Court success thread

lineslim · 10 April 2015 at 2:07PM

JPears wrote: »

You really shouldn't need it. The regulation is quite clear on this matter ie compensation is due each fare paying passenger , irrespective of any seat reservation. Which airline?

It is the Swedish airline Novair. The problem is that there is a "ruling" from the Swedish ARN (a board where consumers could submit their claim before going to Court, I dont know what the equivalent is called in the UK) saying that their interpretation is that a seat reservation is necessary. To my knowledge this interpretation has not yet been tested is a Swedish Court however.

Vauban · 10 April 2015 at 2:16PM

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4445431

JPears · 10 April 2015 at 2:54PM

If you are claiming in UK, swedish interpretation is irrelevant.

lineslim · 10 April 2015 at 4:21PM

JPears wrote: »

If you are claiming in UK, swedish interpretation is irrelevant.

I am claiming in Sweden. The Huzar case has been of relevance for a recent Swedish court case, so any references you may have are relevant.

Mark2spark · 11 April 2015 at 2:48AM

There's been no test cases so any references aren't relevant.
You'll just have to argue that the wording in Article 3, scope (of EU261) is quite clear.

3. This Regulation shall not apply to passengers travelling free of charge or at a reduced fare not available directly or indirectly to the public. However, it shall apply to passengers having tickets issued under a frequent flyer programme or other commercial programme by an air carrier or tour operator.

The definition of 'ticket' is covered in Article 2:

(f) "ticket" means a valid document giving entitlement to transport, or something equivalent in paperless form, including electronic form, issued or authorised by the air carrier or its authorised agent;

There's no mention of a (separate) seat being required to qualify for compensation.

batman44 · 17 April 2015 at 2:56PM

Victory!!!:beer::beer::beer::j:j:j

It gives me great pleasure to announce Thomas Cook have settled my case in full, all interest at the rate I asked all backdated from Sept 2011 and up to end of March 2015, and all costs. This came out of the blue and total surprise they offered everything, perhaps my bundle must have had something to do with it. This is after many times them rejecting my claim and taking this all the way to a court date being set, documents handed over andwith a three week gap before court. They stayed my case twice pending Huzar and wanted to stay again pending Van Der Lans but they could not. The total amount is £2, 157.71. + £170 hearing fee from TC.

This was for flight TCX0109 from Montego Bay – Manchester on September 4th 2011 a 24hr delay. The aircraft suffered and engine failure on take-off halfway down the runway; this was a compressor failure just like Manchester in June 2013 now famous on YouTube. The defence claimed this was caused by a lightning strike. I am not sure what swung this but the evidence was damming from the AAIB about that flight and they added more to the investigation in Feb this year after forensics said it was a dirty contaminated engine, maybe ours was as well.

In reality the defence was a let-down as I expected more from them the way they were acting, defence was less than 74 pages with no Huzar, outdated CAA documents, and looked as though it had been photocopied from a photocopy twice over. My evidence was 264 pages of detail, colour photos ring bound with 37 tabs and 3 inches thick, it must have frightened them! The witness statements were of no help to them as they only reinforced what I already knew, and in fact the flight cycles of the engine as recommended by RR by over half again. Another statement produced only compounded that they did nothing for our flight only for the next flight that was 24hrs later and NO lightning strike mentioned anywhere, they included a document that would have let them off the hook about telling that fib, but investigations on my part already knew well before it was a run-of-the-mill engine stall.

I don’t blame Travlaw solicitors they have been professional all along and only being instructed by TC, in the end they were very friendly and amicable. Now with the cheques cleared and money in the bank maybe another holiday next year to take the missus and myself to the Maldives hopefully.

Perhaps if TC did not make a mistake on my tickets in 2013 due to their misspelling on my name then I may never have brought this case,the fact they charged me £100 and told me I should be lucky as they could charge me £200! At the airport to change it really got my back up, they did not refund after they told me they will pay it back when I got home. A positive note on that is that the may change in future as changes in spelling mistakes are limited to a small fee in future.

After 2 years investigating this myself I uncovered various evidence about engine compressor stalls and our flight and aircraft, Thomas Cook claimed it was a lightning strike right up to the point of document exchange. After putting together my bundle of 249 pages of evidence from theCAA, AAIB, and FOI they reconsidered. Their evidence tallied with my evidence on document exchange so they had nowhere to run, in fact the witnesses they produced self-incriminated TC in what they said. I am glad it over and now for Monarch, and the small issue of a wheel change two flights previous.

I would like to thank all those who gave advice and encouragement along the way, and the will to see it through without whose help I would not have got this far. A very special and big thank you to our lord Vauban for his wisdom and invaluable help not only via this forum but personally, NoviceAngel as well, thanks buddies! And many others. This forum is a self-help forum from its contributor’s combined to take on the powers of the big airlines,despite some peoples misconception it’s not just a straight forward letterwriting exercise in most cases and the members on here help anyone that needs it if they can. You could go to a NWNF solicitor to battle it for you for a fee but there is nothing better than the satisfaction of winning after knowing youwere right all along. As for me this became a battle of principle in the end and I wanted to stand up for what’s right, I put the work in and now as the saying goes, you reap what you sow.

The last six weeks have been difficult for me, with the loss of my mother in late Feb 2015 and the court case pending in April and various other things in 2015, but this brings a slight light that things are improving this year, thanks to all again and I will be around still as there are more battles yet to fight.

If you have any questions I will try to answer them. Who Whoo yeh!

NoviceAngel · 18 April 2015 at 12:52PM

Congratulations and well done batman44, Sorry to hear of your recent loss, I'm sure your mum will be looking down, thinking my son did good.

Your bundle sounds extremely impressive and don't feel at all down that you never got to expose TC in court for all their blatant lies, you've done that here and that's why you've won your case, the evidence that you've gathered together with the collective pooled knowledge lead by PtLV, we make a hard team to beat.

Congrats and well done again,:beer:

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

Dr_Watson · 18 April 2015 at 6:36PM

Delighted for you batman44, :j:beer:

Let's hope it starts a turn of better events for you.

mfl394 · 12 October 2015 at 7:13PM

We were delayed for 15 hours in Venice due to a thunderstorm causing disruption to easyJets inbound plane in September 2014. I was not convinced easyJet did everything they could to avoid the delay but more importantly my information was that thunderstorms are common in that area so maybe inherent in the normal operation of airlines flying to destinations in that area.

EasyJet were unhelpful so I issued a claim in respect of myself and my wife and the other couple we were with also did so. EasyJets defence was focussed on it being a matter outside their control but was confusing as they used a mixture of local time and UTC (which is effectively the same as GMT). I wanted to press the argument of whether a thunderstorm could qualify as Extraordinary as the Jet2.com v Huzar case seemed to be very supportive of this line of argument.

However the argument was not tested as easyJet came to court with an legal representative but no witness. I told the Judge I wanted to question the witness. EasyJet were asked to produce the witness but failed to do so, so the Judge struck out their defence and gave us judgement by default for compensation, interest and costs.

My impression was that easyJet do not put much in the way of quality resources into defending cases and are reluctant to disrupt their operations by bringing members of their workforce to court. Accordingly I think that persistence and careful preparation have a good chance of prevailing.

111KAB · 12 October 2015 at 7:37PM

mfl394 - confidence building post for those facing easyJet (and others) .... well done.

Court success thread

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free