and you just forget it.

Now how many think to themselves its not worth and move on. I am sure their insurance company are playing the odds.

andrew1977

So , how do the aviation regulator investigate it for me ? They ask Ryanair for an explanation, they give them the same lie as I got and that's the end of it ?

Locker10a

andrew1977 wrote: »

So , how do the aviation regulator investigate it for me ? They ask Ryanair for an explanation, they give them the same lie as I got and that's the end of it ?

Have you told them you’ve referred it on ? I would and then do chase it up with the regulator, it may take a few months but you’ll get there.

andrew1977

Locker10a wrote: »

Have you told them you’ve referred it on ? I would and then do chase it up with the regulator, it may take a few months but you’ll get there.

Yes I have and they have ignored all emails I have sent them, their most recent reply was below.. unreal ..

We refer to your recent correspondence dated 07/08/2019.

Whilst we have noted your dissatisfaction, we regret that our position remains unaltered, as per our previous correspondence.

We are sorry that we cannot be of further assistance with regards to this matter.

We hope above clarifies the situation.

charlietheminxx

Ryanair are very difficult to deal with when it comes to customer services/complaints.

Have you contacted the regulator yet? Details here:

Commission for Aviation Regulation
3rd Floor
Alexandra House
Earlsfort Terrace
Dublin 2

Tel: (01) 661 1700
Homepage: http://www.aviationreg.ie
Homepage: http://www.flightrights.ie
Email: info@aviationreg.ie

I would start by giving them a call, explain your concern that Ryanair are denying your eligibility.

andrew1977

charlietheminxx wrote: »

Ryanair are very difficult to deal with when it comes to customer services/complaints.

Have you contacted the regulator yet? Details here:

Commission for Aviation Regulation
3rd Floor
Alexandra House
Earlsfort Terrace
Dublin 2

Tel: (01) 661 1700
Homepage: http://www.aviationreg.ie
Homepage: http://www.flightrights.ie
Email: info@aviationreg.ie

I would start by giving them a call, explain your concern that Ryanair are denying your eligibility.

Thank you , I have lodged the appeal with the regulator and an automated reply saying they will respond as quickly as they can .

I know I am 100% in the right here , I will not give up on this and push it as long as it takes it, surely the airline cannot falsify the information if the regulator requests it from then.

A full plane to London heard all announcements from the captain declaring " technical issue " , " 1 hour to repair ", then " replacement part is faulty " and " a new part will need to be shipped in " , everyone off the flight, wait in the terminal , they put us on a replacement plane which took over 1.5 hours to load and depart .

How will the regulator prove I am telling the truth ?

I wouldn't bother chasing it if it was factually incorrect, however their response to me is absolutely lies , no question about it.

billy few mates

andrew1977 wrote: »

Thank you , I have lodged the appeal with the regulator and an automated reply saying they will respond as quickly as they can .

I know I am 100% in the right here , I will not give up on this and push it as long as it takes it, surely the airline cannot falsify the information if the regulator requests it from then.

A full plane to London heard all announcements from the captain declaring " technical issue " , " 1 hour to repair ", then " replacement part is faulty " and " a new part will need to be shipped in " , everyone off the flight, wait in the terminal , they put us on a replacement plane which took over 1.5 hours to load and depart .

How will the regulator prove I am telling the truth ?

I wouldn't bother chasing it if it was factually incorrect, however their response to me is absolutely lies , no question about it.

There will be a record in the technical log for the aircraft, you can ask them to bring that with them when you escalate it to the small claims court if you don't get anywhere with the CAR.

I have a claim in process with AirHelp, the airline involved are playing the exact same game after several weeks of runaround looking for more information or information they already have.
They're taking 25% of the claim but they're doing all the chasing around, they won't let it go because they have skin in the game.

charlietheminxx

andrew1977 wrote: »

How will the regulator prove I am telling the truth ?

I wouldn't bother chasing it if it was factually incorrect, however their response to me is absolutely lies , no question about it.

They'll be able to obtain the flight data I think, so they will know the flight was meant to depart at X time and didn't depart until Y time, and that a replacement plane was used.

