Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

111KAB

TC may be lying - ensure TC provide a transcript of the case (that will cost them) by way of proof.

JPears

111KAB wrote: »

TC may be lying - ensure TC provide a transcript of the case (that will cost them) by way of proof.

Do airlines do that? Surely not.......

endaf

I mentioned it In my closing arguments but the judge didn't comment either way.
They provided me with a copy of the previous hearing a day before my hearing completely out of the blue, with a letter stating for me to withdraw my action-that judgement ruled inTC's favour that it was exceptional circumstances that an external power spike occurred and that he was satisfied they did all they could to prevent delay etc with no right of appeal. That hearing was done in April 2015. But wasn't the van Der lees hearing after that? Didn't it state that only technical fault that could be found as exceptional circumstance was a manufacturing default??
I'm just guessing that the judge will read the previous decision and just go along with it-call me pessimistic!

JPears

Did you or the judge agree to the submission of additional evidence at such short notice? And was this additional evidence related to you actual flight?If not, then it can't be used. Can you post a copy up here for our dissection?
And yes, Van der Lans v KLM from Sept 2015 trumps any hearing they may have from a similar or lesser court.
You should write to the judge with your "humble" reasoning. Unfortunately you cannot rely on every judge being completely up to speed with every aspect of reg 261/2004, unlike the regulars here
Was a copy of Van der Lans included in your submission bundle?

endaf

Apologies for delay getting back you.
They'd passed the additional evidence to the judge before ii'd even sat down to be honest! and yes JPears it was the same flight as im fighting for.
my understanding of now having read Van der Lans is that the ONLY technical fault that can be accepted now is a manufacturing fault, am i right? no if's or buts-Manufacturing fault only?
if that is the case then i should win automatically?
unfortunately stupid me, didnt include it in my original papers-why i'll never know!
think i'll send a gracious letter to the judge submitting the Van der Lans hearing and highlight the technical fault aspect of the new info.
ive tried to upload a pic of the April 2015 hearing but I cant make head nor tails of the system here! tried to paste or attach image but no joy.

JPears wrote: »

Did you or the judge agree to the submission of additional evidence at such short notice? And was this additional evidence related to you actual flight?If not, then it can't be used. Can you post a copy up here for our dissection?
And yes, Van der Lans v KLM from Sept 2015 trumps any hearing they may have from a similar or lesser court.
You should write to the judge with your "humble" reasoning. Unfortunately you cannot rely on every judge being completely up to speed with every aspect of reg 261/2004, unlike the regulars here
Was a copy of Van der Lans included in your submission bundle?

endaf

ive drafted a letter to the judge that i'll send off tomorrow if people here think its written correctly-would you mind having a quick gander over it for me?

Dear Judge,
Further to your order of the 6th of May 2016, requesting the defendant to provide additional information in regards to other claims made, the claimant would request that you allow further clarification that a hearing on the 17th of September 2015 Van der Lans v KLM, gave in regards to what actually constitutes a technical fault & exceptional circumstances.
According to KLM, the delay was due to extraordinary circumstances, specifically, a combination of defects: two components were defective, the fuel pump and a hydromechanical unit. These components were unavailable and had to be transported by air from Amsterdam in order to be installed in the aircraft concerned. KLM also observed that the defective components had not exceeded their average lifetime.
Ms van der Lans brought an action before the Rechtbank Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) which decided to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. Essentially it wished to know whether a technical problem which occurred unexpectedly, which is not attributable to defective maintenance and which was not detected during regular tests, falls within the definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’, thereby exempting the carrier from his obligation to pay compensation.
In the Van der Lans judgment, the Court recalls, that it follows from its case-law that technical problems may in fact constitute extraordinary circumstances. However, the circumstances surrounding the occurrence of those problems may be classified as ‘extraordinary’ only if they relate to an event which is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin.
In this judgement, the Court observed that a breakdown caused by the premature malfunction of certain components of an aircraft, constitutes an unexpected event. Nevertheless, such a breakdown remains intrinsically linked to the very complex operating system of the aircraft, which is operated by the air carrier in conditions, particularly meteorological conditions, which are often difficult or even extreme, it being understood moreover that no component of an aircraft lasts forever. Therefore, in the course of the activities of an air carrier, that unexpected event is inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity, as air carriers are confronted as a matter of course with unexpected technical problems. Furthermore, the prevention of such a breakdown or the repairs occasioned by it, including the replacement of a prematurely defective component, is not beyond the actual control of that carrier, since the latter is required to ensure the maintenance and proper functioning of the aircraft it operates for the purposes of its business. Therefore, a technical problem cannot fall within the definition of ‘extraordinary circumstances’.
In that connection, the Court also points out that the discharge of obligations pursuant to EU law is without prejudice to air carriers’ rights to seek compensation from any person who caused the delay, in this case, London Gatwick airport who allegedly caused a power spike that damaged some of the aircraft's components.
I refer to the Van der Lans judgement here paragraphs 41-49-

i then go on to quote the relevant paragraphs. any advice would be great!

Endaf

endaf wrote: »

Apologies for delay getting back you.
They'd passed the additional evidence to the judge before ii'd even sat down to be honest! and yes JPears it was the same flight as im fighting for.
my understanding of now having read Van der Lans is that the ONLY technical fault that can be accepted now is a manufacturing fault, am i right? no if's or buts-Manufacturing fault only?
if that is the case then i should win automatically?
unfortunately stupid me, didnt include it in my original papers-why i'll never know!
think i'll send a gracious letter to the judge submitting the Van der Lans hearing and highlight the technical fault aspect of the new info.
ive tried to upload a pic of the April 2015 hearing but I cant make head nor tails of the system here! tried to paste or attach image but no joy.

legal_magpie

Good letter but send a copy of the Van der Lans judgment as well with the relevant passages marked. Make sure you send a copy of what you send to the Defendant, too

Vauban

legal_magpie wrote: »

Good letter but send a copy of the Van der Lans judgment as well with the relevant passages marked. Make sure you send a copy of what you send to the Defendant, too

I worry a bit that most of this letter is irrelevant to your claim. The VdL judgement is about technical failures to an airplane, not about problems with airfields.

Of course the last para in your email is absolutely relevant - but that's got little to do with VdL.

endaf

Thanks both, although Vauban the faults occurred on the aircraft with blown breakers-caused by an external power spike yes but easily repaired with replacement parts that TC should have had on side...in my humble opinion of course!
The letter is a last throw of the dice really as is now I think the judge will just go along with the previous hearing (even though we didn't know anything about it until 1 day before my hearing!) just hope she'll be swayed really with the decision of Van def Lans instead...lets hope so.

JPears

Jet2 used the "power spike" excuse as a reason why the relay, in my case, tripped. It was actually a faulty relay indicator (and therefore probably a faulty relay)
Do we really think that these highly sophisticated aircraft which rely massively on complex electronics are not thoroughly protected from such events, given the variety of countries and enviroments they visit?
A specious excuse, me thinks.