Letter / Notice Before Action
Here are some comments to help with any final letter you may send to BA prior to using MCOL. This can be regarded as best practice for this sort of claim, though it isn't actually mandatory. However if you do this it may assist you later. It is taken from the
Practice Direction - pre-action conduct.
2. Claimant’s letter before claim
2.1 The claimant’s letter should give concise details about the matter. This should enable the defendant to understand and investigate the issues without needing to request further information. The letter should include –
(1) the claimant’s full name and address;
(2) the basis on which the claim is made (i.e. why the claimant says the defendant is liable);
(3) a clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
(4) what the claimant wants from the defendant; and
(5) if financial loss is claimed, an explanation of how the amount has been calculated.
It should also provided a date by which a full answer is expected. This isn't directly specified, but the implication of the rest of the guidance is that would be at least 2 weeks. For one person's experience at getting BA to pay (pre Huzar)
see this post from the previous thread..
2014 Developments
How long do I have to submit my claim?
This is now settled in law, as a result of
Dawson v Thomson Airways Ltd [2014]. Proceedings must commence within 6 years of the date of the incident being claimed. The Supreme Court dismissed Thomson's application to appeal on 31 October 2014.
What about the Huzar Case relating to disruptions due to technical reasons?
The UK Supreme Court has ruled on 31 October 2014 that it will not consider an appeal against a previous Appeal Court ruling. This means that the law relating to EC261 and delays caused by technical issues is clear: almost all such cases will not be considered "extraordinary circumstances" and therefore a long delay caused by a plane going "technical" would be grounds for claiming compensation. There could be some exceptions to this, the sort of examples mentioned in legal proceedings include where the aircraft manufacturer issued an urgent safety alert and thereby grounded aircraft. It can be assumed that this would be a rare occurence, most "technical" cases would tend to be covered by the Regulations.
BA declined to pay me for a claim based on technical problems, can I go back to them now?
Almost certainly yes. Some technical problems can still be "extraordinary circumstances", for example if Boeing announced an emergency recall, but this would be very much the exception. The 6 year limit would probably not apply to older cases. It appears BA is paying both old and current claims in this area without hindrance.