You're right to keep on with it. I'd ring the regulator anyway and let them know you've submitted an appeal but would like some reassurance on the process.

ionapaul

I brought one of Europe's most recognisable airlines to the Small Claims Court before as they lied (I believe) in the reason a flight was delayed by 4+ hours; as above, I believe they did this simply to get out of paying compensation and put me off. Ended up getting the full €800 in a cheque from them via the Small Claims Court, which they paid to avoid having to show up and fight their case. I had prepared for the day in court actually so a little regretful I didn't get to go!

bennyineire

My flight to Cologne was cancelled after a 6 hour delay last year from Ryanair and they denied my claim because of "Thunder storms".

it was sunny in Dublin and Cologne that day, I also got a satellite weather report of that say. Clear sky's from Dub to Cologne all day.

I appealed to the Aviation Authority (it took 8 months BTW) fully expecting them to rule in my favor, but no they sided with Ryanair. Ryanair said the the plane we were to board was held up on it's earlier sector in Greece due to thunderstorms.

I argued that, that previous sector had nothing to do with me and that the real issue was that Ryanair had capacity issues of their own doing. But I still got no where, the Avaitaion Authority much like most regulatory bodies in Ireland are useless. Or do other people think I'm in the wrong here ? I''m genuinely asking what other peoples view on this is.

Locker10a

bennyineire wrote: »

My flight to Cologne was cancelled after a 6 hour delay last year from Ryanair and they denied my claim because of "Thunder storms".

it was sunny in Dublin and Cologne that day, I also got a satellite weather report of that say. Clear sky's from Dub to Cologne all day.

I appealed to the Aviation Authority (it took 8 months BTW) fully expecting them to rule in my favor, but no they sided with Ryanair. Ryanair said the the plane we were to board was held up on it's earlier sector in Greece due to thunderstorms.

I argued that, that previous sector had nothing to do with me and that the real issue was that Ryanair had capacity issues of their own doing. But I still got no where, the Avaitaion Authority much like most regulatory bodies in Ireland are useless. Or do other people think I'm in the wrong here ? I''m genuinely asking what other peoples view on this is.

My impression is most genuine complaints to the aviation authority are upheld and compensation is paid. Not saying yours wasn’t genuine but maybe there was more complexity to it like it was due to ATC restrictions which could be due to thunderstorms.

andrew1977

Should I wait until the aviation regulator gets back to (how long is the wait approximately ? ) or should I just proceed to the small claims court with this now ?

Thanks

ionapaul

bennyineire wrote: »

My flight to Cologne was cancelled after a 6 hour delay last year from Ryanair and they denied my claim because of "Thunder storms".

it was sunny in Dublin and Cologne that day, I also got a satellite weather report of that say. Clear sky's from Dub to Cologne all day.

I appealed to the Aviation Authority (it took 8 months BTW) fully expecting them to rule in my favor, but no they sided with Ryanair. Ryanair said the the plane we were to board was held up on it's earlier sector in Greece due to thunderstorms.

I argued that, that previous sector had nothing to do with me and that the real issue was that Ryanair had capacity issues of their own doing. But I still got no where, the Avaitaion Authority much like most regulatory bodies in Ireland are useless. Or do other people think I'm in the wrong here ? I''m genuinely asking what other peoples view on this is.

Hmm, the airline's response to my compensation claim was very similar! I also did my research to get as much evidence as I could that the claim of 'fog' was bull. Went to Small Claims Court (cost €25 to do so, a few years ago) and they paid out rather then go through with it. Much sooner than 8 months too; I'd advise the OP to go to Small Claims Court TBH.

GM228

Locker10a wrote: »

bennyineire wrote: »

My flight to Cologne was cancelled after a 6 hour delay last year from Ryanair and they denied my claim because of "Thunder storms".

it was sunny in Dublin and Cologne that day, I also got a satellite weather report of that say. Clear sky's from Dub to Cologne all day.

I appealed to the Aviation Authority (it took 8 months BTW) fully expecting them to rule in my favor, but no they sided with Ryanair. Ryanair said the the plane we were to board was held up on it's earlier sector in Greece due to thunderstorms.

I argued that, that previous sector had nothing to do with me and that the real issue was that Ryanair had capacity issues of their own doing. But I still got no where, the Avaitaion Authority much like most regulatory bodies in Ireland are useless. Or do other people think I'm in the wrong here ? I''m genuinely asking what other peoples view on this is.

My impression is most genuine complaints to the aviation authority are upheld and compensation is paid. Not saying yours wasn’t genuine but maybe there was more complexity to it like it was due to ATC restrictions which could be due to thunderstorms.

In such a case the Authority took the correct approach.

