Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

Vauban

Well done - so what was your original claim for? Will be useful for others to see.

Interesting feedback from the judge: but, given that, why did you settle for less than you were entitled to, having gone all the way?

barryb123

Vauban wrote: »

Well done - so what was your original claim for? Will be useful for others to see.

Interesting feedback from the judge: but, given that, why did you settle for less than you were entitled to, having gone all the way?

On reflection I should have carried on but hey ho. I was probably over concerned with some kind of appeal dragging it out. My flight was Cancun Manchester, 8 December 2009, TCX234k/L. The plane had a load 15 report which is caused by hard landing. This had a knock on for crew hours etc which caused the delay. There was never any EC for the hard landing. Why they contested it I"ll never know.

batman44

barryb123 wrote: »

I've just got back from court having agreed compensation with TC. This case is 4 years old. They sent a barrister, employee, engineer and two observers. The Judge supplied us all with the Huzar prior to going in. He told TC there was noway he would go against that decision pointing to paragraph 27. TC said that due to Airbus being called out there may be an issue over that. We discussed it outside and I got £1040 including costs. I probably should have gone for the lot but looking at previous cases appeals etc I wanted a quick resolution. And by the way a TC rep said that Huzar will batter them. It seems barring what the public would agree are EC's the airlines are there for the taking.

My claim has just been posted. Also picked this up from a high placed barristers website.

There is no civil code in England; English civil law comprises of essentially legislation by Parliament and
decisions by the courts. English courts interpret legislation and are usually required to follow decisions on
the same issue by a court of equivalent or higher status.
Legislation and decisions of the courts are subject to legislation adopted by the European Council and
decisions of the Court of Justice.

Continued
So there you go people well done to Huzar!:j

batman44

batman44 wrote: »

My claim has just been posted. Also picked this up from a high placed barristers website.

There is no civil code in England; English civil law comprises of essentially legislation by Parliament and
decisions by the courts. English courts interpret legislation and are usually required to follow decisions on
the same issue by a court of equivalent or higher status.
Legislation and decisions of the courts are subject to legislation adopted by the European Council and
decisions of the Court of Justice.

Continued
So there you go people well done to Huzar!:j

Sorry should have said my court case claim has just been sent as you cannot claim for a minor under 18 via MCOL. Maybe it could be worthwhile sending an email to TC refering this case- para 27.

richardw

barryb123 wrote: »

...... a TC rep said that Huzar will batter them.....

The airlines will still benefit from a large number of passengers not being bothered to claim and the lack of the NEBs having any teeth.

sging1

Hi guys

Not been on for a while but my court date is set for the beginning of January. I won’t go into details again as its all on here.

I thought I would however update you on my CAA report. Thomas Cook refused to co-operate with the CAA as they said it was being dealt with by the courts.

In my allocation hearing the DJ ordered that the CAA and Thomas Cook complete the report, which I have been waiting on since February this year. It then arrived and as expected the CAA came back in favour of Thomas Cook, based on this new list they created/made up AFTER I filed my claim. They said they uphold it was Extraordinary Circumstances.

What was so strange is how wrong the CAA got the report. They said damage was noticed to the steering whilst being pushed from the stand, this was not true, the pilot did an emergency stop just as we were about to lift into the air at full throttle and we were towed back off the runway and subsequently the pilot reported it was the primary and secondary seals that had both failed on the hydraulic steering.

They then went onto say a second fault was then found and said that after fixing the faults, it failed again but they then said airlines cannot be expected to have spare parts in distant airports (Barbados) good point but they just said they fixed it with spare parts that failed again!!!

The CAA went on to say they did everything they could and flew out spare parts and then used that plane to fly us home, another lie, as the plane they flew us home on was destined for the passengers the next day. We had a delay of 24 hours and these passengers then got delayed 55 hours due to us having their plane.

The pilot also told us they were trying to get parts off another plane, as I remember, “that’s worrying using second hand parts”, if they had no chance of getting parts why did they keep us sat on the plane for over five hours.

Anyway, for those of you relying on the CAA they are nearly every time siding with the airlines, in contradiction to what the CAA rep said on Watchdog for the second time about three weeks ago, he said they are for the consumer.

PS. Another strange occurrence is that the courts have said the CAA report cannot be used as evidence as it is not binding evidence and only an opinion, so after all that, back to square one.

We are now so determined to win what is rightly and lawfully ours and especially after all they have put us through on the day and all through this year dealing with them, all our party are clubbing together to send a Barrister to represent us on our day in court. My house insurance agreed to pay all the other costs and part of a barristers fees, but would not fund the full cost of a Barrister due to the total cost outstripping what we would win (that’s another issue). However, it must be costing Thomas Cook much more than what they would pay out by now as they a have already sent one Barrister to court against when I was in court and now they have to send another one.

Vauban

Sorry to hear about this sging1: but it vindicates what many of us have been saying about the CAA for some time.

Fortunately for you, the Huzar judgement seems to have come just in time. Make sure you send a copy to your court!

David_e

barryb123 wrote: »

The Judge supplied us all with the Huzar prior to going in. He told TC there was noway he would go against that decision pointing to paragraph 27.

That's very interesting indeed! Did he do this off his own bat, do you know? It would be nice to think that all judges were aware of relevant similar cases but I am surprised that the judge actually raised the case given that it isn't a binding precedent. I assumed it would be for the claimant to raise it as part of their claim 'evidence'.

Anyway, very glad to hear that it worked in your favour.

batman44

I think i will send a email to TC in light of this judgement.

111KAB

batman44 wrote: »

I think i will send a email to TC in light of this judgement.

Don't waste time .... just send them an invoice :rotfl: