Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

VOB72

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

If you are actually claiming against Thomas Cook PLC they have every right to be clever as you are clearly claiming against the wrong entity :eek: and you're not even doing a good job of that.

Thomas Cook Airlines Limited, the company you should have named is a subsidiary of Thomas Cook Group UK Limited, which is a subsidiary of Mytravel Group Plc which is a subsidiary of Thomas Cook Investments (2) Ltd, which is a subsidiary of Thomas Cook Group Plc :rotfl:

So not only have you tried to take action against a parent company which is four removed, you haven't even managed to do that as you've named them incorrectly :beer:

If you have named Thomas Cook Plc as the defendant get it rectified ASAP

You really need to check every detail time and time again and be 100% certain of them before proceeding with legal action. Missing the finer details can easily result in you walking away with nothing, missing the big ones is completely inexcusable.

I am in exactly the same boat as I named them as TC Group UK Limited and their first para in the defence is it is wrong and should be Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd. This can easily happen - I used the address TC used on ALL their previous correspondence to me therefore it is a natural assumption that you name the person who is writing to you and you address it to the address they have written from!

As Trav Law advised the court of this error in their Directions Questionnaire, I assumed the court would automatically amend the details. But from what people now say on the forum, I may not even have a case against those we've named. I agree with Steve1500 that Trav Law are stalling and playing a game, afterall they have accepted the case on behalf of the defendant known as Thomas Cook or whatever they actually call themselves. But it's been a long hard slog for 4 months and I don't want to lose it all just for an incorrect name. So how do the (probably many) claimants in this situation go about correcting this?

maghater

stevieboy65 wrote: »

My family and I were delayed almost five hours on our flight from Manchester to Sharm El Sheikh last year. We have corresponded with Thomas Cook who quoted 'Extraordinary Circumstances'. We got in touch with the CAA who advised we would have a case for compensation. We went back to TC who fobbed us off with 'extraordinary circumstances' again and basically advised they were not taking the matter any further. The main thing that annoys me is that I have seen where many claims seem to have been paid out with very similar or exactly the same reasons but with mine I am not getting anywhere.
Has anybody got any advice for this frustrated passenger, please.

ball is in your court, you can either take them to court, appoint a no win no fee lawyer, or forget it. The way things are going at the moment, unless you have loads of spare time and patience, I would appoint a no win no fee lawyer.

DTDfanBoy

VOB72 wrote: »

I am in exactly the same boat as I named them as TC Group UK Limited and their first para in the defence is it is wrong and should be Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd. This can easily happen - I used the address TC used on ALL their previous correspondence to me therefore it is a natural assumption that you name the person who is writing to you and you address it to the address they have written from!

As Trav Law advised the court of this error in their Directions Questionnaire, I assumed the court would automatically amend the details. But from what people now say on the forum, I may not even have a case against those we've named. I agree with Steve1500 that Trav Law are stalling and playing a game, afterall they have accepted the case on behalf of the defendant known as Thomas Cook or whatever they actually call themselves. But it's been a long hard slog for 4 months and I don't want to lose it all just for an incorrect name. So how do the (probably many) claimants in this situation go about correcting this?

It's not a deal breaker unless Trev Law are representing Thomas Cook Group UK ltd. If they were they would be asking for the case to be struck out, and probably for costs as well , if they have filed a defence chances are they are representing Thomas Cook Airlines ltd.

If you're naming the wrong defendant and/or serving to an incorrect address you run the risk of gaining a judgment which is either unenforceable, or one that can easily be set aside at a later date. You'll have to start the process all over again.

I believe you can change the defendant via an N244, and Judge can certainly change things at the hearing.

Chances are the judge will want to clarify exactly which parties are involved as the first order of business, you're not giving a great impression when the first issue he has to deal with is correcting a mistake you have made.

I'd be certain that on the Judges scorecard the first point is going to Thomas Cook

I probably did word my previous post a bit harshly, but steve1500's comment rubbed me up the wrong way, when it comes to a legal matters there is nothing wrong with being ' clever ' it's a hell of a lot more preferable than being perceived as being a bit dim

VOB72

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

It's not a deal breaker unless Trev Law are representing Thomas Cook Group UK ltd. If they were they would be asking for the case to be struck out, and probably for costs as well , if they have filed a defence chances are they are representing Thomas Cook Airlines ltd.

If you're naming the wrong defendant and/or serving to an incorrect address you run the risk of gaining a judgment which is either unenforceable, or one that can easily be set aside at a later date. You'll have to start the process all over again.

I believe you can change the defendant via an N244, and Judge can certainly change things at the hearing.

Chances are the judge will want to clarify exactly which parties are involved as the first order of business, you're not giving a great impression when the first issue he has to deal with is correcting a mistake you have made.

The first point goes to Thomas Cook

I probably did word my previous post a bit harshly, but steve1500's comment rubbed me up the wrong way, when it comes to a legal matters there is nothing wrong with being ' clever ' it's a hell of a lot more preferable than being perceived as being a bit dim

Thanks DT. Yes, they have filed a defence so hopefully this shouldn't be a problem. \however, just to make sure, I have a hearing next month to add parties to the application so I will ask the judge to amend the parties then - not paying another £80 for a further N244!

dawyldthing

southy1 wrote: »

Hi I had email from bott too about court proceedings what flight were you on I was on TCX 506 Manchester to Dalaman 31/05/2010

Late June this year from Corfu to East Midlands. Seems ages ago now though

JPears

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

It's not a deal breaker unless Trev Law are representing Thomas Cook Group UK ltd. If they were they would be asking for the case to be struck out, and probably for costs as well , if they have filed a defence chances are they are representing Thomas Cook Airlines ltd.

If you're naming the wrong defendant and/or serving to an incorrect address you run the risk of gaining a judgment which is either unenforceable, or one that can easily be set aside at a later date. You'll have to start the process all over again.
post a bit harshly, but steve1500's comment rubbed me up the wrong way, when it comes to a legal matters there is nothing wrong with being ' clever ' it's a hell of a lot more preferable than being perceived as being a bit dim

To be fair to claimants, TC does operate under a plethora of companies, parent companies etc, last count was about 8 or 9. Unless you have an idea about limited companies, it is a bit of an obstacle course. Especially if your correspondence is from a different branch of the company.

batman44

I know what the reason for my flight delay and TC are claiming EC, shall I put the reason on my NBA letter and why i think they are wrong? Also my evidence and comfirmation from official bodies of the reason?

VOB72

JPears wrote: »

To be fair to claimants, TC does operate under a plethora of companies, parent companies etc, last count was about 8 or 9. Unless you have an idea about limited companies, it is a bit of an obstacle course. Especially if your correspondence is from a different branch of the company.

Nice to see someone who appreciates how difficult TC are being and that it's not just us claimants being stupid - I feel vindicated! Thank you JP!

maghater

The bottom line is that the European Court brought this legislation to improve the lot of the travelling public. The compensation levels are set to deter airlines from operating on the edge, however airlines such as TC continue to operate in such a manner. Paying fancy lawyers specialising in travel law to turn up in small claim courts and bulldoze the claimant is nothing short of a joke. How much must they be paying to defend each case?

Migsy

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could help? How do I find an old flight number to have a go at this delayed flight reclaim?
There were 4 of us on a flight from East Midlands to Rhodes with Thomas Cook on 30th July 2008. The flight was due to depart around 7am but we were delayed for 7-8 hours and advised that it was due to the plane being left standing over night and some sort of battery dying.
I wouldnt usually attempt this sort of thing but my father is now serverly disabled and if successful it could pay for a little treat for him.

Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks Migsy