Whilst ordinarily knock on effects are not a valid reason to reject a claim, if there is a valid extraordinary circumstance which affected the same aircraft on the same day than an airline can use the excuse not to pay and so provided it was the same day the previous sector/s can apply.

andrew1977

GM228 wrote: »

In such a case the Authority took the correct approach.

Whilst ordinarily knock on effects are not a valid reason to reject a claim, if there is a valid extraordinary circumstance which affected the same aircraft on the same day than an airline can use the excuse not to pay and so provided it was the same day the previous sector/s can apply.

This is why I feel I am right in my claim.
My aircraft boarded and ready to depart on time , it went technical a minute or two from moving off the stand ( was still pushing back ) , captain announced technical issue which needed checking , then announced 1 hour to fix approximately, then further delay due to replacement part being faulty .
I will pursue this , I think I am right , the reply the airline gave me is complete nonsense in my opinion

ZX7R

andrew1977 wrote: »

This is why I feel I am right in my claim.
My aircraft boarded and ready to depart on time , it went technical a minute or two from moving off the stand ( was still pushing back ) , captain announced technical issue which needed checking , then announced 1 hour to fix approximately, then further delay due to replacement part being faulty .
I will pursue this , I think I am right , the reply the airline gave me is complete nonsense in my opinion

You're problem would be ,the replacement part been faulty,that would be considered an exceptional circumstances,it would be considered out of the airline's control.

TheChizler

ZX7R wrote: »

You're problem would be ,the replacement part been faulty,that would be considered an exceptional circumstances,it would be considered out of the airline's control.

Wouldn't that imply that the original part breaking should be out of the airlines control too?

ZX7R

TheChizler wrote: »

Wouldn't that imply that the original part breaking should be out of the airlines control too?

No I would not believe so,I would say a part breaking would be factored into there day to day running,a replacement part been faulty the airline can not be held responsible, the company that made said part would be

billy few mates

ZX7R wrote: »

No I would not believe so,I would say a part breaking would be factored into there day to day running,a replacement part been faulty the airline can not be held responsible, the company that made said part would be

In which case the operator in question would be able to pursue a warranty claim from the part supplier but it's got nothing to do with your claim.

GM228

ZX7R wrote: »

You're problem would be ,the replacement part been faulty,that would be considered an exceptional circumstances,it would be considered out of the airline's control.

ZX7R wrote: »

No I would not believe so,I would say a part breaking would be factored into there day to day running,a replacement part been faulty the airline can not be held responsible, the company that made said part would be

Parts failure, manufacturing defects/faults or technical problems can not be deemed to be exceptional circumstances.

billy few mates

GM228 wrote: »

Parts failure, manufacturing defects/faults or technical problems can not be deemed to be exceptional circumstances.

Exactly but if they insist on going down that road ALL aircraft maintenance must be properly documented and recorded, ask them to bring a copy of the aircraft tech log for the previous thirty days, the reliability report for the ATA chapter related to the defect, the strip reports for the original LRU and the one reported as fail on fit.
All of these will be required to back up their version of events so they should have no problem producing it.
When you have the paperwork you can verify that all the maintenance has been properly recorded with evidence that they followed the correct troubleshooting procedure (the TSM /FIM reference has to be recorded along with the AMM reference for the unit replacement), you can tell from this information how long the job took (or should have taken).

Van.Bosch

From reading this I’m not sure which way it will pan out but I’d imagine you are due and will get compensation. Purely due to your doggedness and ability to source info online.

Can you imagine the amount of pax on that flight that won’t do that and then extrapolate to every delayed flight - must be huge.

andrew1977

This again is the full reply received from them.

How can they claim my flight delay was because of the below when we boarded on time , pushed away from the stand , technical problem as the plane reversed ,then the captain updated us constantly about it being a technical issue .
I’m baffled .
Anyway I have logged my claim with the aviation regulator, should I wait for their verdict or apply to the small claims court immediately? Thanks

We refer to your recent correspondence dated 06/08/2019.

We regret the delay of your flight xx xxx from Dublin - DUB to Xxx on the 2019-08-03, which was due to an earlier flight disruption as a result of foreign object, which caused a knock-on effect to the daily schedule of the aircraft.

As this delay was unexpected we wish to inform you that no compensation is due under EU261/2004 as this was caused due to extraordinary circumstances beyond Xxx control.

cefh17

andrew1977 wrote: »

We regret the delay of your flight xx xxx from Dublin - DUB to Xxx on the 2019-08-03, which was due to an earlier flight disruption as a result of foreign object, which caused a knock-on effect to the daily schedule of the aircraft.

