Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

bigdogg

Been fighting TC since June 2013 for a 19 hour delay from Zante. I received a similar letter to jadeybaby as appeared on the last page as there defence. Today received the court questionaire and have returned it. My main piece of evidence is that I have an email from the Greek Aviation Authorities, which states the tech prob was noted on a previous flight and crew over hours were also cited as reasons for the delay, not EC. This was the third time they told TC to pay us and they found the info after reading the TC logs. I don't have any info on preparing a court bundle and would appreciate it if anyone could give me any guidelines as to what it should contain and how it should look.

Many Thanks

BD

111KAB

bigdogg wrote: »

My main piece of evidence is that I have an email from the Greek Aviation Authorities,

If that is your main evidence your claim is flawed as Judges whilst acknowledging the email have no jurisdiction to accept. You need to read through this entire thread as your claim should be based upon 261/2004 and Wallentin. Understand these documents and you are on your way!

David_e

bigdogg wrote: »

I don't have any info on preparing a court bundle and would appreciate it if anyone could give me any guidelines as to what it should contain and how it should look.

Covered in various posts if you use the search facility.

As 111KAB says, you need to understand, and use, the law. That's largely what your court bundle will consist of (if I understand correctly).

edtheduck_2

hi quick question - I am in middle of doing my court claim for TC (at long last!) and want to ask what address to use please? I know for the NBA I sent it to the Peterborough one, will I use that one, as the Head Office actually seems to be in London. Maybe it doesn't really matter?


Also just wondered if maybe you could include a link to making a claim online for those of us in Northern Ireland please in the appropriate post? www.courtsni.gov.uk as there are plenty of us I'm sure, that have made use of the great advice on here. It may also encourage people to post their progress or otherwise. I intend to :-)
Thanks

bshah999

TCX1518 20 August 2013 and TCX1519 27 August 2013

Outward flight delayed 8 hrs; Return flight delayed 11 hrs.

1)Thomas cook handed us details of how to claim from travel insurance despite knowing airline should pay in these circumstances
2)Submitted claims to Thomas Cook via their website
3)They acknowledged return flight delay; Ignored outward flight delay
4)Re-submitted outward flight claim, this time keeping prtscr evidence of submisson
5)Standard letter stating technical issues received for return flight. Still no acknowledgement of outward flight claim
6)Complained to CAA for both flights. After about three months, received e-mail from CAA saying technical issues did not count as extraordinary and that they had advised TC to pay compensation. CAA e-mail did not make it clear which flight this was for.
7)TC got in touch with us about 4 weeks later, offering vouchers in full and final compensation.
8)Asked TC for clarification which flight this was for ----> return flight
9)Accepted compensation, but asked for cash, not vouchers. TC readily agreed and received transfer into account about a week later.
10)Asked TC regarding outward flight - they said they were disputing liability with CAA
11)E-mailed CAA again. About three months later CAA again confirmed outward flight delay did not meet extraordinary circumstances and that they had advised TC to pay up and TC had agreed to - please chase airline directly if not heard within 4 weeks.
12)About 5 weeks later, no contact from TC, so chased them. Next day got email offering vouchers.
13)Once again asked for cash, and have now finally got it.
14)Total time 8 months from initial complaint on TC website - overall impression TC do everything they can to try to deflect claim, but do eventually listen to CAA adjudication.

Hope this helps someone.

purple_icecream

October 26th 2012 TCX247 Sanford to Gatwick
24 hr delay caused by our incoming plane which was diverted to Iceland, in the infamous G-OMYT

Hi all! Just about to prepare my court bundle and thought I would put the TC defence on here, firstly to show people what to expect a defence to look like (although I appreciate there will be variations in different scenarios) also I would appreciate any pointers (please) in what to include in my bundle in case I have missed anything. I have already done a bundle (with massive help from the amazing "Vauban") for a claim against Virgin last year and managed to get a pay out by a mediation phone call (TC have refused this) prior to my hearing.:D

Looks like TC aren't going to give in so easily, I did send a cheeky email earlier today asking for an out of court settlement, or if not, see you in court as I am prepared to face you! Will be checking my inbox every 2 mins!

So here it is:

1. The defendant is incorrectly named as Thomas Cook Group UK Limited. The correct defendant is thomas cook airlines limited, registered company number 02012379.
The defendant is an airline, specialising in the provision of international flights to the public.

2. The claimant alleged that she was booked on TC X247 from Sanford International airport (SFB) to London Gatwick (LGW) on 26th October 2012. No evidence of a contract between the claimant and defendant has been provided and the defendant reserves the right to plead further in this regard upon provision of the same.

3. In the absence of the information to the contrary it is not possible to admit or deny the number of persons for whom the booking was made. The defendant puts the claimant to strict proof with respect to compensation claimed on any discounted fares obtained in accordance with article 3(3) EC Regulation 261/2004.

