Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

Vauban

Caz3121 wrote: »

high winds would be classed as extraordinary circumstances
before spending much effort on court etc you could try a couple of things to prove/disprove the delay reason
1) have a look at flightstats - were other flights affected around the same time period
2) look at the NWNF sites (e.g. EUClaim / Bottonline) and enter the flight details and see whether they confirm there is a claim or agree that the circumstances would be extraordinary

But the high winds weren't in Kos - they were in Rhodes, affecting an earlier flight. This would not generally be regarded as extraordinary.

Interesting blog along these lines here:

http://www.flightdelays.co.uk/blog/2015/1395/another-weather-court-victory-for-flight-delays

bartonhillbum

Caz3121 wrote: »

high winds would be classed as extraordinary circumstances
before spending much effort on court etc you could try a couple of things to prove/disprove the delay reason
1) have a look at flightstats - were other flights affected around the same time period
2) look at the NWNF sites (e.g. EUClaim / Bottonline) and enter the flight details and see whether they confirm there is a claim or agree that the circumstances would be extraordinary

Good Evening All, Just to say that other flights to Newcastle took off O.K. and as far as I can remember the Newcastle flight came from Rhodes where are flight was stuck due to "high winds". We finally landed at Gatwick at about 1am. I had to pay £39 for a single ticket to Bristol and wait until about 4/5am as I was a day late.

guyvxt

Thomas cook sent me an email last week

"Following our conversations we've now completed our investigations.
We're really sorry about the issues you had during your stay with us and want to confirm that we've offered you and your party the e-Voucher below as full and final settlement for the feedback you gave us."


With an Evoucher for £600. Unfortunately we can't afford to go on holiday (Voucher expires in January) and the 600 voucher only covers half the price of a thomas cook all inclusive holiday.

I have replied to the email asking for cash instead but they haven't replied. Spent ages on the phone today on call only to be cut off when I finally got through. Has anyone got a number to ring or an email to use to get these changed for cash?

Caz3121

"We're really sorry about the issues you had during your stay with us....."
Is this related to a flight delay or something else?....

guyvxt

Caz3121 wrote: »

"We're really sorry about the issues you had during your stay with us....."
Is this related to a flight delay or something else?....

Of course

"[FONT=&quot]New information has become available and as a result of this the decision that was made originally has been changed. We work really hard to ensure that when a flight is delayed the disruption caused is kept to an absolute minimum. Following this review, under EU Regulation 261/2004 compensation is payable on this occasion."


[FONT=&quot]I have since managed to speak to someone on the phone, handed over my accoutn details[FONT=&quot] and they said it would be within 10 working days... here's hoping.[/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]

endaf

endaf wrote: »

Hello all, back asking for more advice (encouragement really!) regarding my long ongoing dispute with TC. long story short-flight delay of 26hrs & they are refusing to pay out as they are stating "extraordinary circumstances" due to a "power spike" they say caused by Gatwick power grid tripped out several of the planes systems. TC say in their defense that they tried to source replacement parts from Heathrow, tried to put on another plane of similar size but it was in spain & the crew were running out of their flying hours. they then state that they tried to source a new crew but failed, in all their report goes into near enough 100 pages, which to be honest has me rattled!
i have an email from Gatwick Customer Servies stating they are aware of the incident but have investigated and fond no fault from their systems & no other aircraft reported any incidents with their power systems.
But TC also have emails in their defense papers Gatwick stating that they are aware of problems with their power systems and took action to fix the fault after that time.
So to be honest does anyone still think i have a realistic chance of winning this case? im planning on relying on the great info in Vaubans guide and back it up with all the previous court actions people have won against the airlines, along with this email correspondance that i have from Gatwick.
.

Hi all once more! im now finally writing up my defense as my case had been pushed forward to March.
Although im much more confident than i was before , im back to see if theres anymore help i can get in regard to getting my case watertight?
i have the email from Gatwick that they investigated but found no faults. although TC also have an email stating that they were aware of a potential spiking problem with the power source but it has now been fixed.
I suppose im concerned that the judge may look favourably on TC's defense in that they could not have forseen that a power spike from a third party would disable their plane.
Is it worth me really pushing the "all reasonable measures" in that they would need to deploy all its resources of staff and equipment etc. As they state they did try to source a replacement plane and crew but were unable to due to different reasons.
They also sourced replacement parts from another airport but once arrived after several hours they did not rectify the problem. is this "all reasonble measures"? can i put forward that TC should have called in staff on leave, hire another plane from a rival, fly in a plane from half way around the world etc
Can i also make it clear to the judge that in the regs that TC can get reimbursement from Gatwick for the alleged power spike and that i should not be refused compensation due to TC stating extraordinary circumstances.
Any and all further advice would be greatly appreciated in nulifying their argument that they could not have forseen a power spike from a third party effecting their systems and that i am entitled to the compensation.
thanks in advance!

