-
Involuntary denied boarding for reasons such as inadequate documentation (as alleged by Wizz) can be quite complicated and Wizz has added to that by failing to provide your friend with the standard form advising them of their rights.
It may be that Wizz will rely on a “reasonable grounds” defence (the same under 261 or Israeli aviation law) which could just wash, and be careful ADR isn’t some sort of automatic panacea. It requires the pax to make their case and to win the adjudicator needs to prefer your arguments over those of the airline.
As your friend is going to be asking for quite a lot of money for compensation for all the pax + the replacement tickets it needs to be well written claim!
You get slightly more compensation under UK261 vs Israeli law.
@Londonfly, it’s going to be UK or Israeli legislation – probably easier for your friend to go with UK as she’s based here. EU legislation doesn’t apply as no EU countries were involved.
Thank you JDB and NorthernLass again!
1. So it’s Regulation UK261 that she is claiming under?
2. How, which site does she make a claim on?
3. How best can she prepare a well written claim? What must she include and what not?
4. Does she need to specify the figure of compensation requested? If yes, how does she clarify the distance from TLV-LTN?Thank you all very much!
@Londonfly, as previously mentioned, she needs to re-contact W A first and give them, e.g. 2 weeks to pay up. Then the next step would be ADR.
If you have a look at the delays and cancellations sections on here there are several threads with advice on how best to put a claim together. She definitely needs to be clear about the sums she is claiming, and the distance between the airports is about 2240 miles, so she needs to claim for whichever band that falls into.
1) Yes
2) On the Wizz website or via email/post – she needs to respond to Wizz’s initial rejection forcefully. The absence of the IDB document is Wizz’s failure and cannot be held against the passenger.
3) In terms of a well written claim, it’s a matter of setting out the facts very clearly but concisely with all the relevant detail yet avoiding emotional words that don’t add to the understanding of the case. Short paragraphs! The reader at Wizz or eventually a Court/adjudicator, from knowing nothing, needs very quickly to be able to understand the problem. She needs to show she had no alternative but to buy replacement tickets to make up for Wizz’s denial of boarding, refusal to acknowledge its failures (as described at 3.1.1 of the Interpretative Guidelines) and consequent failure to offer rerouting by EC261 Article 8 or any Right to Care costs under Article 9
4) Yes, best to specify the compensation at £520 per person as this journey falls under Article 7(1)(c). She doesn’t need to prove the distance.
I am an immigrant with permanent residence in UK. I subscribe to all updates from Home Office. I think I know what exactly happend here.
This statement is not correct:
The BRP card says it expires on 31.12.2024. This is just the card whilst you UK change system to online digital instead of physical cards. The UK allow this same card to be used to enter UK until June 2025
All BRP cards were scheduled to be cancelled on 31/12/2024. Home Office has advised all immigrants on visas/indefinite leave to remain in the UK to obtain a “share code” from the Home Office website. This was done last year. They gave 9 months for people to do this.
All airlines were advised to check the “share code” when travelling to UK. In fact, I travelled to the UK on 2nd Jan 2025. Etihad agents checked the “share code” not the BRP.
In December 2024, Home office advised that airlines and other carriers will be able to accept Biometric Residence Permits (BRPs) and EU Settlement Scheme Biometric Residence Cards (EUSS BRCs) expiring on 31 December 2024 or later as valid evidence of permission to travel to the UK, provisionally until 31 March 2025. Note the date.
In Feb 2025, Home Office gave the following advise to residents expired BRPs should be carried when travelling to the UK before or on 1 June 2025. Check the difference in wording. The wording here does NOT mean that the cards are valid. It only means residents must carry the card for whatever the reasons only known to Home Office. This silly wording was misunderstood by many, as extended validity.
All this time, your friend should have simply logged in to the gov.uk website and activated the e-visa and got the share code. It literally took me a few mins.
Unfortunately Wizzair is correct in saying that the BRP is expired. It actually expired on 31st March 2025. I doubt whether this can be considered as denied boarding.
That does cast things in a different light. Do we know exactly which date the OP’s friend was due to take her inbound flight?
The problem here is while the Home Office has been bumbling a lot with mails to residents and visa holders, their advise to airlines was crystal clear – “Check the Share Code from 1st Jan 2025”.
On the other hand, home office advisories include wording like – “airlines and other carriers will be able to accept”, “You may be able to use your expired BRP…”. Using words like “will be able to”, “may be able to”, leaves the discretion and the risk with the airline. I guess Lufty took their discretion to allow the passenger. Frankly I don’t believe that no paperwork was checked at Lufty gates as OP says. That would risk them a massive fine. They would have checked the old BRP at least.
The bigger question I have for the OP (and I’m sorry if this sounds rude). Home office e-mailed/sent letters to all immigrants last year asking them to convert their BRP to e-visa. This was since April 2024. It was also publicised in the media and they even went to extent of displaying adverts in bus shelters in areas with a large immigrant population. Getting the e-visa was a simple process (take a photo of the BRP, scan the BRP using the phone’s NFC reader and take a selfie. 5 mins and its done). Why didn’t your friend do this in the first place?