4. It is admitted that the EC regulation 261/200 for (“the regulation”) applies to the claimants flights. This provides that compensation is payable in the event of cancelled flights and instances up denied boarding. It also provides that airlines are to provide welfare to passengers in the event of cancellation, denied boarding and delayed flights.
It is denied that the regulation expressly provides that compensation is payable in the event of a delayed flight.

5. The claimant’s compensation claim is based upon the decision of the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) in the joint cases of Sturgeon v Condor Flugdienst GmbH and Bock v Air France, cases C-402/07 and C-432/07 respectively, where it was determined that despite the regulation not expressly stating that compensation is applicable in the event of delay, the regulation is to be interpreted in such a way.

6. It is the defendant's case that the delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances. The aircraft registration number G–OMYT was diverted to Keflavik International airport (KEF) when there was an engine surge in-flight.

7. The defendant avers that an inspection of the technical log for aircraft registration number G–OMYT confirms that they were no previous faults recorded with respect to the engine.

8. It is averred that the provisions of the regulation are subject to the derogations to liability as contained in recitals 14 and 15 to the preamble of the regulation. It is further averred that the technical fault that caused the delay to the claimants flight is an extraordinary circumstance and as such compensation ought not to be applicable in all the circumstances.

9. The defendant avers that as per the regulations the UK National Enforcement Bodies (NEB), the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has published guidelines detailing a list of matters that can be regarded as extraordinary. It is the defendant’s submission that the circumstances that arose resulting in the delay fall under ‘unexpected flight safety shortcomings’ at paragraph 21. The defendant encloses the guidelines as Exhibit 1.

10. The defendant is aware that these guidelines are not binding on the court. The defendant avers that it took all reasonable measures possible in order to minimise delays by providing all passengers, including the claimant with overnight accommodation.

11. Should liability attach which is denied, it is averred that the applicable amount per passenger is €600 as the claimants flight was in excess of 3500 km for the purposes of the regulation. It is averred that the claimants claim be limited to the sterling equivalent of €600 calculated using the historic exchange rate on the day of the affected flight which was €1.24 to 1 pounds making the amount claimed £483.87 for each claimant.

12. It is denied that the claimant is entitled to any interest on the compensation that the court deems appropriate to award.
Bit unsure about point 5. I didn't cite those in my claim, why have they mentioned them? How should I address it?

I look forward to any advice, thanking you in advance

David_e

purple_icecream wrote: »

2. The claimant alleged that she was booked on TC X247 from Sanford International airport (SFB) to London Gatwick (LGW) on 26th October 2012. No evidence of a contract between the claimant and defendant has been provided and the defendant reserves the right to plead further in this regard upon provision of the same.

Not sure what the contract point is. As long as you were a (full) fare-paying passenger, that should suffice.

purple_icecream wrote: »

7. The defendant avers that an inspection of the technical log for aircraft registration number G–OMYT confirms that they were no previous faults recorded with respect to the engine.

The record of previous faults is irrelevant.

These are my thoughts:

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

purple_icecream wrote: »

10. The defendant is aware that these guidelines are not binding on the court. The defendant avers that it took all reasonable measures possible in order to minimise delays by providing all passengers, including the claimant with overnight accommodation.

Bizarre to quote something in your defence that you then admit is not binding. That should help because you are relying on the law, which is binding.

Provision of overnight accommodation does not minimise your delay! I'd be asking for specifics as to exactly the steps they took to minimise your delay.

purple_icecream wrote: »

11. Should liability attach which is denied, it is averred that the applicable amount per passenger is €600 as the claimants flight was in excess of 3500 km for the purposes of the regulation. It is averred that the claimants claim be limited to the sterling equivalent of €600 calculated using the historic exchange rate on the day of the affected flight which was €1.24 to 1 pounds making the amount claimed £483.87 for each claimant.

I'd want the rate at the date of payment - assuming that's higher. Provision of overnight accommodation does not minimise your delay! Have a look at #233 and #234 on here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64447224#Comment_64447224

purple_icecream wrote: »

12. It is denied that the claimant is entitled to any interest on the compensation that the court deems appropriate to award.

I believe that interest is at the sole discretion of the judge so nothing to be done on that, as far as I am aware.

111KAB

Agree with David_e however with regard to Point 7 you may want to view > http://avherald.com/h?search_term=G-OMYT&opt=1&dosearch=1&search.x=12&search.y=15

David_e

111KAB wrote: »

Agree with David_e however with regard to Point 7 you may want to view > http://avherald.com/h?search_term=G-OMYT&opt=1&dosearch=1&search.x=12&search.y=15

Interesting! Looks a little less extraordinary in that light!

JPears

purple_icecream wrote: »

October 26th 2012 TCX247 Sanford to Gatwick

missed anything. I have already done a bundle (with massive help from the amazing "Vauban") for a
I look forward to any advice, thanking you in advance

Oh Lordy, don't encourage him.