dan dare: That's why the "reason for delay" part of the equation exists. If it's the airline in-house fault, 3 hours is the limit and then cash applies, the law is perfectly ok.
bristolbarbazon: easy answers on this one, pun intended.
1. What matters for your compensation claim is
only 2 things
- the time "at which at least one of the doors of the aircraft is opened" versus the advertised & scheduled time of arrival (printed on the ticket);
- the reason behind the delay.
2. No need to engage any firms. A properly worded claim - if valid in its essence - is absolutely undefendable. Any airline cashes out to avoid possible extra costs of fighting a lost battle, simple damage control. Also, there are no arguments to discuss, no viewpoints or opinions. Just a comparison of the two times. Have a look here, incidentally also from SZG:
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/...cp140116en.pdf
A word of caution about the websites: be careful of their terminology, i.e. how they label the data. When they say arrival, it can mean 3 different things even inside one website/app alone. It's a minefield in that respect but note that it matters not to your situation.
Given the simplicity of the equation and the MASSIVE liability exposure (yes, I'm the other side of goal line) an airline would know EXACTLY whether the compensation applies or not literally within minutes. It would be tagged as such in one of their systems days before any customer comes asking.
The loose wording of the response, its CTRL+V/C style but poorly updated, may actually suggest they are pretty sure there's no case for the complaint. They may be just saying "No" and not paying attention to how they say it.
========
Scheduled time was 22:20, not quarter past.
FR24 shows the last time frame at 22:18, just about to enter the stand area.
If easyJet themselves say the aircraft parked at 22:20, and the limit is more than 3 hours to have the door open .... you connect the dots.