It’s very helpful now to know these things. If this denied boarding was after 31st March, then based on the account given it sounds like the checkin agent failed to ask the passenger for the share code and just refused boarding.
@inman, it’s very interesting reading your posts and I’m sure they are very helpful for people who need to know this stuff. My thinking is that the OP’s friend may have been away for some time and therefore may not have seen anything from the HO.
Is the obligation on the airline to ask for the share code, or for the passenger to present it?
it’s very interesting reading your posts and I’m sure they are very helpful for people who need to know this stuff. My thinking is that the OP’s friend may have been away for some time and therefore may not have seen anything from the HO.
Is the obligation on the airline to ask for the share code, or for the passenger to present it?
Thank you for the compliment. Obviously I’ve learned a lot from your posts too and got a lot of useful info. Just my way of giving back 🙂
As for the question, its a bit hard to say if there’s a clearly defined responsibility of asking for or presenting the share code, but having travelled a lot with a weak passport, check in agents have always checked the visas and asked for any paperwork they need, in every international airport I’ve been to – over a hundred. Airline systems usually indicate the entry permissions needed (visa, e-visa, ETA, visa-free etc.). On top of it, airlines are under significant pressure by governments to ensure they don’t carry undocumented passengers. Therefore, agents are (or at least should be) trained to check the right documents and even detect counterfeit documents. Its a bit unlikely the agent didn’t ask for the share code, but that’s always a possibility. Can this be the reason for a claim? I wouldn’t know.
Also we need to bear in mind that, there is no automatic right of entry to any country for anyone except one’s own country/ies of citizenship. Just because someone has a British Passport doesn’t mean that there is a guaranteed right to enter Canada for example. The onus is always on the passenger to prove that they are genuine travellers and carry the right paperwork whenever required.
Indeed, and I made that same point in another thread.
In the absence of further info from the OP, I am surmising that for some reason the passenger wasn’t aware of the need for the search code, and the airline staff didn’t explain (and may well not have known) that this could be accessed fairly easily. At this point it does look as though a claim might fail on the grounds that the passenger did not possess the required documentation.
Though as you say, the government could be a bit more clear in its communications!
The inbound flight was before March 31
Wizzair email sent before flight said the following “BRPs and BRCs that expired on or after the 31st of December 2024 can also be accepted as evidence of permission to travel to the UK provisionally until the 1st of June 2025”
Lufthansa(replacement flight before March 31) did not ask for any documentation at all
Has your friend submitted her claim now?
Has your friend submitted her claim now?
She has submitted her claim to Wizzair giving them 2 weeks to pay for compensation and expenses. They have rejected both claims.
1) Does she still need to wait the full 2 weeks before going to ADR?
2) Has she not got a case based on the above from Inman?Just to add to the above, when she arrived at UK border control, they looked at the BRP card(which expired 31.12.2024) and let her through without question. When she said she was denied boarding, the border control agent was shocked, stating that was incorrect and she has until June 2025 to complete the online digital process.
@LondonFly – you mentioned previously Wizz’s rejection on the basis of needing documentation to confirm the denied boarding. Has your friend now received a further rejection? If so, she can go to AviationADR without waiting further. The rationale given by Wizz for rejection is important in framing the escalation to AviationADR. In light of the helpful detailed information from @inman it’s going to come down to whether Wizz’s actions (which includes those of its agents) were reasonable in failing to assess the documentation provided. The difficulty seems to be a natural reluctance to accept an expired document.
The leading CJEU case on this is:-
The judgment was handed down during the Brexit transition period so it should apply in the UK. The fourth question is the most relevant.
@JDB
The fourth question is the most relevant. Excuse my ignorance. What does this mean?She submitted two separate claims with WIZZAIR as this was the only way. One for compensation and one for expenses.
They were further rejected for different reasons.
Compensation was rejected as no denied boarding form was submitted as part of the claim(as mentioned, she was not given or informed about this form at the airport)
Expenses was rejected based on incorrect travel documents at the airport@LondonFly – the ‘fourth question’ is the fourth of the five questions asked of the CJEU by the local court and starts at paragraph 87 of the judgment I linked. The whole judgment has relevance but the ten paragraphs or so are the most relevant for your friend’s case.
The rejection reason for compensation is absurd and such documentation is not required under the legislation and the expenses flow from the first. It’s going to be all or nothing.
@JDB
Thank you once again for the clear advice
I think it’s time to go to Aviation ADR with this claim against WIZZI will help her with the process but have never done this before.
How best to present this claim?
Do I focus or mention the reasons(lack of form for one/lack of travel docs for other) Wizz denied the claims?@JDB
Thank you once again for the clear advice
I think it’s time to go to Aviation ADR with this claim against WIZZI will help her with the process but have never done this before.
How best to present this claim?
Do I focus or mention the reasons(lack of form for one/lack of travel docs for other) Wizz denied the claims?You have to go here to start your claim: https://www.aviationadr.org.uk/how-to-complain-about-wizz-air-flight/
It is pretty straightforward but I would prepare a word document with what happened and also have a pdf with a scan of all additional info/documentation.
