Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

purple_icecream

David_e wrote: »

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



The record of previous faults is irrelevant.

These are my thoughts:

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



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.



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



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.

Thank you for your reply. Here are my thoughts:

2. Yes I was a full fare-paying passenger, all 4 of us were. Maybe the booking documents are a 'contract', no problem I can provide those.

7. Yes I agree with you about the previous faults bit.

10. I will definately be asking why we were not put on another carriers plane in vacant seats, or why they didn't secure another plane for the whole passenger group, and to put them to strict proof to show what measures were taken.

11. Thank you for pointing that out I will look into that.

12. Yes, any interest is a bonus so will leave that to the judge.

purple_icecream

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

Thanks for highlighting those reports, I have already seen those and the video of the exploding engine! My incident seemed to be the first in the line, so I cant really use the other incidents that happened after, or can I?

purple_icecream

David_e wrote: »

Interesting! Looks a little less extraordinary in that light!

Not sure how to use that as ammunition as they all happened after my incident, any ideas how to incorporate it to strengthen my case?

purple_icecream

David_e wrote: »

I'd want the rate at the date of payment - assuming that's higher.

Its only a difference of £4.43 per person so not worried about that, but fair point, it could affect others.

David_e

purple_icecream wrote: »

Its only a difference of £4.43 per person so not worried about that, but fair point, it could affect others.

Indeed! I realised that after I'd posted. I had assumed that they were making a point of it because it gave them some significant advantage!

David_e

purple_icecream wrote: »

Not sure how to use that as ammunition as they all happened after my incident, any ideas how to incorporate it to strengthen my case?

I'm not sure it is that it is a "knock out punch" because (a) as I said, the incidence of faults is irrelevant in any event and (b) they said "no previous faults", which is possibly strictly correct (for this aircraft). You should (in my view) major on the Wallentin para 26 point that the key issue is the events that give rise to the problem - rather than the problem itself. You could follow up with a "however", in the following 8 months the aircraft reportedly had 3 similar problems of which 1 was apparently identical and occured within 3 weeks of yours. You could ask about the occurence of the same problem on other aircraft, perhaps, too.

purple_icecream

David_e wrote: »

I'm not sure it is that it is a "knock out punch" because (a) as I said, the incidence of faults is irrelevant in any event and (b) they said "no previous faults", which is possibly strictly correct (for this aircraft). You should (in my view) major on the Wallentin para 26 point that the key issue is the events that give rise to the problem - rather than the problem itself. You could follow up with a "however", in the following 8 months the aircraft reportedly had 3 similar problems of which 1 was apparently identical and occured within 3 weeks of yours. You could ask about the occurence of the same problem on other aircraft, perhaps, too.

Thanks David - Ok well I was struggling on how to use it so yes I will major on the Wallentin, and quote your "however" para at the end

Any thoughts on point 5 of their defence?

Should I rely on the Huzar case or not, seeing its current state?

111KAB

"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."


Ask for the logs for inspection whilst pointing out that this was a technical problem and as such was not an extraordinary circumstance -(they probably won't have them or won't present them) but then point out that the reason you are asking is that there have been numerous reported instances after your delay and as most problems are not reported you are just questioning their statement.


I will message you with a further comment.

David_e

purple_icecream wrote: »

Any thoughts on point 5 of their defence?

I don't think it's a defence point as such. It just says you are relying on the Sturgeon case which ensures Reg 261/2004 applies to delays not just cancellations, etc..

purple_icecream wrote: »

Should I rely on the Huzar case or not, seeing its current state?

I assume it's still good law until or unless it's overturned, so (for now anyway), yes.

mrs_cr

Default Ongoing Thomas Cook dispute
Hi All, I am new to this so please excuse my ignorance.
I have been complaining on and off to Thomas Cook regarding a flight some years ago. To cut a long story short when checking in our party of 6 were asked if we were on the fly cruise and when we confirmed that we were not, we were handed a letter saying that there had been a technical difficulty with the aircraft and a smaller aircraft was sent which would take the remaining passengers from Glasgow international to Edinburgh in 5 hours. We reached Edinburgh and were at the check in desk and were informed that there were only 3 seats booked for us on the plane and that three of us would be taxied back to Glasgow to try and catch another flight! We were greeted at Glasgow airport and managed to board a THOMSON flight 9 hours late. Thomas cook are stating that delays are inevitable and that our original flight was on time(without us obviously, and another 20 passengers) I went down the route of the CAA and was sent the following email today. I only have until the 29/07/14 to start a small claims action , but should I contact Thomas Cook first? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Mrs *******

Case 2332980

Thank you for your patience with us while we investigated your complaint about the disruption of flight TCX827 on 29 July 2008.
We have reviewed the information available to us in accordance with new guidelines clarifying the “extraordinary circumstances” exception of EC Regulation 261/2004.
It appears from the information provided that the airline cannot rely on the “extraordinary circumstances” exception from the Regulation to refuse to pay compensation. It is our considered view that the airline have not taken appropriate measures to avoid and or minimise the disruption. As such, in our opinion, the disruption to your flight is of a type which means that the airline should pay compensation.
We have given our view to the airline and have asked them to pay compensation to you as required in EC Regulation 261/2004. Our view on this case is based on the information provided to us, is not legally binding and only relates to the flight concerned. Currently the airline maintains their position that extraordinary circumstances applies and they are refusing to pay compensation. However, we are not an ombudsman scheme and we are unable to impose a solution on an airline.
Whilst you are free to contact the airline again with our findings, if the airline still refuses to compensate you, it is for you to decide whether you wish to take further action on your complaint in court, as there is nothing more we can do on your behalf. You can find consumer advice on taking a case to court at the following link:
[

In the UK there is a 6 year statute of limitations which means that you can take your case to court up to 6 years after your scheduled departure date of the flight, in your case 29th July 2014.

Yours sincerely,

Harriet Merna
[

Airline/Airport:
It is PACT’s policy to forward any airline/airport reply about an individual case to the complainant where possible. It is imperative that any information that you consider is confidential, is identified as such.

Passenger:
The information you supply to us will be used by us to provide advice or resolve your complaint. This will usually involve sharing the information with the airline or airport you are complaining about.