Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

Mark2spark

Thirded-id-id begorra

aylin_2

Ianskarlie wrote: »

That's the one....was sent to me by email just under 3 hours from the initial response email from TC customer relations saying they needed to 'thoroughly' investigate my complaint....Makes me laugh !!

In June I had a letter with we HAVE investigated your complaint , one side, and the standard we apologise for the delay and we ARE investigating your complaint the other side, two different 'signees' back to back and an enclosed statement saying they were having problems printing letters...YOU BET THEY ARE..... I also got a letter offering me £350 vouchers without any reference to which flight they were compensating me for . I wrote over a week ago giving them 7 working days to comply with the law and pay by cheque. The whole situation is laughable. I start court proceedings after 20th August. (unless Thomas Cook respond or they go to the receivers first) I do wonder why they are using such delaying tactics ??? Do they know something their customers don't ?

aylin_2

gillpet wrote: »

Thomas Cook have emailed me to say I have to prove I was on the delayed flight, does anyone know if that is the case?

yes..... of course you need proof you were on the flight.

hisue

hi can any1 help my delay was 29-5-2011... on return journey homeward bound the problem i have is... iv found out what flight we were on through t cook but i dont have no bording pass .. tickets etc etc ..tcook have said they need more evidence i was on this flight .. can i get this info elsewhere... looked back on my emails nothing to support there

CobyBenson

aylin, hisue,

If you took this to court then you'd simply need to prove 'on the balance of probabilities' that you were on the flight.

You don't need to do this by showing boarding passes, tickets etc, you can do this by writing a witness statement and perhaps a statement from anybody who can also confirm you were on the flight.

I have little doubt the airlines have full records of every single person on a flight, so this is just another tactic to try and put people off claiming.

jackndaz

alberto2012 wrote: »

Exactly. So not 'extraordinary' at all...

With being busy at work, two young kids in the house I dont have the luxury to sit and disect every page on this forum, look for / read every legal document available to see if I have a chance of getting compensation.

But the odd post from people on here is encouraging.

Its David vs Goliath in a way eh.

Id just like to be sure that I have a case to 'fight'...

I work, I also have a 5yr old and a 7yr old but I managed to "find the time" not the luxury to read through every single post on here, I was fully aware that if I wanted to start my fight for compensation then it would not just be given to me on a plate and if you really want it then you will have to work damn hard to get it. If you really think you have a chance then DO the hard work or give it to a NWNF company or walk away.

sging1

Vauban wrote: »

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.

Excellent explanation, hope the CAA reads it and they may then take off the presumptuous rubbish they have put on their site

sging1

picardygirl wrote: »

Im not posting for advice (but any welcome )Just posting to say what we've done/will be doing!

Weve done our initial letter to TC, to get back the standard letter blah blah ...... read FAQ, ring our bank as we get free "legal help", that was useless, as they advised they cant help but only "advise" and advised us to contact CAA (but they also advised me to check on here as this website gives some brilliant advice, shame they dont read it themselves!)

So check house insurance to see that we have "family legal cover" which we pay an additional premium for each year, to be told til we have contacted and had a response from CAA they cant help us .... so back to drawing board ...... i'll be composing my email with an NBA tonight (as that is how TC have been corresponding with us)!

My case is with the CAA due to the judge ordering it to be and making TC cooperate with them as they wouldn’t. But my legal cover is covering me after I gave them a little push and I have my lawyer in place who is well on board, even though we have to wait to see what the CAA comes back with first, which not going to make any difference if they don’t go our way, as it will go back to court if it needs to.

friendofbillw2

sging1 wrote: »

Excellent explanation, hope the CAA reads it and they may then take off the presumptuous rubbish they have put on their site

Don't hold your breath.

Rather than being the National ENFORCEMENT Body, the CAA are the lapdog of the airlines. No more than a trade body full of yes men all harking back to customer relations policies of the 1970s.

My idea of a government appointed AUTHORITY (yes folks, that's in their title!) is one that UPHOLDS the law, not supports the people it is supposed to bring into line with increasingly desperate attempts to weasel OUT of their legal OBLIGATIONS and leave customers treated abominably and high and dry.

Let's hope the European Courts tear up their 'guidelines', punch a hole in the corner and hang it up in the toilet cubicles in Brussels.

And let's get an INDEPENDENT REGULATOR to oversee the airlines, not these patsies.

rosgrech

What happens when information on Flight Stats tells you that that flight did not exist?

Dalaman to Gatwick 27 Oct 2011 flight TCX1703 - we were certainly put on it, admittedly 3+ hours late and consequently missing our Nat XP booking to the other side of England - but that's the correct flight number.

What to do next?