Be factual and avoid stating feelings or what not that may not be relevant.
Also, be sure you don’t mix the words “compensation” with “refund” of expenses such as hotels, replacement flights, etc.
Finally, be explicit on what you ask.
@LondonFly – unfortunately there’s no magic answer. Your friend is asking for a significant sum in compensation and reimbursement, so I think one should a) start from the basis of taking it seriously as if it were a high level work assignment and b) start from the premise the reader knows absolutely nothing about the case and like most people has a limited attention span so you need to grab their attention quickly and make your case very clear to them. Don’t miss anything out [she should try to remember as much as possible of the exchanges with the agent], but keep it concise and clear. Attach all the relevant documents including the booking, the email from Wizz saying the document presented was acceptable etc. Put it all into one PDF, number the pages and reference the page numbers in the core text. Use short, numbered paragraphs, double line spacing and wide margins.
It’s worth covering that Article 4 doesn’t explicitly cover Denied Boarding (“DB”) in relation to insufficient documentation, so you should read the Interpretative Guidelines at 3.1 as well as the judgment above.
Also, that while Wizz has rejected your friend’s compensation claim for want of a document, Wizz’s failure to provide that document is itself a breach of Article 14.
The basic premise is:-
1. The passengers held a confirmed reservation on flight XXyyy and presented themselves at the Wizz check-in counter at TLV well inside the required time limit
2. The passengers each held the necessary documentation to travel to and enter the United Kingdom in accordance with the laws of that country, Wizz’s own documentation sent to passengers and the recognised global visa/entry requirement systems such as Timatic/Sherpa
3. Wizz’s agent/representative erroneously rejected the valid travel documents, refused to listen to the passengers attempts to assist with clarification and refused to undertake any simple checks to confirm the validity of the documents presented
4. Having denied boarding, Wizz subsequently failed to provide the passengers with the required information under Article 14 and denied them the rights automatically conferred under Articles 8 and 9
5. The passengers have sought to settle the matter directly with Wizz, but the airline has peremptorily rejected the ckaim(s) twice, principally on the basis of the passenger not holding a document that Wizz failed to produce. This is a failure of the airline and cannot be used against the passenger in a perverted attempt to deny passenger rights.
6. Consequent on Wizz’s multiple failures, the passengers had no option but to purchase new tickets to fly the next day on another carrier, which accepted the identical documentation rejected by Wizz. The receipts for these tickets are attached and the passengers seek reimbursement in full.
7. [the passengers also incurred necessary additional accommodation/food/transportation costs, receipts for which are attached, also to be reimbursed in full
8. The passengers further seek involuntary denied boarding compensation of £520 per passenger pursuant to Article 4.3 and the schedule at Article 7.1(c)
Cite some relevant lines from the judgment which can also be appended.
Wizz will probably fight because it’s a big claim and one thing you should probably cover is the fact that the children might not technically have been denied boarding, but if young could not have been expected to travel without their mother and maybe weren’t offered that opportunity. It’s a bit tougher if one was say 17. The whole party was de facto denied boarding, but ….
None of this constitutes advice but merely how I would go about making such a claim!
@LondonFly – I should have added that I’m not sure how best to address the issue of the apparently expired BRP, even though it was still considered by the UK authorities and airlines as valid during a transition period. The trouble is that it sounds bad! Wizz had themselves acknowledged (from what you have told us) the validity of an expired BRP at the time of travel in this case.
Wizz is in a bit of a bind here! Their rejection of the claim because your friend wasn’t given a piece of paper saying she was denied boarding is effectively saying she wasn’t in fact denied boarding so compensation can’t apply, yet to defend the claim they will need to say she was correctly denied boarding.
I sincerely hope the claim works out. The fact that Wizzair sent an e-mail stating that BRPs are valid till 30th June and the fact that it happened before 31st March are points in favour.
However, just to warn you of a possible response by Wizzair, pls keep in mind that border control and airlines are two separate entities. Airlines can ask more (but not less) documents than border force if thats their policy. An example for this is Ryanair’s policy of mandating passport for domestic travel within the UK or within IE.
You might have a fight in your hands but pls do post the outcome. All the best.
@inman an airline can theoretically ask more, but it still has to have “reasonable grounds” to deny boarding if it wants to avoid paying compensation.
From the judgment cited above:-
92. The wording ‘except where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding’ used in Article 2(j) of Regulation No 261/2004 shows that the EU legislature did not intend for the air carrier to have the power to assess and decide unilaterally and definitively whether or not a passenger’s travel documentation is inadequate.
…/…
95. Accordingly, in the event of challenge by the passenger who has been denied boarding, it is for the competent court to assess, based on the relevant circumstances of the case, whether or not his or her travel documentation is inadequate and, ultimately, whether that denied boarding is reasonably justified or not.The situation with Ryanair for domestic flights or those within the CTA is a little different as it is matter of contract agreed with the passenger that they must carry X ID and it’s a legitimate/not unfair requirement for security and identification purposes rather than a matter of (immigration) law as in the instant case.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