As this delay was unexpected we wish to inform you that no compensation is due under EU261/2004 as this was caused due to extraordinary circumstances beyond Xxx control.

Hi OP

In a similar situation to you (different circumstances and airline), the regulator took over 3 months to hear back from the airline and come up with a decision which didn't go our way. Peddled the same BS excuse we were told originally, thinking SCC might be the way to go, but ours will be the EU direction.

andrew1977

Update : Reply received back from the aviation authority today, can I have opinions please? Head to the small claims court ?



I refer to previous correspondence and the detail of your complaint received 08/08/2019 set out therein.



The Commission raised your complaint with XXX and considered their representations and evidence provided by them. In addition, where necessary, we contacted other relevant civil aviation authorities for further evidence.



Having examined the evidence provided by all parties the Commission has decided that no compensation is payable to you because the disruption was due to extraordinary circumstances which were outside xxx control, namely damage casued by foreign object debris on the preceeding flight required an engineering inspection before the aircraft was cleared to return to service.



Given that all matters which fall within our enforcement remit have now been addressed, the Commission is closing the file on this investigation. If you are dissatisfied with our decision you are of course entitled to seek recourse through an alternative channel such as the small claims court. Information concerning the small claims procedure is available at www.courts.ie. Please be advised that, in accordance with our Records Retention Policy we will retain all documents relating to this case for a period of 6 months from the date of this email, after which time they will be destroyed.

Browney7

L1011 wrote: »

Knock on isn't even a valid get out anyway

I lost in the district court with the judge agreeing with Ryanair that knock ons do count....

billy few mates

Browney7 wrote: »

I lost in the district court with the judge agreeing with Ryanair that knock ons do count....

The district court...???

billy few mates

andrew1977 wrote: »

Update : Reply received back from the aviation authority today, can I have opinions please? Head to the small claims court ?



I refer to previous correspondence and the detail of your complaint received 08/08/2019 set out therein.



The Commission raised your complaint with XXX and considered their representations and evidence provided by them. In addition, where necessary, we contacted other relevant civil aviation authorities for further evidence.



Having examined the evidence provided by all parties the Commission has decided that no compensation is payable to you because the disruption was due to extraordinary circumstances which were outside xxx control, namely damage casued by foreign object debris on the preceeding flight required an engineering inspection before the aircraft was cleared to return to service.



Given that all matters which fall within our enforcement remit have now been addressed, the Commission is closing the file on this investigation. If you are dissatisfied with our decision you are of course entitled to seek recourse through an alternative channel such as the small claims court. Information concerning the small claims procedure is available at www.courts.ie. Please be advised that, in accordance with our Records Retention Policy we will retain all documents relating to this case for a period of 6 months from the date of this email, after which time they will be destroyed.

For €25 I'd go ahead and take it to the small claims court, ask them to bring the maintenance records to back up their version of events, strip reports for the two failed units etc, it will cost them more to attend than it will to settle, one of the main reasons why big companies hate the SCC...

andrew1977

I replied back to the regulator and they have told me now they are checking further, the reply from them and the airline just doesn't stack up to the actual events. They have said the aircraft needed clearance for flying again, yet we ended up flying on a different plane ??

Dear Mr. *****



Thank you for your email. I based my response on the engineering report and operations report provided by *******. However, in light of your comments, I will investigate further and revert



I wish to ask you how you came to the decision based on the below answer





namely damage casued by foreign object debris on the preceeding flight required an engineering inspection before the aircraft was cleared to return to service.



My reply..

Flight ***** boarded on time, ready to depart on time and then the following happened.


- Captain announced slight delay due to air traffic at Gatwick Airport and would depart asap.


- Captain announced we were ready to go eventually and pushed back the flight to depart.


- Captain announced within a short period of time a technical issue which the engineers would check


- Captain announced the fix would take 1 hour


- Captain announced the replacement part was faulty and would require a new part to be shipped in and for everyone to return to the terminal.


- A replacement plane was found, all passengers boarded, then a further delay , no explanation .





So how can all of the above be effected by the preceeding flight, captain was happy to take off no issues , no technical problems reported.





Why would ******* allow the captain to push the flight back for take off originally if they were aware of damage from preceeding flight.


Can you let me know ?

duffman13

andrew1977 wrote: »

Yes I have and they have ignored all emails I have sent them, their most recent reply was below.. unreal ..

