Who should receive the compensation?

So if they claimed £2000, will you demand £1000 of it?

But the parents didn't claim £2000 for themselves did they? They claimed £2000 for all the travellers.

Otherwise, they would have just claimed for the two of them and got less money.

I still don’t get why people go on about a refund - it isn’t the services paid for were rendered so there is no scope for a refund

what there is is compensation for the delay and the inconvenience this is paid out per passenger

no one actually paid for the children (apart from a nominal fee) so actually who does deserve it other than the children who experienced the delay

...it's not a refund...

Interesting point about tickets bought with points, although one could argue that points have a monetary value. I guess the question could be: is the compensation amount a % of the ticket price, in which case it indicates it is a sort of reimbursement of payment, or a fixed amount based on the length of delay/destination, in which case it reflects the passenger’s inconvenience/cost incurred. What do you think?

But no was was injured.
An injury is very different to claim back money for delays on a flight.
Had everyone paid and claimed for their own holiday, then yes.
However this was a group booking of the OPs family. A group claim back. So as the children were free places, the best way is to refund 9 people and share 12 ways what is left....
Family comes before a £1000.

Again, it is not a refund, the grandparents would not be claiming anything "back", they would be claiming their compensation and the children's compensation. If the grandparents and kids were rear-ended in the car drive home and all were injured, would you give the children's compensation for their injuries to their grandparents too?

Refund to the people who paid in the same proportion as they originally paid.

Not really, because had each set of people claimed individually, t (Regardless of who paid) they would have all received x amount per person in the party 🤷‍♀️

Yes would be fascinating it is were in fact a case of fraud and she planted the snail herself!

In a way it almost would make it better if it was like that I always did wonder how a snail managed to make it way into the botte

Everyone who was inconvenienced should receive the compensation

Obviously this!

I read somewhere that there is a theory that the snail never existed and it was all a stitch- up! Worth it to revolutionise the law though.

Of course it's different.

You started off by saying how the non-paying parties' compensation should be distributed among those who paid for tickets, then acknowledged that "technically" it's not their money.

Saying something "technically" belongs to someone, or something is "technically" correct, is not the same as saying "definitely" or "absolutely". Using "technical" as a qualifier implies that there's some sort of good reason to deviate from the actual, factual answer - which was also your expressed view.

See, also, the difference between "winning on a technicality" versus "winning absolutely ".

Surely transparency is important within the family. All that is required is for the grandparents to tell you that each child has been awarded £520. You are free to choose whether or not to accept it, but you should really be acting in your children’s interests not your own. Parents face those sorts of decisions every day though, it’s not necessarily wrong to decide not to take the money, for example if keeping the grandparents happy means a more harmonious family environment for the child to benefit from.

If my children went on holiday with their grand parents, as free places, and were delayed, and my parents claimed the £2000 back for delays, there is no way I demand the money.

1. It hasn't cost me.
2. I am not greedy.
3. So what if it is the law.

Selmartin eh? "Technically meant for" is no different from saying "absolutely or definitely".

It's just that the airline who pays out doesn't chase up the person who received it to make sure they've divided it up per person in the party.

You've literally taken what I said, misread it and then said exactly what I was saying - whilst saying I was wrong.

Peak MN

For all the reasons people have already cogently explained, I would firmly expect it to go to every individual. I wouldn’t expect the parents to offer to redistribute the compensation owed to their kids, nor would I personally accept the offer in those circumstances.

Yes I think everyone should receive an equal share as everyone was inconvenied.
If it was a refund for the holiday then that would be different.

Compensation should compensate those who were inconvenienced, i.e. all travellers, including the children. I expect their parents would have forked out quite a bit on snacks and keeping them entertained.

A fact my teenagers were well aware of as it happens although we missed the cut off by 7 minutes!

Yep it is now legally based but it still means that it is separate to any contract - so whoever paid for it doesn’t matter it is the end user that matters.

where I used to work we had the snail as a little cuddly mascot (the ones with a ribbon at the back) because of how important it was

this one really isn’t hard it goes to each passenger as compensation/damages and depends not a jot on who paid what

No it’s not obvious. It’s compensation for inconvenience. Everyone was inconvenienced so everyone gets compensated

There isn't anything technical about it.

Each passenger affected by the delay is entitled to £520 compensation for the inconvenience.

If, for whatever reason, a passenger chooses to give some or all of their compensation to someone else, fair enough, but its not for anyone else to just decide to take it.

The way I see it is of the parents with the 2 kids paid no more the couples paid they shouldn't get twice as much compensation.

It has nothing to do with how much anybody paid, it has everything to do with how they all experienced the same inconvenience and delay. They all get the same.