Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

suitable69

oh sorry thought id put that in, 5 hours

Fifefamily

JPears wrote: »

Finnair is a bit of odd one as the wording is very precise in the judgement. It my apply. Lord Vauban is probably the one to give the most "learned" response.
However, subject to Huzar outcome, it is to some extent irrelevant as tech issues should not result in an EC get out. Especially on a previous flight.

Thanks for the response hopefully Lord Vauban may give my circs some consideration and give a response.


What I was probably hoping was that by using the Finnair judgement for the delay from a flight 48 hours previously would negate the reliance on EC therefore no requirement to await Huzar!

Alan_Bowen

There is no claim against Thomas Cooks if your flight was with Pegasus Airlines even if you booked a Thomas Cook holiday. The claim can only be against the airline itself, many report that Pegasus, being based in Turkey not part of the EU, even though the rules would apply to a departure from the UK, do little to respond, so good luck!

suitable69

Alan_Bowen wrote: »

There is no claim against Thomas Cooks if your flight was with Pegasus Airlines even if you booked a Thomas Cook holiday. The claim can only be against the airline itself, many report that Pegasus, being based in Turkey not part of the EU, even though the rules would apply to a departure from the UK, do little to respond, so good luck!

Thanks for the reply so will TC write to me telling me no chance or will they just not let me know? and is it worth writing to Pegasus airlines and keep my fingers crossed.

Caz3121

suitable69 wrote: »

Thanks for the reply so will TC write to me telling me no chance or will they just not let me know? and is it worth writing to Pegasus airlines and keep my fingers crossed.

They will probably come back eventually and tell you that any claim is from the airline not them
You need to make your claim from Pegasus

JPears

Fifefamily wrote: »

Thanks for the response hopefully Lord Vauban may give my circs some consideration and give a response.


What I was probably hoping was that by using the Finnair judgement for the delay from a flight 48 hours previously would negate the reliance on EC therefore no requirement to await Huzar!

Perhaps keep Finnair as your back up arguement subject to Huzar outcome?

MMT1999

My flight was delayed over 5 hours, Gatwick to Heraklion, on return from the holiday I completed Martins template letter and sent it off. Here is Thomas Cooks response received today

We have carried out an investigation as to the cause of delay that you experienced and can confirm that this was due to a technical fault which was not inherent in the normal course of activity. A recent court case, Huzar vs Jet2, has been heard in the court of appeal, which has resulted in a change to how EC 261/2004 is interpreted, which is the Regulation that supports governance on compensation payments for flight delays. The decision of this case is due to be appealed at the Supreme Court by Jet2.com in the near future, which may result in a further change to the interpretation of regulations.

In view of this, Thomas Cook will be deferring a review of your case until such time as further clarification is received on the EC 261/2004 Regulations . We will continue to monitor any developments, and we will ensure an updated message is posted on our website with regard to our revised position following the outcome of the appeal. You will be required to re-approach us once the appeal has been heard and your case will then be reviewed against the appropriate guidelines.

Vauban

Fifefamily wrote: »

Thanks for the response hopefully Lord Vauban may give my circs some consideration and give a response.


What I was probably hoping was that by using the Finnair judgement for the delay from a flight 48 hours previously would negate the reliance on EC therefore no requirement to await Huzar!

I get the strategy (and respect it) - but I suspect it is too smart, in practice, for the small claims court who will likely conclude, whatever you plead, that this issue revolves around a technical defect and that this is therefore a matter currently before the Supreme Court.

As to whether Finnair really does do what you say: I personally am sceptical. It relates to denied boarding, and the reasoning is quite specific to those circumstances (rather than delays or cancellations). Paras 58-61 of the Advocate General's opinion explain some of this in layman's terms. I accept it is arguable, but the risk is that by presenting a softer flank to the airline lawyer in court, you risk your claim unravelling. But I AM NOT A LAWYER - and views differ on this.

But In terms of the legal principle you're trying to argue, in fact Wallentin does everything explicitly that you are trying to get Finnair to do: it says (in the section on the "Third Question") that the airline must use all of its resources short of "intolerable sacrifice" to prevent the circumstances from leading to the delay of the flight. A 48 hour delay cannot in any reasonable sense meet this test.

In the real world of slightly random district judges, however, I think you'll struggle to avoid a stay whilst Huzar remains in play. By all means make the argument and stress that your case rests in the first instance on European court judgements, rather than Huzar. But you'll want to keep Huzar in reserve ("in the alternative, the Huzar judgement makes clear that technical faults have been determined to be unlikely to be extraordinary"), and as such I suspect a judge will be unwilling to part hear the case until the relevant cases have run their course.

Good luck though - it sounds like you've got a good grasp of the legal points, and that's more than half the battle. Let us know how you get on.

Vauban

Yes. If you've read the TC thread, you'll see this letter lots of times ...

Notgoingaway

Notgoingaway wrote: »

Not been on here for a while ,a month or so ago we got a letter from court saying our case was on hold pending the result of huzar appeal.which I gather is the norm.
Today we recieved a letter from wakefield county court (our nearest court).to say that as a result of an order made on the 1st sept our case has been transferred to Liverpool county court
Does anyone have any idea of the reason for this?

Does anyone know if tc would have asked for this transfer to be done? Can we say it's not convenient for us? No one asked us.
Don't get me wrong we would still attend but seems unfair for us to have to trail to Liverpool (at least two hours journey)with three kids,youngest being two ,when wakefield is twenty mins up the road.

Funny thing is when we first complained about our flight disruption (just before the regulation compensation headlines)
if thomas cook had said we re sorry for the inconvenience and here's £200 as a gesture of good will .we would have said thank you very much and we would have happily booked with them again.we really wouldn't have considered court action if we hadn't been shown such blatant disregard for a valid complaint.tc have a lot to learn about customer service.