Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

romanby1

Wibblethwaite wrote: »

Hi All

I've tried to research as much as possible before posting and hope you can help me. I recently has a category 3 flight (4616 miles) delayed by just over 5 hours. Thomas Cook did inform me of this in the morning, but as they didn't tell the hotel we had to transfer at the usual time which meant 7.5 hours in the airport. When I got home I wrote them a letter to complain and ask for some compensation as the hotel would have let us stay there for the day. I had not heard of 261/2004 at that time. I have just received an email back from them stating:

"I can see that you are making a claim for a payment under Regulation 261/2004. Having carried out a full investigation it would appear that your flight was not delayed for the qualifying period specified in the regulation. In view of this a payment is not applicable under the rules of the scheme."

Along with the usual sorry etc. So obviously I did some research! From this I do believe we qualify. My question is, do I respond to this with the 1st template letter, the second template letter or just another casual email asking them to explain why they believe a landing time of 313 minutes late (I checked historically on a statistics website) does not qualify. We were never given a reason for the delay apart from 'circumstances out of our control'.

Your thoughts would be much appreciated.

Sounds like the usual drivel. Briefly state your case or refer to previous correspondence, I often send copies. State you require a satisfactory response within 14 or 21 days or you will start proceedings.

Snarler677

Hi has anyone had any success in claiming compensation from Thomas Cook Airlines for flight TCX 0927 from Sanford Florida to Glasgow on 29th June 2013 which was delayed 27 hrs with a technical fault. I have received the standard extraordinary circumstances letter from them, which I am presently disputing using EC Reg.261/2004 article 5 but don't hold out much hope so will then refer it to the CAA but again don't hold out much hope and may therefore have to refer it to a no win no fee company but was just wondering if anyone had any better success for this flight and how they went about it.

romanby1

Snarler677 wrote: »

Hi has anyone had any success in claiming compensation from Thomas Cook Airlines for flight TCX 0927 from Sanford Florida to Glasgow on 29th June 2013 which was delayed 27 hrs with a technical fault. I have received the standard extraordinary circumstances letter from them, which I am presently disputing using EC Reg.261/2004 article 5 but don't hold out much hope so will then refer it to the CAA but again don't hold out much hope and may therefore have to refer it to a no win no fee company but was just wondering if anyone had any better success for this flight and how they went about it.

How many times do we have to state FORGET THE CAA. read the posts on this site and the sticky posts. Write an NBA witha 14 or 21 day time limit

Markie11

Here's an update on my claim. Any advice or similar stories would be appreciated.

TXC6219 28th June 2013 from MAH to NCL - Flight Delayed by 7hours 20 mins. This is based upon the time the flight arrived back in NCL after the original scheduled arrival time.

4th July - Using the standard template I created a claim for compensation plus additional costs incurred.

16th July - Received the standard template response saying "Having carried out a full investigation it would appear that your flight was not delayed for the qualifying period specified in the regulation. In view of this a payment is not applicable under the rules of the scheme".

16th July - Responded to ask them to check again, based upon arrival time not departure (diverted to Barcelona and delayed there).

26th July - No response received so called. CS agent said they had received by email but still in closed case status. I asked her to re-open and be investigated again because they are wrong.

1st August - I performed a bit further research. The aircraft used on the flight was YL-LCL. On googling this I came across a number of entries on a forum http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/350781-newcastle-8-a-197.html which lists a number of 'Tech' issues with this aircraft in the last few months.

2nd August - I called TC CS again to ask for an update. No Update, so I told them what I knew. This was recorded, so I'm told.

2nd August (eve) - received an email from TC rep who advised "Having carried out a full investigation the specific circumstances surrounding the delay to your own flight were of a technical nature. These were extraordinary, in that Thomas Cook took all reasonable precautions necessary to avoid the situation, and despite our proactive measures the problem could not have been prevented. All our aircraft are maintained to a very high standard, in line with CAA regulations, however, despite these steps, mechanical failures can arise without prior warning. These unpredictable events can be likened to those we encounter with our own cars, despite having full service histories, or MOT’s."

2nd Aug - I responded to their email saying it's strange that they changed their stance from "Not qualifying" to "Technical Issue". Did they really perform a "full" investigation 1st time round? I didn't see their point about "likened" to issues with our cars. These aren't extraordinary, as far as I'm concerned.

Even though I don't have full details of the technical issues (I have requested), the fact the aircraft has a history of issues (as per the link above) then do you think I have a case for claim still through the courts?

111KAB

Markie11 wrote: »

Even though I don't have full details of the technical issues (I have requested), the fact the aircraft has a history of issues (as per the link above) then do you think I have a case for claim still through the courts?

The fact that a plane has a history of problems has no bearing on your valid claim. A technical problem with a plane is an ordinary occurrence it is not an extraordinary circumstance and as such you are entitled to compensation.

