Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

NoviceAngel

batman44 wrote: »

TC copied me in on their response agreed the stay be lifted and they still want to defend and proceed to trial.

Quite bizarre, it's all positive though, look at us poor Jet2 claimants still stuck in limbo land !

Think on the bright side, their not asking for a further stay and you haven't got s hearing date yet, - when you do get a date, perhaps they will settle, in fact I'm fairly sure that they will.

bigdogg

batman44 wrote: »

As we have all come to realise you cannot trust the CAA to be taken seriously by anyone especially the airlines, don't leave anything to chance and follow up yourself.

Thanks fella will get a draft written up and off in the morning..:beer:

NoviceAngel

bigdogg wrote: »

I read an article this morning and the CAA state that the Airlines should be lifting the stays automatically and if not the Judicial system will be.

Well that's not the attitude of Jet2, did you see that letter, that was posted on here last week, sent by Jet2s solicitors to the Courts asking for the 'stays' to remain in place pending the outcome of some Van der Lans Dutch case - disgraceful behaviour by Jet2.

Ohh are the CAA friends again? Last thing I read was that EC's such as confirmed by the SC were now no longer binding on an aircraft that arrives in the uk from a non uk airport! Drivel it took Botts to point out that Mr Huzars case of a delay caused by an EC was actually on a flight from a non uk airport back to the UK!

bigdogg

(Ohh are the CAA friends again?)

What's with the attitude are we not all in the same fight?

batman44

bigdogg wrote: »

(Ohh are the CAA friends again?)

What's with the attitude are we not all in the same fight?

The CAA have constantly defended the airlines and not the people they are there to protect. The airlines are the paymasters of the CAA so don't expect anything from them.

Take a look here http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=67030604&postcount=5851

NoviceAngel

bigdogg wrote: »

(Ohh are the CAA friends again?)

What's with the attitude are we not all in the same fight?

IMHO... The attitude of the CAA has been inconsistent, legally incorrect and dismissive of passengers rights under the EC261/2004 regs, if you read any of the airline threads through, it's abundantly clear on what side of the fence they sit and it's not with us!

For the reasons already posted by Batman

NoviceAngel

Because I think it shows the true intent of the CAA I went back through the posts to find the post from Vauban here it is:-

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/66978731#Comment_66978731

And the link to the CAA http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=2211&pageid=15463

razorsedge

Vauban wrote: »

If you have a document that you want to rely on then this must be disclosed to the court and the other side in accordance with the judge's instructions or it will otherwise be inadmissible.

As always, The Lord Proffessor Vauban is correct. However, many Courts and Judges have accepted documents that are 'disclosed' later than the deadline set by The Court Directions. Airlines use this 'loophole' all the time. (I received a document from Thomson less than 18 hours before my hearing).

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64096050#Comment_64096050

batman44

razorsedge wrote: »

As always, The Lord Proffessor Vauban is correct. However, many Courts and Judges have accepted documents that are 'disclosed' later than the deadline set by The Court Directions. Airlines use this 'loophole' all the time. (I received a document from Thomson less than 18 hours before my hearing).

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64096050#Comment_64096050

razorsedge how did you get on with your claim?

razorsedge

batman44 wrote: »

razorsedge how did you get on with your claim?

This is how the hearing went last December:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/64064188#Comment_64064188

Not much has changed yet since (but I know how to alter that)