razorsedge

endaf wrote: »

Is it worth me really pushing the "all reasonable measures" in that they would need to deploy all its resources of staff and equipment etc. As they state they did try to source a replacement plane and crew but were unable to due to different reasons.
They also sourced replacement parts from another airport but once arrived after several hours they did not rectify the problem. is this "all reasonble measures"? can i put forward that TC should have called in staff on leave, hire another plane from a rival, fly in a plane from half way around the world etc

I used this in my case (which I won) and you can adapt the first paragraph wording to suit the circumstances of your own case. I cribbed it from Vauban so please thank him for this:


All Reasonable Measures

1. If the Court does not accept that a birdstrike to a preceding flight to the Claimant’s flight does not constitute “extraordinary circumstances” for the Flight in question, then there is a further test for the Defendant to meet to absolve them of the obligation to pay compensation. As paragraph 39 of Wallentin explains:

It must be observed that the Community legislature intended to confer exemption from the obligation to pay compensation to passengers in the event of cancellation [or, post-Sturgeon, delay] of flights not in respect of all extraordinary circumstances, but only in respect of those which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken.

2. The Defendant must show that it had taken all reasonable measures not just to prevent the extraordinary circumstances, but also to ensure that those circumstances do not significantly impact on the punctuality of the Flight. The requirement that the regulation places upon the airline in these circumstances is significant. However, as the European Court emphasised in the paragraph 20 of Wallentin:

it is clear that, whilst Article 5(1)(c) of Regulation EC No 261/2004 lays down the principle that passengers have the right to compensation if their flight is cancelled, [or, post-Sturgeon, delayed] Article5(3), which determines the circumstances in which the operating air carrier is not obliged to pay that compensation, must be regarded as derogating from that principle. Article 5(3) must therefore be interpreted strictly.

3. Consequently, the European Court has prescribed clear and onerous obligations on an airline to prevent serious delays arising, even from extraordinary circumstances. As paragraph 41 of Wallentin notes, the airline:

must establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able – unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time – to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation [or, post-Sturgeon, delay] of the flight.

4. The Claimants therefore put the Defendant to strict proof to demonstrate exactly what measures – “all of its resources” short of “intolerable sacrifices” – Thomson Airways took to prevent a delay to the Flight once they experienced the alleged birdstrike. In particular, what efforts the Defendant made either to provide a spare aircraft or crew, to lease an aircraft from another commercial provider, or to book the Claimants on one of the other flights, including from other airlines, servicing similar routes that day. Any of these resolutions would have been consistent with the Defendant’s obligation to deploy “all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal”.

The Claimants contend that, absent compelling evidence from the Defendant that they attempted each and all of these reasonable actions, the Defendant is liable for the payment of compensation, as stipulated under the relevant Regulation and precedent case law.


Paragraph 4 asks that TC prove to the Court that they took all reasonable measures, not just state that they did without giving any documentary evidence.

endaf

thanks Razorsedge & once again to Vauban! more infomation to add to my case! Also Vauban in your particulars of claim you mention a letter from the CEO of Monarch to the secretary of Transport, ive tried to locate it on google but to no avail. are you able to assist me in locating it?

dunkertruck

Dear Mr Dxxxxx Xxxxxx,

Congratulations! We're delighted to tell you that the airline has agreed to settle your claim!

Now thats the start of an email you like to read on a cold windy February morning.

Thomas Cook should have paid up years ago to us after a 7 hour delay.... even the CAA wrote to them advising them to do so.

So they lost... Botts have their cut which I'm more than fine with... but they have also lost more than that imo.

I used to religiously use Thomas Cook, but after 2010 we said never again. 7 hr delay, no sorry, no kids meals on the flight even though we had paid for them.. then we get there and the room was a broom cupboard.

There was 12 of us on that holiday in 2010 and we always used them... so in 5 years they, for not paying out a small compensation claim, have now lost over £50,000 worth of holidays from me and my family/friends.

If they had just paid out, reimbursed the kids meals and perhaps apologised about the rooms I would have stuck with them... 5 years with Thomsons and thats where I'm staying.

Thanks to all over the last year or so who offered advice and support. We salute you

Tyzap

Well done dunkertruck, its been a long time coming.:)