More than half of valid flight compensation claims made by UK passengers are being rejected by airlines, according to new analysis from air passenger rights organisation AirHelp, laying bare what campaigners say is a systemic failure in how disruption payouts are handled.

The figures suggest that even when travellers meet all legal criteria for compensation, they are more likely to be turned down than paid, prompting fresh calls for tougher oversight and clearer enforcement of UK and EU rules.

More News:

New data shows 52% of valid UK claims rejected at first attempt

AirHelp’s latest review of its 2024 caseload finds that 52% of legitimate compensation claims submitted on behalf of UK passengers were rejected at the first response by airlines, despite meeting the requirements set out in UK and EU passenger rights regulations.

This makes wrongful refusals marginally more common than approvals, turning what was intended as a safety net for disrupted travellers into an uphill battle.

The analysis focuses on claims deemed clearly eligible under UK 261 and the post-Brexit version of EU 261, which oblige airlines to compensate passengers when long delays, cancellations, or denied boarding are caused by factors within carriers’ control.

Under these rules, travellers can be entitled to up to about £520 per person, depending on flight distance and the length of the delay. Yet advocates say the AirHelp figures expose how often passengers are left out of pocket despite those legal protections.

AirHelp stresses that the 52% figure reflects airlines’ initial responses rather than the ultimate outcome. Many of the rejected claims are later overturned after additional evidence is provided or when cases are escalated, including to national enforcement bodies or the courts.

However, consumer groups argue that the very need for prolonged disputes undermines the intent of the law and deters ordinary travellers from pursuing what they are owed.

“The law on paper is strong, but in practice too many passengers are effectively being told ‘no’ first and left to fight alone,” one air passenger rights specialist told TheTraveler.org, adding that persistent rejections appear to be “baked into” some airlines’ approach to handling complaints.

Ignored emails and vague excuses top the list of airline tactics

Behind the headline number lies a pattern of behaviour that AirHelp and other campaigners say is now familiar across the industry. The group’s breakdown of rejected cases shows that in more than a quarter of instances, the airline simply never responded to the claim at all. Passengers submitted forms, emails and supporting documents, only to be met with silence.

In other cases, carriers cited weather or air traffic control issues without providing evidence, even where independent data showed no significant adverse conditions. AirHelp’s UK analysis aligns with its broader European findings that weather is one of the most frequently invoked justifications, despite many disruptions being linked to crew shortages, technical issues, or operational decisions that under UK and EU law should trigger compensation.

Consumer organisations warn that vague references to “operational problems” or “extraordinary circumstances” are another common feature of rejection letters. The terms can sound authoritative, but in many instances do not meet the legal threshold for exempting airlines from paying out. Without specialist knowledge, however, passengers may struggle to challenge such assertions.

For many travellers, the absence of a clear explanation is itself the problem. AirHelp’s European breakdown of wrongful rejections shows airlines sometimes give no substantive reason at all, or refuse to acknowledge documentation that passengers have already supplied.

Advocates say these tactics exploit the complexity of the law and the fact that most customers will not have the time, expertise or appetite to keep pushing their case.

Rising disruption collides with fragile trust in compensation rules

The spike in rejected claims comes as UK travellers are grappling with what industry analysts describe as a sustained period of high disruption. Separate research from mobility and disruption management specialists has indicated that around three in four UK passengers experienced a delay or cancellation this year, with disruption up by about 40% compared with 2023.

That increase has been linked to a combination of factors, including tighter airline schedules, staffing shortages in aviation and air traffic control, and ongoing infrastructure strains at major airports. While not all of those issues automatically create a right to compensation, they have significantly boosted the number of people attempting to claim.

Yet even as more passengers rely on statutory protections to soften the financial impact of disrupted travel, trust in the system appears fragile. Surveys cited by AirHelp and other consumer bodies show that a large majority of travellers do not fully understand their rights, and many believe that an airline’s first “no” is final.

Globally, AirHelp’s 2025 rights awareness survey found that only around one in five passengers could correctly identify when compensation is due under relevant regulations, despite most saying they know that such rights exist.

