Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

Vauban

taxidirect wrote: »

Yes it was Travlaw and no the judge would have done of the Knock-On part. He told me I could not use it against them as it was the same plane. I did quote McDonagh case but he would have none of it.
One thing made me think. If the Judge says that people cant use the Small Claims Court of do this type of case then why do they accept the case when you first take it out. Maybe I should ask for my money back.

Taxi: can I ask: was this point (that you had no standing to bring a case) in the airlines original defence? And what arguments did you use to counter it?

maxpax_2

I have received an acknowledgement email from TC having sent them a letter regarding our diversion to Barcelona on Flight TCX6239 from Majorca which left at 11:00am (Local time) Saturday 28 September and eventually landed at Newcastle at 8:35 (Local time) on Sunday 29 September. Pilots reason: Technical difficulty - Hydraulics problem. We eventually landed in Barcelona 20 minutes prior to when we would have landed had we continued to Newcastle! I don't understand why we couldn't have just continued to Newcastle. I will post updates as they happen. Wish me luck lol.

taxidirect

Hi Vauban
Yes that what the judge said in his summing up. That I would not have won, even if I had won on the EC. He said that I could not claim damages (400 euro) per person against Thomas Cook in an English Court. I could only claim via the CAA.
I told the judge that the CAA was not interested and that I had already tried contacting them. Then Travlaw added that I should have gone to the Greek version of the CAA. I had no idea that Travlaw were going to use this argument.
The judge was annoyed that the UK CAA would not take on the case and told me that I should seek a Judicial review....I wonder how much that would cost, a lot I expect.
So my question is that if you cant win even when you can, then why does the Small Claims Court accept these cases in the first place.

It seems the answer then is best not to get stuck coming back from holiday I guess.

JPears

taxidirect wrote: »

Their EC was a good one, damage to engine. I only found this out after taking Thomas Cook to Court and reading it in their defence papers. Thomas Cook had refused to give the reason for the EC until that time. My EC was on the same Aircraft so not on my flight but two flights earlier (about 12 hours). I had to go for it so I don't feel too bad.

Maybe Coby Benson will get in touch regarding an appeal. The judge is clearly incorrect in my opinion regarding the use of small claims for this regulation.

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

Maybe Coby Benson will get in touch regarding an appeal. The judge is clearly incorrect in my opinion regarding the use of small claims for this regulation.

But it wasnt part of the grounds for finding against the claimant. It was on ECs only.

Notgoingaway

taxidirect wrote: »

Just got back from losing my case against Thomas Cook this afternoon.
The judge agreed that extraordinary circumstances was valid. More worryingly in his summing up he told me that had I won on the EC, I would have still lost. He said that I and other claimants can not seek compensation by taking the Air Carriers to Court though the small claims court. I had to go through the Civil Aviation Authority. Even though the CAA would not take it on because the flight was from Green to the U.K.not the other way around. He said said that I could try for a Judicial review into the CAA.

One little crumb for me was that Thomas Cooks Solicitor asked for £390.00 costs against me for railfare's and hotel bills for him self and the two witness'es. The judge refused all costs. He said that at the moment Thomas Cook were looking to stamp on any individual who tries to bring a case against them and that Thomas Cook could afford the costs.

Gutted for you seems so unfair ,the judgements I have read about seem so inconsistent.please can I ask which court or area this was please?

Notgoingaway

At what point do all these extraordinary circumstances become ordinary circumstances? After all almost every delay from almost every airline is down to EC they're hardly extraordinary are they! They Happen all the time :mad:

grazzzz

Centipede100 wrote: »

Sorry to hear your news and the judge may be correct about the ECs as it is his finding of fact that counts in that respect.

However he is incorrect in law regarding the fact that individual claimants may not bring a case for compensation against the airlines rather than the CAA.

The McDonagh v Ryanair case dealt very specifically with the admissibility of claims by individuals rather than NEBs (CAA) in paras 18-23 of that judgment: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62011CJ0012:EN:HTML

the judge was a dinosaur
para 24 states

24 Consequently, it must be held that an air passenger may invoke before a national court the failure of an air carrier to comply with its obligation, laid down in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004, to provide care in order to obtain compensation from that air carrier for the costs which it should have borne under those provisions.

taxidirect

Hi Notgoingaway.

The case was as Dartford County Court.

grazzzz

taxidirect wrote: »

Hi Notgoingaway.

The case was as Dartford County Court.

Did you not point out paragraph 18 to 24 ? Or did you not get the chance? Interested to know how it went as a few of us have our days in court soon and although it's no consolation to you and it shows how unfair the court system is if your judge isn't up to speed ! Your experience of how it went can help others.
I would appeal