Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

clare232

I was on flight TCX2514 too, TC have rejected my claim twice now. This has now been escalated to CAA for investigation. Unfortunately they have advised 10 week timescale. Fingers crossed!

edtheduck_2

clare232 wrote: »

I was on flight TCX2514 too, TC have rejected my claim twice now. This has now been escalated to CAA for investigation. Unfortunately they have advised 10 week timescale. Fingers crossed!

sorry to tell you, but don't pin any hopes or hold your breath for the CAA, they are worse than useless, as many posts will show you.

David_e

clare232 wrote: »

This has now been escalated to CAA for investigation. Unfortunately they have advised 10 week timescale. Fingers crossed!

You'll need more than crossed fingers if you think the CAA will help. Read the FAQs to see what posters have experienced at their hands.

JPears

And just in case you haven't got it - forget the CAA. Useless and toothless.

YoungApprentice2010

Hi guys

I contacted Thomas Cook about my flight on 30th May 2014. It was from Gatwick to Bodrum and was delayed by 6 hours due to technical issues and they had to get a new plane for us eventually. They have today replied with..

"A full investigation has been carried out tofind out what the cause of the delay was and from that we can see that theflight was delayed due to unexpected safety issues. Our Engineering andOperations Teams took all reasonable steps to minimise the delay and despiteour routine maintenance schedules, which comply with CAA regulations, and themanufacturers recommendations, the problem could not have been prevented.

On this occasion under EU Regulation 261/2004 compensation would not bepayable."

What can I do now? Surely their just trying to fob me off.

Thanks in advance for any replies.

snurbi

I submitted a claim for over 5hr delay last year for a flight in 2012 (before the recent court case decision) and this was of course rejected by TC and then the CAA.
Interestingly TC used the 'extraordinary circumstances' excuse to refuse first time round and this was upheld by the CAA despite refusing to give me any details of what the technical issue was.
Just put another claim in following the recent case and TC now use 'unexpected safety issues' as the preferred excuse.
Questions for anyone who can advise-
1) any point in involving the CAA again?
2) are TC obliged to explain the exact reason?
3) is 'unexpected safety issues' the new mantra for the airlines since the court ruling on 'extraordinary circumstances', and is this a different category that will get them off the hook?

Vauban

snurbi wrote: »

I submitted a claim for over 5hr delay last year for a flight in 2012 (before the recent court case decision) and this was of course rejected by TC and then the CAA.
Interestingly TC used the 'extraordinary circumstances' excuse to refuse first time round and this was upheld by the CAA despite refusing to give me any details of what the technical issue was.
Just put another claim in following the recent case and TC now use 'unexpected safety issues' as the preferred excuse.
Questions for anyone who can advise-
1) any point in involving the CAA again?
2) are TC obliged to explain the exact reason?
3) is 'unexpected safety issues' the new mantra for the airlines since the court ruling on 'extraordinary circumstances', and is this a different category that will get them off the hook?

1) No
2) Only if you take them to court
3) No

Everything you need is in the FAQs on page one, and in recent posts on this and related threads.

David_e

snurbi wrote: »

Questions for anyone who can advise-
1) any point in involving the CAA again?
2) are TC obliged to explain the exact reason?
3) is 'unexpected safety issues' the new mantra for the airlines since the court ruling on 'extraordinary circumstances', and is this a different category that will get them off the hook?

Not being funny but the answer to your 3 questions is read the FAQs and search the forum. It's all there.

Alanmoses

I received this today from TCs solicitor. It was after the 28 days the court had instructed them to reply by, and had I not contacted them, I doubt they'd have responded. Any advice on what next from the learned forum members?

1 July 2014

Dear Sirs

Re: A1QZ2340 Gledhill v Thomas Cook Tour Operations Limited (Lead Claim)
A24YJ391 Wheywell v Thomas Cook
A3QZ0048 Moses v Thomas Cook Tour Operations Limited

We write further to the above matter and on behalf of the Defendant in each of the three cases, which are now conjoined by virtue of the Orders of District Judge Baldwin dated 3rd June 2014.

In that Order each of these matters were stayed pending the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Huzar v Jet2 2YN76991[2014] EWCA Civ 791. The Defendant in that case, Jet2, have now applied for permission to appeal the claim to the Supreme Court and it is our understanding that the permission is likely to given and the Supreme Court hear the case at some point in late 2014.

Indeed, our experience to date has been that Courts are already granting stays pending the Supreme Court decision in the first instance cases for flight delays that proceed to trial and we are simply trying to avoid wasting Court time and costs of attendance.

Accordingly, we invite the Court to make an Order of its own volition pursuant to CPR 3.1(f) so that these claims are further stayed until 28 days after the Judgment is handed down by the Supreme Court in the Huzar case.

Lastly, in the event these matters reach trial it is our view that:

All the cases can be listed together for one hearing – that way the Court can determine any issues in one sitting rather than separately.
Any trial will, in our experience, need three hours to take into account the evidence that will be heard and discussed. Any listing of less than three hours realistically raises the prospect of the trial being part-heard or adjourned.
We trust this to be satisfactory, but should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact the writer.

Yours faithfully

chili2001

Alanmoses wrote: »

I received this today from TCs solicitor. It was after the 28 days the court had instructed them to reply by, and had I not contacted them, I doubt they'd have responded. Any advice on what next from the learned forum members?

1 July 2014

Dear Sirs

Re: A1QZ2340 Gledhill v Thomas Cook Tour Operations Limited (Lead Claim)
A24YJ391 Wheywell v Thomas Cook
A3QZ0048 Moses v Thomas Cook Tour Operations Limited

We write further to the above matter and on behalf of the Defendant in each of the three cases, which are now conjoined by virtue of the Orders of District Judge Baldwin dated 3rd June 2014.

In that Order each of these matters were stayed pending the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Huzar v Jet2 2YN76991[2014] EWCA Civ 791. The Defendant in that case, Jet2, have now applied for permission to appeal the claim to the Supreme Court and it is our understanding that the permission is likely to given and the Supreme Court hear the case at some point in late 2014.

Indeed, our experience to date has been that Courts are already granting stays pending the Supreme Court decision in the first instance cases for flight delays that proceed to trial and we are simply trying to avoid wasting Court time and costs of attendance.

Accordingly, we invite the Court to make an Order of its own volition pursuant to CPR 3.1(f) so that these claims are further stayed until 28 days after the Judgment is handed down by the Supreme Court in the Huzar case.

Lastly, in the event these matters reach trial it is our view that:

All the cases can be listed together for one hearing – that way the Court can determine any issues in one sitting rather than separately.
Any trial will, in our experience, need three hours to take into account the evidence that will be heard and discussed. Any listing of less than three hours realistically raises the prospect of the trial being part-heard or adjourned.
We trust this to be satisfactory, but should you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact the writer.

Yours faithfully

Bloody TC, Jet2 hasn't applied to the SC yet and the way they put it is their understanding that the permission will be given makes me sick. I've been waiting nearly 2 years for my compensation and if they get their way I'm going to be waiting another 2. Makes me even more determined to get it. Plus 4 years of interest.