This lack of clarity creates what experts describe as a “double penalty” for passengers: first they endure the inconvenience and cost of a ruined journey, and then they face a confusing and often discouraging process when they try to recover money they are legally entitled to claim.

UK 261 rules promise strong protections, but enforcement lags

At the core of the dispute is UK Regulation 261, the domestic successor to EU Regulation 261/2004, which was retained in UK law after Brexit. The rules cover flights departing from UK airports on any airline, as well as arrivals into the UK on UK or EU carriers, and mirror much of the original EU framework.

Under UK 261, passengers may be entitled to financial compensation for cancellations, long delays of three hours or more on arrival, and instances of denied boarding caused by overbooking, provided the disruption is not due to “extraordinary circumstances” beyond the airline’s control. The compensation amount is fixed by law based on flight distance, and in many cases runs into several hundred pounds per traveller.

Consumer advocates often describe the regime as one of the strongest in the world on paper, particularly compared with markets such as the United States where compensation rights for delays are far more limited. The challenge, they say, lies in ensuring that airlines apply the rules fairly and that passengers have realistic routes to enforcement when they do not.

In the UK, passengers can escalate complaints to an Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme if the airline is a member, or to the Civil Aviation Authority, which can offer guidance and, in some cases, pressure carriers to comply.

However, the CAA’s powers to compel airlines to pay specific passengers are limited, and industry critics argue that the regulator has historically been cautious in deploying sanctions for non-compliance.

Why so many valid claims never make it to payout

The attrition begins long before cases reach regulators or courts. AirHelp’s analysis and independent surveys suggest that a significant share of disrupted passengers never file a claim at all.

In Europe, the company says roughly 60% of eligible travellers fail to pursue compensation, often because they are unaware they qualify or assume the process will be too complex.

Of those who do start a claim, many drop out at the first sign of resistance. A single rejection email, a request for additional documents, or months of silence from the airline can be enough for passengers to give up, particularly if the payout they are chasing is smaller than the time and energy required to fight on.

Some travelers also worry that pressing their case could affect their relationship with a frequent-flyer programme or a preferred carrier.

Specialist claims companies, including AirHelp, have emerged over the past decade to bridge that gap by handling paperwork and legal challenges on a commission basis. Supporters argue that such intermediaries play a vital role in balancing the power disparity between individual passengers and large airlines with dedicated legal teams.

Critics counter that their fees can be high relative to the compensation amounts involved and that their growing presence reflects a system that is too opaque for ordinary consumers to navigate alone.

Regardless of the route passengers choose, the UK data on wrongful rejections underlines how many claims that should be straightforward are instead mired in dispute and delay. Campaigners say that even when intermediaries ultimately secure payouts, the time and cost involved indicate that something is fundamentally misaligned between the law’s intent and day-to-day practice.

Pressure grows for clearer rules and tougher oversight

The latest AirHelp figures arrive amid a wider political debate over whether UK and EU compensation rules should be tightened, loosened, or rebalanced. Some airlines have lobbied to raise the threshold for delay compensation in Europe, arguing that current rules were designed for a different era and impose disproportionate costs that can ultimately hurt consumers through higher fares.

Passenger groups and legal advocates take the opposite view, pointing to rising disruption levels and the scale of wrongful rejections as evidence that existing rules are not being enforced robustly enough. They argue that any dilution of compensation rights would reward poor performance and remove one of the few financial incentives airlines face to minimise delays within their control.

In the UK, policymakers are also weighing reforms to the Civil Aviation Authority’s enforcement toolkit, including proposals to grant the regulator stronger powers to fine airlines for systemic breaches of consumer law. Supporters of tougher oversight say such measures are necessary to deter patterns of behaviour in which wrongful rejections are treated as a manageable cost of doing business rather than a breach of passengers’ legal rights.

