Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

NoviceAngel

alberto2012 wrote: »

Can someone give me any direction in how to go about this, correct procedure to take?

Should I re-contact the CAA once more to see what they conclude, (am I required this for court?)

Any advise and help would be great thanks.

Start by reading Vaubans guide and re-post if you've any questions after reading it.

In short forget the CAA and issue an NBA!

batman44

CAA FOI, what does this mean?

We can neither confirm or deny whether that report meets either of the criteria you have specified in this request as to do so could reveal information about a particular organisation which is exempt from release under Section 44 (1) (a) for the reasons explained above. Under Section 44 (1) (c), the duty to confirm or deny does not arise if the conformation or denial would reveal information that is exempt under Section 44 (1) (a).

NoviceAngel

I was going to say - I know this one....

CAA = Civil Aviation Authoity
FOI = Freedom Of Information
but you know that...

Basically means, get lost doesn't it! What info did you ask for?

There's obviously some 'get out' clause that they are using, - perhaps the answer would reveal commercially sensitive data? Or data that is not related to a government organisation ? Don't know is the short answer

batman44

NoviceAngel wrote: »

I was going to say - I know this one....

CAA = Civil Aviation Authoity
FOI = Freedom Of Information
but you know that...

Basically means, get lost doesn't it! What info did you ask for?

There's obviously some 'get out' clause that they are using, - perhaps the answer would reveal commercially sensitive data? Or data that is not related to a government organisation ? Don't know is the short answer

I think it means make up your own mind with the information given, they will not divulge indentifying information on the carrier who reported it.

Mexas

Vauban wrote: »

How long were you delayed at arrival in your destination? Time doesn't matter normally, provided it's over three hours. But if you are traveling on a route in excess of 3500km, and you arrive more than three but less than four hours late, then the airline can reduce compensation from €600 to €300 per person.

My flight back from Cancun to Manchester was delayed 3h 35min, is it always reduced to €300? Bit disappointed as the flight back was a nightmare with no onboard entertainment!

alberto2012

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Start by reading Vaubans guide and re-post if you've any questions after reading it.

In short forget the CAA and issue an NBA!

I've just read a statement on the main MSE guide. Stating there's a 5 year limit to taking a case to court?!... (in Scotland) so no point no point now even issuing that NBA is that correct?

Looks like my wife and I are just a few months out of luck.. Gutted

And seems t.cook have got away with causing a 22 hour delay, us losing out on our first day of our holiday in canada and an indescribable amount of stress ...

Vauban

alberto2012 wrote: »

I've just read a statement on the main MSE guide. Stating there's a 5 year limit to taking a case to court?!... (in Scotland) so no point no point now even issuing that NBA is that correct?

Looks like my wife and I are just a few months out of luck.. Gutted

And seems t.cook have got away with causing a 22 hour delay, us losing out on our first day of our holiday in canada and an indescribable amount of stress ...

That's not my reading of it. As a Scot, you are at liberty to use the English Courts, as the defendant has its head office there. If you have an English friend who can provide a postal address, I understand you can even use the MCOL process.

So this is entirely up to you. There are plenty of resources on this website to help you get your compensation, if you're sufficiently motivated. But it will require some effort and focus.

batman44

Does anyone have a sample case argument post Huzar? i.e short legal argument. Looking through my case and it is a bit long winded now and not really relevant post Huzar.
Does this sound like a good response to the NEB list - Not a legally binding document "Judge Platts" statement.

natsplatnat

Taken from Vaubans guide (many thanks)..

"It is therefore now binding UK law that any technical failures are unlikely to represent extraordinary circumstances, unless they are caused by an event not inherent in the operation of an airline[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]."[/FONT][/FONT]

What does the bit in purple mean?

TC said "...and can confirm that this was due to a technical fault which was not inherent in the normal course of activity."
It was a cooling fan for the electrics on the plane!!

Vauban

This phrase is a key part of the Wallentin test, and in large part was the principal issue at stake in the Huzar case. The key point is that Wallentin says that if the cause of the technical failure was something not inherent in the operation of an airline, then it can be deemed extraordinary. The Court of Appeal concluded that this meant any normal technical failure - such as wear or tear or just unpredictable failure of a part - was all inherent and therefore not extraordinary.

The airline are trying to give you the runaround. If you want to write back you might ask them fir the specific cause of the technical failure, and remind them that, following Huzar, there is a very limited scope for this defence. You should add that if they do not respond positively within 14 days you will serve them with court papers.