Markie11

111KAB wrote: »

The fact that a plane has a history of problems has no bearing on your valid claim. A technical problem with a plane is an ordinary occurrence it is not an extraordinary circumstance and as such you are entitled to compensation.

Why won't they listen to that though? Are they just blagging this? or do they have a genuine case here?

I suppose without knowing what the actual technical issue is/was then we're stuck.

Oliver_Klozoff_2

Markie11 wrote: »

Here's an update on my claim. Any advice or similar stories would be appreciated.

TXC6219 28th June 2013 from MAH to NCL - Flight Delayed by 7hours 20 mins. This is based upon the time the flight arrived back in NCL after the original scheduled arrival time.

4th July - Using the standard template I created a claim for compensation plus additional costs incurred.

16th July - Received the standard template response saying "Having carried out a full investigation it would appear that your flight was not delayed for the qualifying period specified in the regulation. In view of this a payment is not applicable under the rules of the scheme".

16th July - Responded to ask them to check again, based upon arrival time not departure (diverted to Barcelona and delayed there).

26th July - No response received so called. CS agent said they had received by email but still in closed case status. I asked her to re-open and be investigated again because they are wrong.

1st August - I performed a bit further research. The aircraft used on the flight was YL-LCL. On googling this I came across a number of entries on a forum http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/350781-newcastle-8-a-197.html which lists a number of 'Tech' issues with this aircraft in the last few months.

2nd August - I called TC CS again to ask for an update. No Update, so I told them what I knew. This was recorded, so I'm told.

2nd August (eve) - received an email from TC rep who advised "Having carried out a full investigation the specific circumstances surrounding the delay to your own flight were of a technical nature. These were extraordinary, in that Thomas Cook took all reasonable precautions necessary to avoid the situation, and despite our proactive measures the problem could not have been prevented. All our aircraft are maintained to a very high standard, in line with CAA regulations, however, despite these steps, mechanical failures can arise without prior warning. These unpredictable events can be likened to those we encounter with our own cars, despite having full service histories, or MOT’s."

2nd Aug - I responded to their email saying it's strange that they changed their stance from "Not qualifying" to "Technical Issue". Did they really perform a "full" investigation 1st time round? I didn't see their point about "likened" to issues with our cars. These aren't extraordinary, as far as I'm concerned.

Even though I don't have full details of the technical issues (I have requested), the fact the aircraft has a history of issues (as per the link above) then do you think I have a case for claim still through the courts?

Why should they take you seriously if you keep at this way? NBA requesting full report with details and then MCOL. Unless you put some heat on them they won't budge. They have to issue you the details as part of their court defence. Worst case scenario you can drop it if you wish but likely scenario is they'll try to settle...just my opinion based on how things usually go with TC. I don't have the info or expertise to give you betting odds but I'll bet you my house you will get nothing continuing on like this.

111KAB

Markie11 wrote: »

Why won't they listen to that though? Are they just blagging this? or do they have a genuine case here?
I suppose without knowing what the actual technical issue is/was then we're stuck.

You will find out the technical reason (if you really want it) later in the day. Of course they are blagging - wouldn't you to get out of paying something? You are not stuck > either take them to court yourself or if you are frightened then message Coby Benson and loose some of your entitlement.

flymeaway

Mark2spark wrote: »

IMO take any monies currently offered, whilst making it clear that action on the 2nd dispute continues.
If they don't pay up for the first flight if you say you're continuing, make it clear that you're going to apply for interest on the amount.
Hopefully get all the above in writing as well.

Thanks for this - I have asked for confirmation of such in writing and made them aware I will defo continue with action on the inbound flight - they said they will get back to me tomorrow

Vauban

Markie11 wrote: »

Why won't they listen to that though? Are they just blagging this? or do they have a genuine case here?

I suppose without knowing what the actual technical issue is/was then we're stuck.

As Kim says, this is the tactic that a number of airlines have adopted in order to deter claimants from pursuing compensation. In truth, you don't need to know the detail of the technical failures. It doesn't matter whether the components were within their expected shelf life, whether the maintenance regime was unable to pick them up, or whether this was an unusual technical failing. All these factors are irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.

For those looking for some reassurance, can I suggest you read this interesting article by the eminent aviation lawyers, Bird&Bird from 2009: http://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2009/denied-boarding-regulations

(Regular readers of this column will know that "Two Birds" are now acting as the defence counsel for Jet2 - so probably regret this publication now!)

The airline industry made an incredible fuss about the Sturgeon judgement (that said three hours delays were to be treated as cancellations). Does anything really think they've have done that if they thought technical failures could usually be described as "extraordinary circumstances"? By law, they simply can't - which is why the airlines effectively "appealed" Sturgeon. And they lost. So this is their last stand. Pathetic, really.