Industry representatives insist that they already invest heavily in customer care and dispute that there is a deliberate strategy to block legitimate claims. They point to volatile weather, constrained airspace and knock-on effects from global supply chain issues as factors that complicate compliance with rigid compensation rules. Nonetheless, the persistence of high rejection rates among clearly eligible UK claims is likely to keep the sector under scrutiny.

What UK passengers can realistically do if their claim is denied

For individual travellers, the question is less about regulatory arcana and more about practical next steps when a claim is turned down. Legal experts advise that passengers should not assume an airline’s first response is the final word, particularly if they believe the disruption fell squarely within the carrier’s control.

Passengers are generally encouraged to keep detailed records, including booking confirmations, boarding passes, photos of departure boards, written communications from the airline, and notes of what staff said at the airport. This evidence can prove crucial in challenging any later suggestion that weather, air traffic control or other external factors were to blame.

If a written claim is rejected without a clear explanation, or with what appears to be a generic reference to extraordinary circumstances, travellers can ask the airline to provide specific details and supporting information. Should that fail, they may escalate the complaint to an approved Alternative Dispute Resolution body or seek guidance from the Civil Aviation Authority, which publishes information on passenger rights and can help interpret the regulations.

For those unwilling or unable to manage a prolonged back-and-forth, organisations such as AirHelp and other claims management firms offer to handle cases on a “no win, no fee” basis, taking a proportion of any eventual compensation. While this route reduces the net payout, it can also remove much of the administrative burden at a time when many passengers simply want to move on from a stressful travel experience.

FAQ

Q1: What did AirHelp’s latest analysis reveal about UK passenger claims?
AirHelp’s review of 2024 data found that 52% of UK passengers’ valid flight compensation claims were rejected at the first response by airlines, even when those claims met the legal criteria under UK and EU-style passenger rights regulations.

Q2: Which types of disruptions can qualify for compensation under UK 261?
Compensation may be owed when flights are cancelled, when arrivals are delayed by three hours or more, or when passengers are denied boarding because of overbooking, provided the disruption is caused by factors within the airline’s control rather than extraordinary circumstances.

Q3: How much compensation can UK passengers receive for an eligible disruption?
The amount is fixed by law and depends on flight distance and the length of the delay, with payouts for longer-haul flights often reaching roughly £220 to £520 per person in many typical UK 261 cases.

Q4: What counts as a “wrongful rejection” of a claim?
A wrongful rejection is when an airline refuses to pay compensation to a passenger who is legally entitled to it, for example by blaming weather or air traffic control without evidence, misinterpreting the rules, or simply failing to respond at all.

Q5: Why do so many passengers give up after the first rejection?
Many travellers assume that an airline’s decision is final, lack confidence in their understanding of the rules, or feel that the time and stress involved in pursuing the claim further outweigh the potential payout, especially after weeks or months of silence.

Q6: What steps should passengers take before filing a compensation claim?
Passengers should save their booking confirmation and boarding pass, keep receipts for extra costs, take photos of departure boards, and note any messages or emails from the airline, as this documentation can be essential if the claim is later challenged.

Q7: What can travellers do if an airline ignores their claim?
If a claim goes unanswered, passengers can send a follow-up request in writing, then escalate the complaint to an approved Alternative Dispute Resolution scheme if the airline belongs to one, or seek assistance from the Civil Aviation Authority or a specialist claims company.

Q8: Are UK passenger rights the same as in the European Union?
UK 261 is closely modelled on the EU’s Regulation 261/2004 and covers many of the same situations, but the UK operates its own post-Brexit version, so passengers should check the specific wording and guidance that applies to flights linked to UK airports.

Q9: Do airlines ever face penalties for rejecting valid claims?
While individual payouts are typically enforced through civil claims or dispute resolution schemes, regulators in the UK can investigate patterns of non-compliance and, in serious cases, have the option to take broader enforcement action, though critics say these powers are not used often enough.

Q10: Is it worth using a claims company if they take a fee?
For passengers who do not have the time or confidence to manage the process themselves, a reputable claims company can increase the chances of success and handle legal complexities, though travellers should weigh the convenience against the share of compensation that will go to the service provider.