Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

David_e

HornyToed wrote: »

Am planning to ask what tech diffs were; when and where they occurred? Why they were unable to make adjustments etc. Have you had any further luck?

These are my thoughts:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/...postcount=4238

Suz1982

I've been in a battle with Thomas Cook for what feels like forever for a flight Manchester-Cuba that had a 23 hour delay November 2012 due to technical problems/plane setting off ok then turning back when there was an engine fault. This was the infamous G-OMYT plane that had 3 instances exactly like this in a very short space of time.

We took the court route, went to court only to get this deferred pending the results of the Huzar case. Then last month we received a Court Order strikes out theDefendant’s (TC's) claim and provides for liberty for the Claimant (us) to enter Judgment. I wanted to research what this actually menat, but I've now received the following from TC's legal team:


Dear xxx

I write further to my below e-mail. As you can see, Thomas CookAirlines have instructed this firm to represent them in respect of your claim.You should therefore send any further correspondence to us.

Although the Court has paved the way for you to enter Judgment Iwould ask you to not do so. If you do my client will certainly make a formalapplication to the Court which seems entirely unnecessary given it will mostlikely mean another attendance at the Court.

As you consider this let me offer you the following thinking: I can see thatyou have researched and kept abreast of the developments of flight delay claimsand so will be aware of the Huzar case. It is no secret that bothairlines and consumers await this decision with great interest as it may changethe way we all look at these claims one way or another. It is also no secretthat dependant upon what the Court of Appeal says your own claim may becomestronger or weaker. It is with this uncertainty that the vast majority ofclaimants agree that a stay pending the Huzar decision is simplysensible. Dependant upon what the Court of Appeal says this particular delaymay not be one that Thomas Cook will decide to continue contesting.

With that in mind I would ask you to agree in writing (e-mail willsuffice) to the draft directions I have previously sent (in my last e-mail) toallow this claim to continue as previously intended. There is no prejudice toyour case at all – we would simply be waiting until the Court of Appeal’sdecision, which I would expect would be in June/July time.

What do people think we should do? My husband says it's no skin off our nose to enter judgement and inconveniance them as they've inconvenianced us so much. I've done SO much research about the tecahnical problems/different cases/history of these types of cases but I'm no legal expert and would appreciate some advice!!

JPears

Suz1982 wrote: »

I've been in a battle with Thomas Cook for what feels like forever for a flight Manchester-Cuba that had a 23 hour delay November 2012 due to technical problems/plane setting off ok then turning back when there was an engine fault. This was the infamous G-OMYT plane that had 3 instances exactly like this in a very short space of time.

We took the court route, went to court only to get this deferred pending the results of the Huzar case. Then last month we received a Court Order strikes out theDefendant’s (TC's) claim and provides for liberty for the Claimant (us) to enter Judgment. I wanted to research what this actually menat, but I've now received the following from TC's legal team:


Dear xxx

I write further to my below e-mail. As you can see, Thomas CookAirlines have instructed this firm to represent them in respect of your claim.You should therefore send any further correspondence to us.

Although the Court has paved the way for you to enter Judgment Iwould ask you to not do so. If you do my client will certainly make a formalapplication to the Court which seems entirely unnecessary given it will mostlikely mean another attendance at the Court.

As you consider this let me offer you the following thinking: I can see thatyou have researched and kept abreast of the developments of flight delay claimsand so will be aware of the Huzar case. It is no secret that bothairlines and consumers await this decision with great interest as it may changethe way we all look at these claims one way or another. It is also no secretthat dependant upon what the Court of Appeal says your own claim may becomestronger or weaker. It is with this uncertainty that the vast majority ofclaimants agree that a stay pending the Huzar decision is simplysensible. Dependant upon what the Court of Appeal says this particular delaymay not be one that Thomas Cook will decide to continue contesting.

With that in mind I would ask you to agree in writing (e-mail willsuffice) to the draft directions I have previously sent (in my last e-mail) toallow this claim to continue as previously intended. There is no prejudice toyour case at all – we would simply be waiting until the Court of Appeal’sdecision, which I would expect would be in June/July time.

What do people think we should do? My husband says it's no skin off our nose to enter judgement and inconveniance them as they've inconvenianced us so much. I've done SO much research about the tecahnical problems/different cases/history of these types of cases but I'm no legal expert and would appreciate some advice!!

