I need a solicitor for EU flight compensation claim?

[Cyclone 10]

Because the first airline to pay out for one of these cases will cause an avalanche of claims. They've successfully defended many of these claims where unexpected and unplanned maintenance has been required for safety reasons.

 

Personally, I'd be happier with an airline that goes "oh, that part has unexpectedly broke, we'd best fix it now" than the one which goes "well, we could fix it, but it's going to cost us thousands in compensation payments, so we'll send it on it's way, fix it when we can and hope for the best".

 

Have they successfully defended such claims? Thousands you say?

[dosxuk 10]

Have they successfully defended such claims? Thousands you say?

 

Here's the guidelines - http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb-extraordinary-circumstances-list.pdf - pay close attention to points 18, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26.

 

If they say the failure falls under one of those categories from the start, I suspect with the amount of paperwork it takes to run an aircraft these days, they'll have plenty of documentary evidence for anyone who takes them to small claims to get the case thrown out.

[Saffy 10]

Ooh hang on .. I know someone whose claim with Monarch airlines delayed flight from Kefalonia to Manchester has just been paid. I'll find out more for you.

 

---------- Post added 27-08-2014 at 12:40 ----------

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/holidays/article-2567703/Man-won-3-200-flight-delay-compensation-Monatch-court-case.html

 

Got this for now.

[Cyclone 10]

Here's the guidelines - http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/passengers/air/doc/neb-extraordinary-circumstances-list.pdf - pay close attention to points 18, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26.

 

If they say the failure falls under one of those categories from the start, I suspect with the amount of paperwork it takes to run an aircraft these days, they'll have plenty of documentary evidence for anyone who takes them to small claims to get the case thrown out.

 

These are all unusual situations though, and they'd need to prove it. For example;

18 Manufacturing Defects

20 In-flight damage to the aircraft during the preceding flight, caused by a foreign-object

23 Premature failure of life-limited parts

 

And earlier in the document

 

Note 3: That in each of the following examples, the air carrier must provide proof of the circumstances alleged and it must

also clearly demonstrate how these circumstances resulted in the flight disruption.

Note 4: After demonstrating the existence of extraordinary circumstances, the air carrier must also explain what

reasonable measures it took to subsequently avoid the disruption.

 

But most importantly

A landmark court ruling on 10 June 2014 said that most technical faults do count as the airline’s fault meaning you CAN claim on those grounds in courts in England and Wales… but don’t get your hopes up yet as it’s not that simple. Here’s why:

 

What was the court case and what happened? Until recently, guidelines stated you could only claim for a technical issue if the airline failed to carry out proper maintenance, which would have excluded other circumstances such as dodgy parts from a third party supplier.

 

Yet a key ruling made by the Court of Appeal on 10 June in a case between a passenger and the Jet2 airline has changed that – at least on paper.

 

The court ruled that technical problems which aren't caused by something out of the ordinary such as component failure or general wear and tear should not be considered "extraordinary" – in other words, airlines are still responsible. If the ruling stands, airlines will only be able to get out of paying compensation if a technical fault was caused by an event that is "out of the ordinary".

A court has thrown out some of these 'exceptional' circumstances, in a precedent setting ruling.

 

---------- Post added 27-08-2014 at 14:55 ----------

 

This goes on to say

 

Sounds great, so what’s the problem? While this decision is binding on courts lower than the Court of Appeal, such as small claims courts, it doesn't automatically open the floodgates for these types of claims because Jet2 has the ability to ask for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on the decision, and according to the Supreme Court it did so on 7 July.

 

This is likely to delay things substantially as the Supreme Court will now decide whether or not to grant this appeal. It says a decision should be made by the end of the year, and at the earliest, in October.

 

If permission is granted, the Supreme Court will make its own decision on the case and it may not come to the same conclusion as the Court of Appeal.

 

How will this work in practice? Currently, as we have a binding decision from the Court of Appeal, the law as it stands says you can claim for technical faults in English and Welsh courts. Yet what airlines will almost certainly do is say: “We’re awaiting the appeal to the Supreme Court and we won’t process claims until then.”

 

So the only way to force airlines to deal with claims is to take them to the small claims court. But even if you do this the airline could ask the court for a ‘stay’, which would put the case on hold until the Supreme Court makes its decision. It is however up to each judge to decide whether or not to accept the airline's request.

 

---------- Post added 27-08-2014 at 14:56 ----------

 

Like I said, my wife had a Visa prepaid card in the post yesterday for the full 600 euro amount for a flight delayed last month due to technical and then staff issues.

Perhaps they paid up so easily due to the staff bit though, which is never considered to be exceptional.

[Saffy 10]

My friend got a £670 payment for a 10 hour delay with Monarch. They didn't use any Solicitor, just filled the form in that you are given.

 

It took 2 years mind.

[Guest]

I would start with a local CAB first.

 

 

I doubt any of the Sheffield taxi firms would take the OP to another country.