Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

EU261 claim rejected

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    andrew1977
    Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    Browney7
    Registered Users Posts: 3,099 ✭✭✭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....


  • Options
    #34
    billy few mates
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭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...???


  • Options
    #35
    billy few mates
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #36
    andrew1977
    Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭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 ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    duffman13
    Registered Users Posts: 8,946 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #38
    billy few mates
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #39
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    kathleen37
    Registered Users Posts: 810 ✭✭✭kathleen37


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

    Thanks


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    andrew1977
    Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    andrew1977
    Registered Users Posts: 3,089 ✭✭✭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 .


  • Options
    #44
    duffman13
    Registered Users Posts: 8,946 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #45
    billy few mates
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement