Comments Needed: Draft Guide to Claiming Flight Delay Compensation

A question about : Comments Needed: Draft Guide to Claiming Flight Delay Compensation

Update from 1 November: I have revised the guide, following the Supreme Court's decisions on Huzar and Dawson. I have also updated with some other developments since the Guide was first written.

https://db.orangedox.com/GdfSa4xUZdZI...mpensation.pdf

As ever, happy to take on board any comments and keep revising.

Perhaps it's too much to hope, but maybe this guide might not be needed for too much longer? Here's hoping!

PtLV

Best answers:

• Excellent. Good work. Perhaps the veterans on here should look at the regular newbies FAQs/postings and see if anything needs to be added
• Vauban - well done for both writing and spending the time to sort. As mentioned on numerous occasions tenacity and patience are required in abundance to take on the airlines and you have displayed this in drafting this out. Try and get included as a sticky and once in final form let me know and I will arrange for inclusion on any other forums by way of a link.
• Vauban- my friend, excellent work as always, as 111KAB states let's get it made as a sticky for all the new claimants that find these threads.
  One point -my post 622 has become post 569 on the Ryanair thread after Centipedes departure, if you could edit your link to this.
  I'm always auto alerted to the Ryanair thread when new posts arrive- my work there continues....as you have heard, their silly games continue..
  Speak soon.
• Thanks for the comments so far.
  Dr. W: the link I've posted seems to work okay for me - let me know if it doesn't for you.
  I have added an extra paragraph on the CAA - how could I have forgotten them? Let me know if you think it is incorrect or unfair in any way:
  Quote:
• Excellent effort V. Just a pity those it would help won't read it!
• [QUOTE=Vauban;66309511]Thanks for the comments so far.
  Dr. W: the link I've posted seems to work okay for me - let me know if it doesn't for you.
  I have added an extra paragraph on the CAA - how could I have forgotten them? Let me know if you think it is incorrect or unfair in any way:
  Vauban,
  The link does still work, not sure how but the post has shifted in the RA thread?
  But as long as it works,
  You may like to include this 'media tart' to your news links:-
  https://www.theguardian.com/money/201...anair-airlines
• I have saved Vauban's brilliant work as a word document for ease of amendment. Because of the way in which the threads work on this site, can those who know about these things perhaps make the final version into a closed thread of its own so that it won't be lost in the dozens of people who comment later.
• bump to top
• Okay. Many thanks to you all for these useful comments. I have revised accordingly, and turned into a pdf document for ease of reading:
  https://db.orangedox.com/GdfSa4xUZdZI...mpensation.pdf
  I can still make subsequent changes if folk have further suggestions to make.
  Note sure how many "newbies" will actually read this, but at least my conscience is now clear!
• Vauban, I would like to start by saying thank you for all the effort you have put into this, this information is invaluable and a lot of claimants would not consider taking an airline to court if it wasn't for the information shared on this site from people like your good self and others that have kindly added to this informative post.
  Just a couple of points from me.
  When explaining about mediating, it would be useful to suggest that the claimant prepare carefully for the phone call and be confident in the use of the relevant case in law that they have quoted previously. I know you have mentioned that some airlines may test the resolve of the claimant, I understand your point here but seeing some of the questions asked on here, not sure some people will be fully prepared.
  Lastly, 6.12, you explain the formalities of the hearing being less formal than expected but you don't highlight the fact you may not need to attend the hearing at all. Just thought the fact that it sounds like you have to attend court may put some people of taking the airline to court.
  I hope the comments I have made are correct and that you don't mind me pointing these small things out.
  Thank you once again for all the effort you and others have put into this.
  Sue
• Sue,
  Many thanks for these helpful thoughts - and your kind comments.
  I'll expand the bit on mediation to include the points you make (I never went through mediation myself, though I agreed to it: Monarch's lawyer never "dialed in" on the agreed time/date, and then subsequently withdrew!).
  On the hearing, I'll also make the point that you may not have to attend the hearing. Clearly there's no hearing, for example, in the ESCP. And sometimes a judge will indicate s/he's happy to conduct a paper hearing only. But two points in return ...
  1) No one should start a small claims action unless they are reconciled to going before a judge if necessary (and not turning up to a hearing would be fatal to a claim, I imagine);
  2) It is generally to the advantage of the claimant to have an oral hearing, where they can challenge fallacious assertions made by the airline and expose their inconsistencies (I know Bigmama would agree with this!). In my case, the hearing was central to unravelling Monarch's defence - which the paperwork alone might not have done.
  In fact, perhaps it might be useful to make these points in the Guide?
• I would endorse what Vauban says about going to a hearing. I would NEVER recommend asking the Judge to consider your representations on paper as however well you put things together your opponent may make a point which strikes favour but which, if you had been there, you might have been able to answer. This doesn't only apply to airline claims but to all cases.
  Other point about the small claims mediation service is that, in my experience it's a waste of time, again not just in airline cases. In an ideal world, the Court would adjourn to see if mediation works and if not fix a hearing date.
  But this has changed. The Court service has targets for the time from issue of the case to the date of the hearing. Time limits are all important to the authorities (I don't mean the Judges). If the hearing is delayed for mediation, the target is missed and it looks bad. So Judges are now told that even if they refer a case to mediation, they still have to fix a hearing date supposedly allowing sufficient time. The cuts in the mediation service mean that the hearing date often takes place before a mediator has even started. This assumes of course that both parties are prepared to mediate.
  If you are lucky to get a mediator, it's only over the phone and usually one quick call. Sorry to be so cynical but what was a great idea has fallen apart because of the cuts to the system and the authorities' mania for targets.
  JJ
• Great advice, JJ.
  Changes now made.
  Further comments still welcome.
• Once again, excellent points made by you both and I agree totally, especially on the notes about attending court.
  I had my European small claims procedure head on when making my point and I should have added that people may fear that they will have to travel to the relevant country to have their hearing heard, which could put people off but as you have already mentioned Vauban, this is not normally the case with this procedure. I should have stated this in my comment, sorry.
  Also, Legal Magpie, thank you for your comments on the Mediating process, I wasn't aware of this. However, if you are in the position, like I have been recently, the airline may decide to try and settle out of court and ring you themselves, this is what I am referring to and not the court mediating as you mentioned. I'm not sure how often this happens but obviously does, just as in my case. Maybe I should have made this clearer too, sorry.
  I think I will leave it to the experts from now on haha.
  Thank you for responding.
  Sue
• Thanks Tyzap - very happy to make that point.
  I don't think anyone believes that the CAA couldn't do more to help passengers. As my late grandmother used to say, "can't means won't"!
• bumping to the top - shame this is not a sticky
• There's a link to it from the one and only sticky. But even if it was more prominent, I'm not sure new folk would read it. I suspect everyone initially comes to this on the assumption that getting your compensation is relatively straightforward. And - of course - it should be. It's only when folk get their brush off that the complexity of the issue becomes apparent.
  Anyhow, since putting the guide on Orangedox a few days ago (which allows you to see how any times it's been downloaded from DropBox) I see that over 100 folk have downloaded it. So it's good that it's getting some use.
  Thanks again to all those who offered comments. I'll continue periodically to update it.