Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

whatmichaelsays

JPears wrote: »

Yes its a fob off.
and yes, your only recourse is probably to take leagl action. Its for the court/judge to decide if technical faults apply here ( which I'm sure here most would say it doesn't). Sounds more like a human error to me.

They are indeed sticking to their guns - I've clearly reached an impasse with them so it's time to use a mediator.

I assume a judgement from the CAA would help any claim should it escalate to the courts?

David_e

whatmichaelsays wrote: »

I assume a judgement from the CAA would help any claim should it escalate to the courts?

Not if you spend any time reading this forum you don't. Apparently, the CAA were seeking to side with Jet2 in the pending legal proceedings covered in detail elsewhere on this forum.

whatmichaelsays

David_e wrote: »

Not if you spend any time reading this forum you don't. Apparently, the CAA were seeking to side with Jet2 in the pending legal proceedings covered in detail elsewhere on this forum.

Interesting, although I still believe that Huzar v Jet2 has any relevancy to my case. A claim over technical issues doesn't have anything to do with Thomas Cook's inability to count the number of passengers on a plane and make sure that they end up with the same number as the one on the manifest.

One would think that a supporting statement from the CAA is just another arrow in my quiver?

Vauban

But what if they don't support you, and side with the airline instead?

mike0090

Hi guys I was delayed 4 hours on a flight to Orlando last year. I contacted tc about 4 weeks ago and this was the main part of their reply:
"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."

I assume they are saying I am not eligible for compensation due to technical fault however this seems pretty vague to say the least. Is there any way of gathering further evidence re the actual cause of the delay or do I have to just take their word for it?

Caz3121

mike0090 wrote: »

Hi guys I was delayed 4 hours on a flight to Orlando last year. I contacted tc about 4 weeks ago and this was the main part of their reply:
"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."

I assume they are saying I am not eligible for compensation due to technical fault however this seems pretty vague to say the least. Is there any way of gathering further evidence re the actual cause of the delay or do I have to just take their word for it?

you probably need to read the Huzar thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4815669
Many airlines have claims on hold awaiting the outcome

mike0090

Caz3121 wrote: »

you probably need to read the Huzar thread
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4815669
Many airlines have claims on hold awaiting the outcome

Hi thanks for your reply, looks like I didn't read much into this as I should have!
Might have a claim after all:)

Jadeybaby21

I'm coming into the last week before our court hearing now so am gathering all my documents and reading through everything properly and making notes. I'm trying to make notes to cross examine the witnesses TC are relying on, however, (and please be gentle, I'm new at this!) I've obviously just realised that they have wrote on their covering letters with the witness statements that they are RELYING on these in court (there's 2 statements - a station engineering manager and an operations & customer service analyst) so that obviously means I won't be able to cross examine then is that right?!

Also on their covering letter they state that "as explained to the court, as the engineer mr **** **** is attending court and we will duly disclose his witness statement by * of September". This date has been and gone (by 23 days) I have yet to receive a copy of this witness statement. I'm not going to be impressed if they present this to me on the day.... How will I have time to read through it?! There is 6 days left so I suppose still time but if I do not receive it what should I do (if anything?)

Many thanks

Vauban

Right: you should already have disclosed your papers (the bundle) to the court and the other side. Have you done this?

They likewise should have done the same to you. It's not acceptable to spring new evidence, including witness statements, on the day of the hearing.

So I would write to the Court Manager, asking for your letter to be shown to the judge. You should explain that you have still not received the witness statement, with less than a week to go, and had anticipated the opportunity to examine the witnesses. However this will not be possible if you have not been shown their statements in advance. (Do you have the statement for the other witness?)

I don't imagine that the judge will spark on this, but he'll have your correspondence on the day of the hearing and hopefully will be unimpressed by the airline's non-compliance.

So give the court a call today, briefly explain the issue and adk for an appropriate email address to send a letter.

You should now be focused on preparing your "skeleton argument" and picking holes in the other side's account, especially any witness statements you do have. The other side need to show that the origins of the technical problem or other reason for delay was "extraordinary" - Huzar and Wallentin are clear on that criteria - and need to provide a full account of what they did to address the problem (with timeline and evidence): the document called "the Event Print Out" is often very useful in this regard, and you should ask why the Court has not been given a copy.

Did I send you the list of questions I put to Monarch's operations manager and their engineer? Happy to try to send you these, if not.

Jadeybaby21

Thank you Vauban.

I submitted my court bundle yes, back in the very beginning of sept. I found your example of this very useful so adapted it to fit my case (I hope you don't mind) I also sent a copy recorded delivery to TC.

I received TC's defence and their 2 written witness statements that they wish to rely on in court back in begin of sept. One of them includes a couple of bits of evidence which include a print out of their log book, a copy of a note made from customer service duty coordinator to allow us passengers a £6 welfare voucher (I have never disputed this happening just for the record) and another print out of another note made in the log book. I have had no notice from TC themselves or the court to tell me these witnesses will be attending the hearing. However I have received a letter (sent with the other 2 witness statements ) to inform me that they are sending an engineer to attend the hearing and that they will disclose his witness statement by beginning of sept. I have not received this yet so I will do as you suggested Vauban and call the court today to explain.

Is your list of questions included in your recount of the day? If so, I did read these when I was reading your experience. If this is a separate copy then I would be very grateful to have a read through to help prepare my case. The questions you put forward to your witnesses in your recount was what I was researching last night when I came to realise that I can't pick out faults and prepare questions as the one witness I can cross examine in person, I have not received a copy of his statement yet to analyse!! So this is my question, based on the other witness statements I have received, I will have to change the tone of my questions as no one will be able to answer them right? Ie a witness? I will have to express the faults that I've picked up with the defence and witness statements in a way that leaves me confused as to how that could have happened/be true? Am I making sense if they don't send any witnesses then I only have my opening and closing speech to rely on and make sure I get my argument across.

I have a copy of their duty manager shift log from the day before my flight which has about 5 insertions talking about time of fault established, when it arrived back to LGW, when the engineers advised that the aircraft wouldn't be fit for service (to my destination to collect us) and the new aircraft they planned to use to service our flight. Would that count as their "event print out"? In their defence the claim they were able to source another aircraft to undertake the flight and could not have reasonably done anymore. And in the witness statement they claim the availability of sub charters from other air carriers as well as regulatory and financial factors were all considered. Is this enough to prove they did everything possible to deploy all of their resources in terms of staff, equipment or financial means at it's disposal even though there was still a delay of 6 hours?

In their witness statements they recall how at the very beginning of this chain of events, the air crew reported in the tech log book that the EICAS displayed 2 faults. It was noted that the circuit breaker was reset but tripped again. The engineers carried out trouble shooting as per the Boeing fault manual and with an investigation including visual inspection, wiring IR checks and functions checked but no defect could be found. The aircraft was certified fit to fly.

The aircraft operated a new flight and shortly after take off the same problem occurred So they returned the aircraft back to LGW to have an in depth investigation.

In their log book evidence, it states that the last time this aircraft had this issue, it was grounded for a considerable length of time.
So surely knowing this already, they should have grounded the a/c from the first detection to launch a full in depth investigation to find the fault which could have caused a lesser delay? And also with "Safety being their prime consideration" would they agree that it is likely for the EICAS to display a faulty reading of a problem? Because if not, I believe they shouldn't have had a "quick look" but should have grounded the aircraft there and then, especially if this fault has occurred before, as stated in their log book.

Thank you in advance for everyone's help, views and opinions. I am very grateful for them.