Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

Oliver_Klozoff_2

Mummykate wrote: »

I'm so mad spoke to mcol TC have requested a application form to be sent out to set aside this takes several weeks to be put in front of a judge this is so unfair everything I've done as correct and to there registerd address and there just going to end up getting away with it

Somehow I thought you had a judgment or were about to request one, nevermind on the sherrif thing then.

Wait, they didn't answer your MCOL and now they're trying to get it put aside? How is this possible? On what grounds would this even be feasible?:(

jimcbob

Oliver_Klozoff wrote: »

Somehow I thought you had a judgment or were about to request one, nevermind on the sherrif thing then.

Wait, they didn't answer your MCOL and now they're trying to get it put aside? How is this possible? On what grounds would this even be feasible?:(

Even if the claim was properly served, the Court may set aside the default judgment under CPR rule 13.3, which says:

(1) In any other case, the court may set aside(GL) or vary a judgment entered under Part 12 if—
(a) the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim; or
(b) it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why—
(i) the judgment should be set aside or varied; or
(ii) the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.
(2) In considering whether to set aside (GL) or vary a judgment entered under Part 12, the matters to which the court must have regard include whether the person seeking to set aside the judgment made an application to do so promptly.

As a general rule, the Court will set aside a default judgment if (i) the application to do so is made promptly after the default judgment has been entered (certainly, anything within the order of (say) 1-2 weeks will be prompt) and (ii) there is a real prospect of a successful defence.

Oliver_Klozoff_2

jimcbob wrote: »

Even if the claim was properly served, the Court may set aside the default judgment under CPR rule 13.3, which says:

(1) In any other case, the court may set aside(GL) or vary a judgment entered under Part 12 if—
(a) the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim; or
(b) it appears to the court that there is some other good reason why—
(i) the judgment should be set aside or varied; or
(ii) the defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.
(2) In considering whether to set aside (GL) or vary a judgment entered under Part 12, the matters to which the court must have regard include whether the person seeking to set aside the judgment made an application to do so promptly.

As a general rule, the Court will set aside a default judgment if (i) the application to do so is made promptly after the default judgment has been entered (certainly, anything within the order of (say) 1-2 weeks will be prompt) and (ii) there is a real prospect of a successful defence.

Oh. Shows how much I know about the CPR rules. Looks like I found some reading for later. It just seems a bit much though. If they have to pay a legal team to handle stuff then surely they can outsource to another solicitor if the workload is too much?

jimcbob

Oliver_Klozoff wrote: »

Oh. Shows how much I know about the CPR rules. Looks like I found some reading for later. It just seems a bit much though. If they have to pay a legal team to handle stuff then surely they can outsource to another solicitor if the workload is too much?

Yes, but the logic is that a defendant should not generally be penalised by having judgment against him for the entire claim simply because of carelessness, if he acts promptly to put matters right. The court will generally say, therefore, the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly requires that the case be dealt with on the merits if the mistake was put right promptly and there is a real prospect of defending the claim.

JPears

Its a delaying, procrastinating tactic by TC, pure and simple. The legal team know the rules. They push the boundaries as far as possible.
And are we to believe that TC's legal team don't have the relevant paperwork to apply for setaside to hand? How very remiss and unprofessional of them. Form N244 easily downloadable
If this goes to court for the hearing for setaside then Mummykate really should push this point down the throat of the judge. If you have complied with all the CPR rules and pre court protocol - numerous letters, NBA etc etc - TC appear to have just been entirely disingenuous

Oliver_Klozoff_2

jimcbob wrote: »

Yes, but the logic is that a defendant should not generally be penalised by having judgment against him for the entire claim simply because of carelessness, if he acts promptly to put matters right. The court will generally say, therefore, the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly requires that the case be dealt with on the merits if the mistake was put right promptly and there is a real prospect of defending the claim.

I understand and appreciate what you are saying but I think we all know Thomas Cook isn't just being carelessness, they're taking advantage of the rules to procastinate! To be expected I suppose. Few of us have the resources they have to defend themselves so it just rubs one the wrong way to have this happen. Jpears has summed up my thoughts precisely, well put.

I realise that saying I will never fly Thomas Cook again doesn't matter, heck I'm just a peon to them and they don't give a toss after you pay. My other half and I frequently travel for work and holidays. So many other airlines to choose from and most won't charge silly fees for baggage, food, and cramped leg room. There is no money saving advantage to budget airlines when you factor in the costs.

You now what would get their attention? If someone organised a massive media reported Thomas Cook boycott on the grounds that when you pay for a ticket somewhere at a certain time there shouldn't routinely be delays as an operational procedure to cut costs. My flight ISN'T significantly delayed on average over 35% of the time according to stats (meaning it's on time or close to it just over 35% of the time). For a company which claims to value on-time performance as a key measure for them as a business, this is completely unacceptable. Since my flight a few months ago there have been well over a hundred delays which (likely, not a judge here) qualify for compensation under EC 261/2004. Who wants to bet TC will claim EC? Every day is extraordinary with TC!
:rotfl:

Okane1969

I have been sending emails back and forward to Thomas Cook for months now. We were delayed in Sanford for around 4 hours on 24/06/12 on return flight TCX 0635 to Glasgow.Received a phone call today from directors office regarding emails sent between us. On my last email there was a report from airline attached, what I can make out there was a broken PA on plane which caused delay in Glasgow. I am no expert but surely that's mechanical and not extra ordinary circumstances as they are standing by. I have been offered a voucher for £100 as a goodwill gesture ! Has anyone else on this flight made a claim and if so have you had any luck .

Mummykate

I don't even think I get the chance to go to court when it is set aside so looks like Thomas cook are going to get there way FOR NOW

JPears

Mummykate wrote: »

I don't even think I get the chance to go to court when it is set aside so looks like Thomas cook are going to get there way FOR NOW

I believe there has to be a hearing for the set aside, so you will need all your arguements ready why they should not set aside. It may also be useful to have reasoned arguements as to why you think TC does not have a reasonable chance of defending itself as that would appear to be the only reason they have for set aside.
I presume you will be sent a copy of the N244 by the court. If not request one so you know where they are coming from. (cloud cukoo land?)

Mummykate

My friend works for Thomas cook and she also said they delay flights on purpose don't know how true this is ??