Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

Davidvgoliath wrote: »

Well they are not doing a very good job then because it hasn't put me off, only encouraged me :T

Me too, you can never have too much information! Thank you to everyone who takes the time and effort to share their experiences:)

wandawolff wrote: »

And has been turned down for compensation, were in the process of writing a 2nd letter.
Any thing that can help us will be much appreciated.

Waste of another stamp and letter writing IMO - if you are sure of your facts either take them to Court or walk away.

Vauban wrote: »

Did they really cite "exceptional circumstances" because there is no such thing in the regulation.

"Exceptional" is the word used in paragraph 26 of Wallentin. That is where the confusion is coming from. In these instances (and especially where translation is involved) I think "exceptional" and "extraordinary" are pretty much interchangeable.

flymeaway wrote: »

I am preparing for the court appearance and wonder if anyone can shed any light on the validity of my suggesting that TC have continually lied in their correspondence with both myself and the CAA - they have always said that the delay(s) were extraordinary after carrying out full investigations into my delays and therefore no payout is due - then suddenly they say they won't defend on the outbound but will on the inbound. Surely this means the full investigation they maintain they carried out right from the first correspondence between us was a lie?

Things happen in court that would seem very odd in real life. Take Thomson's two year limitation for bringing delay claims. We all know they're lying, but the court would conclude that they incorrectly interpreted More v KLM (again and again and again).

This doesn't stop them putting forward that argument in the alternative, which is another interesting area ...

Suppose you sue me because my Rottweiler bit you. I could defend in the alternative that:

(i) I don't have a Rottweiler;
(ii) you were not bitten by my Rottweiler;
(iii) I ensure that my Rottweiler wears a bite guard at all times;
(iv) my Rottweiler was locked up at the time;
(v) the bite must have been the result of your provocation as it is a very gentle and placid dog; ... etc.

In real life you'd brand me a liar. How could I not have a Rottweiler yet ensure it wears a bite guard? How could it not bite you yet the bite still be your fault?

In court this is all part of arguing in the alternative. Each argument stands on its own, and if any one of them succeeds, I win. The fact that each defence contradicts the others makes no difference.

So TC aren't really lying scumbags - they unfortunately misinterpreted the scope of ECs on the outbound flight, but not to worry, the court will advise them whether or not their assumption was correct on the inbound flight.