We refer to your recent correspondence dated 07/08/2019.

Whilst we have noted your dissatisfaction, we regret that our position remains unaltered, as per our previous correspondence.

We are sorry that we cannot be of further assistance with regards to this matter.

We hope above clarifies the situation.

Word for word, I got similar on my claim, passed on to CAA. Ryanair just ignored the reply when I said that. Literally rolling the dice. Mine is submitted two weeks but CAA said it can take up to 10 weeks

billy few mates

To be honest I can see why an airline (any airline) would chance their arm refusing a claim with a convoluted trail if excuses which are difficult to disprove.
I doubt every passenger on a delayed flight would be bothered to claim and I'm sure out of those that did a great many would accept their explanation and abandon their claims. Easy enough also to waffle an overworked regulator who likely doesn't have the resources to investigate every incident so will pretty much have to accept the airline's version of events but it will come to a stage where the airline will have weeded out enough potential claimants as to cut their losses and settle the last few.
It's worth remembering also that many of these claims will far exceed the cost they paid for the ticket so any company with an eye on costs will vigorously avoid having to pay any of them until and unless they absolutely have to.
The odds are in their favour while they control the narrative.

CrankyHaus

Yeah but what's the regulator up to?

From the OP's account it appears that either :
1) The OP is wrong and the airline is correct about the cause of delay, OR
2) The Airline is providing false information to the Regulator (including an operations report and engineering report!) with no fear of penalty for this, OR
3) The regulator did not adequately verify with the airline and is lying about having done so.

(1) seems unlikely given the level of detail that the OP has provided. (2) and (3) seem unlikely given the high standards of regulation I believed to exist in Aviation.

GM228

Browney7 wrote: »

I lost in the district court with the judge agreeing with Ryanair that knock ons do count....

ONLY if it is the same aircraft on the same day where the aircraft itself was subject to a valid exceptional circumstance, otherwise knock on does not count.

kathleen37

Just wondering if the OP went to SCC or is still waiting to hear back from the regulator?

Thanks

andrew1977

kathleen37 wrote: »

Just wondering if the OP went to SCC or is still waiting to hear back from the regulator?

Thanks

The regulator currently dealing with it, they said it can take several months.
I will wait for their formal decision and if required head to the small claims court then.

The regulator have been fine to deal with so far and gave me the option of they continuing with the claim or me going directly to the small claims court.

andrew1977

Hello everyone

Its the OP here with some good news

The Commission raised your complaint with ***** and considered their representations and evidence provided by them. In addition, where necessary, we contacted other relevant civil aviation authorities for further evidence.



I am pleased to confirm that ***** have agreed to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 in the amount of €250 per passenger. ****** will liaise directly with your regarding payment




I knew I was right, thank you all for your advice , appreciate it.

A victory for the small man today .

duffman13

andrew1977 wrote: »

Hello everyone

Its the OP here with some good news

The Commission raised your complaint with ***** and considered their representations and evidence provided by them. In addition, where necessary, we contacted other relevant civil aviation authorities for further evidence.



I am pleased to confirm that ***** have agreed to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 in the amount of €250 per passenger. ****** will liaise directly with your regarding payment




I knew I was right, thank you all for your advice , appreciate it.

A victory for the small man today .

Delighted to hear this, I've an open claim at the moment with the regulator which required some push back from me, hoping for the same result as yourself. Mines in 2 months now

billy few mates

andrew1977 wrote: »

Hello everyone

Its the OP here with some good news

The Commission raised your complaint with ***** and considered their representations and evidence provided by them. In addition, where necessary, we contacted other relevant civil aviation authorities for further evidence.



I am pleased to confirm that ***** have agreed to pay compensation in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation (EC) 261/2004 in the amount of €250 per passenger. ****** will liaise directly with your regarding payment




I knew I was right, thank you all for your advice , appreciate it.

A victory for the small man today .

Fair play to you for your doggedness in chasing this down to the wire, you can see now why airlines would choose to deny these claims because I doubt many others would have been prepared to put in the effort you did.
Now that the matter has been finally resolved the regulator should be insisting that the operator contact ALL of your fellow passengers on that flight to compensate them with their full legal entitlement, not just those people who persisted with the claim.

My own particular claim against a foreign carrier is still dragging on after nearly four months, the operator has tried every trick in the book to avoid even reviewing my claim. They've now rejected it so AirHelp are taking them to court because they are confident I'm entitled to compensation and have previously had success in the courts with this operator.