Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

NoviceAngel

Jackie, please don't link what has happened in your case to the Allen thread, there is no Jackie Bear on those Van der Lans stays.....

Have a chill evening, open a bottle, although I wouldn't condone drinking it all - got to say that haven't I :A :beer:

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

JackieBear

Thanks for that, very much appreciated. Yes I will open something cold when I finish at 10pm this evening. But in saying that I have to be back at 6am again for a few hours to get a long weekend from midday..

Mark2spark

JackieBear wrote: »

I had a brief message left that said "We believe that the judgement has been handed down in error. And a letter will be out to you tomorrow. We have notified the court and wait for the court to get back to you". Then she states "I won't be in the office again until after next week but there is nothing more I can do anyway".

Yes, extremely annoying and unprofessional.
Unfortunately you will have to wait for this letter to arrive, and then give the court a couple of days to update the status of the case, however, I think I'd look into getting the Sheriffs involved to collect your dues, with an active Court Order (stating 'forthwith') they have got powers over and above the regular bailiffs.

JackieBear

Morning all, received Weightman's letter this morning expecting some elaborate excuse about my claim entry or something further of a technical nature with the flight. Nope, all it says is that they responded to the claim in time, back in early 2014 and that there last corresponce was when the case was stayed back in XXXXX and they have received no further correspondence from the court. They believe it to be a procedural error and for the court to clarify why they have awarded judgement.

Surely that can't hold any sway once judgement has been passed. Simply to cover your eyes and ears and pretend....

NoviceAngel

Morning Jackie,

Exactly, they can ask all they like, but you have received a Judgement and they have to either accept it and pay or they can apply to have the Judgement set aside, which I think would be unlikely..

JackieBear

To say they have not received the court orders is well, staggering. And if there is any procedural errors it is between them and there client... And sod all to do with me. I have had no correspondence problems with the court at all.

sging1

JackieBear wrote: »

To say they have not received the court orders is well, staggering. And if there is any procedural errors it is between them and there client... And sod all to do with me. I have had no correspondence problems with the court at all.

I think Wightmans are playing this postage issue a lot.
I had my expected COURT letter the next day from the court which directed us to work out costs between us, after Thomas Cook agreed to falsely settle the main case and got the hearing vacated (another story), Thomas Cook had to prepare a consent order. A week went by and nothing. I contacted Wightmans and they said they only received their letter from the courts that morning days after I got mine days before.

zs21

Thank you JPears for the response.
TC have never given any reason for the initial delay they have just told me that I was only delayed by 1hr 46 mins so not entitled to compensation.
The low fog did not present itself to be a problem for the other aircraft in the stack as when we returned from Stansted after refuelling there was no other aircraft there.
I am going through a NWNF company as I am not very confident or assertive and will find myself giving in. I absolutely admire you all on here for persevering with your claims and the runarounds that you have had to contend with in regards to TC's poor practice.
I wish all of you every success with your claims and I will keep you posted as to how I fair with the NWNF.
Thank you again for your help and for this forum.

Wraith51

TC forging ahead as not taking the offer of mediation. Particulars of Claim comong together nicely but for one reference in the Defence to a Court of Appeal decision Graham & Anor v Thomas Cook EWCA Civ 1355 stating "the Claimants have no private law civil cause of action against the Defendant"

Any advice as to how to respond to this? Thanks

glentoran99

Wraith51 wrote: »

TC forging ahead as not taking the offer of mediation. Particulars of Claim comong together nicely but for one reference in the Defence to a Court of Appeal decision Graham & Anor v Thomas Cook EWCA Civ 1355 stating "the Claimants have no private law civil cause of action against the Defendant"

Any advice as to how to respond to this? Thanks

Surely this case is before, Huzar, the supreme court and eve Before even the EU clarification on sturgeon? and it was also a volcanic ash claim

The were also claiming damages way beyond 261 regulations

I dont see how this case is relevant whatsoever