My family’s flight to Helsinki was cancelled when there was a fire on board. We were put up in a hotel and we travelled the next day. Because of this, we lost a pre-paid night’s stay at our hotel in Helsinki and the airline has refused to compensate us for the loss. I have cited EU rules that they are compelled to pay ¤600 each for the delay, but they have replied that the fire was an “extraordinary circumstance” and beyond their control.
Given that they have appeared to have implicitly admitted liability by providing accommodation in Manchester and re-booking all passengers on the flight the next day, aren’t they liable? I then tried to claim on my travel insurance, but they have said we were not covered as this was a “loss” and not an “extra cost”. NT, Manchester
Airlines have to provide accommodation and an alternative flight, or a refund, whether or not the reason for the cancellation is within their control – so that, in itself, is not an admission of culpability. Technical faults were routinely classed as an “extraordinary circumstance” because this absolved airlines from paying compensation under the EU regulations. However, the Supreme Court has just upheld a ruling that airlines are liable for technical faults if they are due to poor maintenance. So if the fire was caused by dodgy wiring rather than, say, a bolt of lightening or an errant cigarette stub, you are entitled to ¤400 (¤600 maximum is for cancelled flights of over 3,500km) according to Trevor Sears, solicitor at Keystone Law.
The regulations don’t cover consequential losses such as a missed hotel night. It’s up to the airline to prove the fault was indeed unforeseeable. Write citing the Jet2 v Huzar case 2014 and if it refuses to consider a payout appeal to the Civil Aviation Authority.
If you need help email Anna Tims at your.problems@observer.co.uk or write to Your Problems, The Observer, Kings Place, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Include an address and phone number.