My opinion, for what its worth? It is the Judge that has thrown out TCs defence, without any input from you. One would suspect that the Judge thinks TCs defence is not valid, irrespective of Huzar. The out come of Huzar will only strengthen your case if Huzar wins, or maintain the status quo if Jet2 win, as the case law is still based on Wallentin. Given this well documented afflicted aircraft and its iffy Rolls Royce engine I say go ahead, seek Judgement.
Agree entirely with your last comments/husband's reasoning!
Maybe the more learned Coby Benson might have thoughts on this.

Vauban

Suz: It would be interesting to know why the Court has struck out the airline's defence. But basically I think you go for the kill - the airline is literally defenceless and I don't see how they can appeal a judgement (or frankly that they'd be bothered). And if they do, so what? They're disarmed and bluffing - go for the jugular!

[EDIT: I see JP and I are in agreement!]

JPears

Vauban wrote: »

Suz: It would be interesting to know why the Court has struck out the airline's defence. But basically I think you go for the kill - the airline is literally defenceless and I don't see how they can appeal a judgement (or frankly that they'd be bothered). And if they do, so what? They're disarmed and bluffing - go for the jugular!

[EDIT: I see JP and I are in agreement!]

Always Lord Prof....

Suz1982

JPears wrote: »

My opinion, for what its worth? It is the Judge that has thrown out TCs defence, without any input from you. One would suspect that the Judge thinks TCs defence is not valid, irrespective of Huzar. The out come of Huzar will only strengthen your case if Huzar wins, or maintain the status quo if Jet2 win, as the case law is still based on Wallentin. Given this well documented afflicted aircraft and its iffy Rolls Royce engine I say go ahead, seek Judgement.
Agree entirely with your last comments/husband's reasoning!
Maybe the more learned Coby Benson might have thoughts on this.

Thanks for this. Apparently TC had to respond to the court by a date in February which they failed to do. So it seems to be the sloppy admin of TC/their legal team rather than the judge thinking their defence isn't valid...

Vauban

Suz1982 wrote: »

Thanks for this. Apparently TC had to respond to the court by a date in February which they failed to do. So it seems to be the sloppy admin of TC/their legal team rather than the judge thinking their defence isn't valid...

But they don't have a defence at the moment, as it has been struck out. So I would take up the invitation of the court to request judgement. And if the best that you get is to cause TC inconvenience, then that's mini-payback. But I reckon you'll get a better result than that ...

JPears

TC look as though they are squirming.....

Stuart783

I have been in dialogue with Thomas Cook for nearly two years now with regards to a ten hour delay , Sanford - Glasgow in 2011. CAA ruled in my favour . March 2013 Thomas Cook stated that the delay was due to technical problems. We were told at the airport that the delay was due to a technical problem with another plane, not ours and there had been a knock on effect. I asked for further clarification with regards to the exact nature of the technical problem and as this would influence my decision with regards to taking legal action. Eventually after several prompts i was advised that they had looked into the matter and that the problem was caused by industrial action !!!!!!! . I challenged the change in reason for delay but received no direct response to this . I also asked form exact details of the industrial action but again this has not been passed to me. I have now passed the case to Bott and Co. MY advise is to keep at it. Thomas Cook have tried everything to put me off , even to the extent of providing me with what appears to be false or contradictory information . Also keep alll your emails

Vauban

Stuart783 wrote: »

I have been in dialogue with Thomas Cook for nearly two years now with regards to a ten hour delay , Sanford - Glasgow in 2011. CAA ruled in my favour . March 2013 Thomas Cook stated that the delay was due to technical problems. We were told at the airport that the delay was due to a technical problem with another plane, not ours and there had been a knock on effect. I asked for further clarification with regards to the exact nature of the technical problem and as this would influence my decision with regards to taking legal action. Eventually after several prompts i was advised that they had looked into the matter and that the problem was caused by industrial action !!!!!!! . I challenged the change in reason for delay but received no direct response to this . I also asked form exact details of the industrial action but again this has not been passed to me. I have now passed the case to Bott and Co. MY advise is to keep at it. Thomas Cook have tried everything to put me off , even to the extent of providing me with what appears to be false or contradictory information . Also keep alll your emails

To be honest my lesson from this story is not to "keep at it" - two years of letter tennis didn't get you anywhere. If you think you have a case, which include technical or operational problems not caused by external events, then give the airline one chance to settle and then start legal action - through a NWNF firm or by yourself. Only the lucky ones get compensation without having to do this. (I wouldn't involve the CAA either, who seem generally to rule against passengers, and even if you're one of the "lucky" ones, it doesn't make any difference!)