Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

Oliver_Klozoff_2

batman44 wrote: »

Posted my claim off and had responses, usual technical circustances fob off,now in regard to the new proposal to ammend the regulations next year and the added definition of technical circumstances issued by the NEB this will discount almost any technical issues claims how long would it take to go via court or claims service. My next step is NBA and then mcol, my claim relates to and engine failure so If i delay it will not be covered when the new rules/regulation is introduced. I have put my case together and found a wealth of information and I will post this on here when i have finished my case, this will help many people. From now what timescales is it taking for this to go through courts?

I would be interested to know this too, best guess is it depends on the court. I've heard it can take 9 months.

batman44

Centipede100 wrote: »

Whether you delay your claim by a week or 4 years will not matter since the claim will be heard on the law prevailing at the date of your delay not under what revisions or changes in regs may take place in future.

Thanks for that it is comforting to know as reading through all the documents and regulations it was worring that the airlines and enforcing bobies has managed to convince the EU to change the regs on this, its looking like anything other than acts of god or strikes will not be concidered. Was thinking of going via a NWNF firm but now I can pursue this knowing the law is as when the incident happened or claim made. I know the airline may use the new NEB guidelines to convince the judge or at least delay this until april next year. Is there an indication or site link that this info is available to add to my case just in case i need to refer to it? thanks.

bazaar_2

batman44 wrote: »

Posted my claim off and had responses, usual technical circustances fob off,now in regard to the new proposal to ammend the regulations next year and the added definition of technical circumstances issued by the NEB this will discount almost any technical issues claims how long would it take to go via court or claims service. My next step is NBA and then mcol, my claim relates to and engine failure so If i delay it will not be covered when the new rules/regulation is introduced. I have put my case together and found a wealth of information and I will post this on here when i have finished my case, this will help many people. From now what timescales is it taking for this to go through courts?

its only a proposal to amend the regs, its not set in stone. I would have faith in the EU court to throw out much of it

bazaar_2

batman44 wrote: »

Thanks for that it is comforting to know as reading through all the documents and regulations it was worring that the airlines and enforcing bobies has managed to convince the EU to change the regs on this, its looking like anything other than acts of god or strikes will not be concidered. Was thinking of going via a NWNF firm but now I can pursue this knowing the law is as when the incident happened or claim made. I know the airline may use the new NEB guidelines to convince the judge or at least delay this until april next year. Is there an indication or site link that this info is available to add to my case just in case i need to refer to it? thanks.

you need to make your claim first, then see what they will use as a defence, if this differs in any way from what theyve already told you, use it against them, as they have prevaricted and caused this claim to occur by denying you

ANNA

TC have settled my claim a week before we were due in Court.

Star9272

Centipede100 wrote: »

Whether you delay your claim by a week or 4 years will not matter since the claim will be heard on the law prevailing at the date of your delay not under what revisions or changes in regs may take place in future.

This is really usefull thank you, I have 3 claims and Ive noticed some of the wording of the airlines responses have been along the lines of the CAA new guidelines Preventable Pridictable etc

dawyldthing

Just seen this on the facebook site, just looks like they just send the standard response to everyone no matter what the problem:

I'm sure that many of your customers would be concerned to find out just how family UNfriendly Thomas Cook Airline was recently when it denied boarding to my 6 year old daughter because she was...wait for it...travel sick.

We were refused boarding at London Stansted and were forced to buy new tickets for another flight (fortunately the same day) from Gatwick.

This meant a very distressing episode at Stansted when we had to bid farewell to my other 6 yr old daughter (her twin sister) and my elderly mother and make our own arrangements to cross London.

Thomas Cook Airlines' response?
1. The EU Air Passenger Charter does not apply (it does),
2. There was no delay (I claimed for denial of boarding, not delay)
3. (the best part):

"On receipt of your initial claim a full investigation was carried out by the airline into the circumstances surrounding this delay. This investigation included analysis of historical maintenance data, discussions with engineers, and a review of the activity of our other aircraft at the time. Following this thorough process we remain confident that the technical fault was extraordinary and that we took all reasonable measures possible to avoid the delay in question."

Remember, the child was travel sick!

The final response from Customer Services?

"Thank you for your further correspondence. As stated in my previous <email/letter> a decision has been made on your claim and I am unable to add anything further. I have now closed your case."

So how family-friendly can Thomas Cook Airlines now claim to be??

macatelier

That's the exact same response I got when our delay was due to no available pilot.

Johnny_N

First post. Today I received standard TC "technical nature" fob off letter, so I'm now drafting my NBA (skipping CAA referral after reading advice on here).

I'm basing my NBA on Centipede's template which refers to C-629/10. My question is, given the technical issues excuse, should I also refer to the joined cases of C-402/07 and C-432/07 since they are cited in the Judgement of the Court that states technical problems are not EC?

I'm also referring them to the new NEB guidance that lists two types of tech issues, (31) and (32), both of which appear under the “List of circumstances which are NOT extraordinary”.

Is this overkill for an NBA?

dxc_chappie

Johnny_N wrote: »

First post. Today I received standard TC "technical nature" fob off letter, so I'm now drafting my NBA (skipping CAA referral after reading advice on here).

I'm basing my NBA on Centipede's template which refers to C-629/10. My question is, given the technical issues excuse, should I also refer to the joined cases of C-402/07 and C-432/07 since they are cited in the Judgement of the Court that states technical problems are not EC?

I'm also referring them to the new NEB guidance that lists two types of tech issues, (31) and (32), both of which appear under the “List of circumstances which are NOT extraordinary”.

Is this overkill for an NBA?

You can refer to Wallentin in your NBA, but I'd leave out the new neb guidance as it has no basis in law.