Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • one was missed but it was paid, but because i asked for help they informed me that they would have to put a mark on my credit file, but never stopped taking payments, never gave the refund, and now all these letters and emails, just after advise before i make the call, have had a look through some of the files, but can't seem to find anything other than the guidance to record, i only went to V12 because i was getting nowhere with AO and as its still on credit i was informed to contact V12 who would go to AO   
    • Hi. I would say they're out of time, as you said. Let's see what the guys say.   HB
    • 1 Date of the infringement ● 28th Dec 2019   2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] [scan up BOTHSIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] ● 20th Jan 2020 (i do not have a scanner)   3 Date received  ●23rd Jan 2020   4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] ●No   5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? ●Yes   6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up ●No   7 Who is the parking company? ●Met parking services   8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Brocklebank retail park,SE7 7SE (London)   For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. ● They state that they are a creditor and i must appeal to them in the first instance, failing that, then i can appeal to POPLA (IAS)   There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure, please check HERE ●IAS   If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here ●No, just recieved notice to registered keeper today (23rd January 2020)
    • tv arrived faulty, and kept getting messed around by AO.com then told to contact lg while it was still under warranty, lines were busy was given the option of leaving a message which i did took 10 days for the return call by this time warranty expired, i then contacted AO again who offered to pay half the bill, which i found unacceptable, then tv developed lines down the screen, i would have not been bothered but it was £1500 and expected better than that, it was also not used that often, so i contacted V12 to make a complaint under the consumer credit, then came back saying Ao.com said they had received only a few emails, no mention of all the calls also made where they made this offer, and V12 are in favour of AO, and referred me to the fos, then i have just discovered the other problem with v12 as mentioned above   
    • Hi   Just had a visit from a HCEO over a water debt that went to court and a CCJ was awareded.   Initial debt was £715,45 as of Nov 2019   17th December the debt has risen to £933.20 with Compliance Fee of £90 7 Jan 2020 Debt risen to £1154.50 apparently a visit, but no paperwork was left.   Paperwork left today £1750.94   Not my debt - partners debt   They did not come in.   Initially when I found it was passed to Marstons, I called anglian water asking them to transfer it back and I would settle the balance, they said they couldent.   Do they ever pass it back to the creditor? How long will this take?   Are the fee correct as not had a breakdown.   Suggestions on what to do?  
  • Our picks

eshroom

Claim against Lufthansa already rejected by SOEP

Recommended Posts

I had some issues with Lufthansa. In short, I had a 55 minute connection from Heathrow to Toronto via Frankfurt. Due to delays on the ground in Heathrow we landed in Frankfurt 10 minutes late and arrived at the gate 21 minutes late.

 

I accept they allege the delay was due to ATC, and because of this the SOEP refused the complaint as they deemed this constituted extraordinary circumstances. However, especially with an airport like Heathrow where all landing/take-off slots are full, I don't think delays caused by ATC are extraordinary. A flight departure time at Heathrow is at the whim of ATC and there is always a queue controlled by ATC and not dictated by the exact take off time of a plane.

 

Furthermore, I don't believe a delay of 10-21 minutes (depending how it is measured) is extraordinary, in fact Lufthansa only have 70.1% on-time performance. I believe the issue is their tight scheduling and they are using this as an excuse to avoid paying out.

 

On this basis I am considering using the European Small Claims procedure. Below is the outline of my complaint. Does anyone have any suggestions?

 

My only reservation is the reason the SOEP refused the complaint is that the captain noted down the reason for the delay as IATA code 89, which means ATC restriction at departure point. So to a degree it is whether the judge/adjudicator just accepts this or not.

 

Quote

 

- Ticket purchased London Heathrow to Toronto via Frankfurt, travelling with Lufthansa. Returning with Air Canada. For the purposes of the claim, the issue was due to a fault with Lufthansa on the outbound journey. The inbound Air Canada journey remained unaffected

 

- Short delay on London-Frankfurt leg (LH907) meant the flight landed in Frankfurt at 16:15 and arrived at the gate at 16:26. Scheduled arrival time was 16:05

 

- Connecting flight to Toronto was scheduled to leave at 17:00. The late arrival of Lufthansa flight LH907 allowed only 34 minutes to catch this flight, compared to the minimum connection time for Frankfurt Airport of 45 minutes

 

- Connecting flight to Toronto LH6780 was missed due to late arrival of flight LH907

 

- Rebooked by Lufthansa finally arriving in Toronto, via London Heathrow, on AC869 over 16 hours late

 

In Lufthansa's defence, they claim the delay was due to IATA code 89z, indicating a delay caused by Air Traffic Control at the departure airport.

 

I do not dispute their reasons. I dispute whether they constitute extraordinary circumstances.

 

Under many circumstances, delays caused by Air Traffic Control would be classed as extraordinary circumstances. However, traffic management on the ground, especially at busy airports, is completely routine and minor delays such as in this case are to be expected.

 

In an airport such as Heathrow, where all landing and take-off slots are occupied, airlines know that their advertised departure times are not accurate and their place in the take-off or landing queue will be decided by Air Traffic Control. It is therefore unreasonable for Lufthansa to use this routine activity as an excuse to avoid their responsibilities under EU 261.

 

As per ECJ, case 294/10, Eglitis et al. vs. Latvijas Republikas Ekonomicas ministrija. judgement of 12 May 2011, generally, at least minor delays should be expected within daily operations and therefore need to be factored in accordingly during flight planning. Clearly Lufthansa should not advertise schedules so tight when connections leave no buffer for minor delays.

 

According to Art. 5 (1) lit. c) in conjunction with Art. 7 (1) lit. c) regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to 600.00 EUR concerning flights of 3,500 km or more. In accordance with ECJ jurisdiction (cases Sturgeon, 19.11.2009, C-402/07 and C-432/07; case Nelson, 23.10.2012, C-581/10 and C-629/10; case Folkerts, 26.02.2013, C-11/11), this regulation applies respectively for a flight delay if the delay at the final destination amounts to three hours or more. In the case at hand, the final destination Toronto was reached with a delay of more than 16 hours. The flight distance between London-Heathrow and Toronto amounts to 5,723 km.

 

 

Edited by eshroom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any advice/suggestions on this one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...