Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Thomas Cook ONLY

Pete_R_2

I did, but only got versions that were embedded into sites somehow, so when I try to cut and paste, it takes some of it as a picture and some as text. was hoping somebody may have a link to a .doc or similar version.

JPears

Download it as pdf then import in word or similar.

inittogether

Thomas Cook treated my resolver queries with as much disdain as they did my previous direct complaints. The flight delay was in 2012 and I complained from then on, about once a year when I would remember their previous reply and become outraged again.

So, I had to make good on my threat to take them to court. I went to the government website and made a claim. It cost £70.

Less then a month later, a letter from Thomas Cook admitting no blame but offering the full amount of £782 for two people, including the court costs.

The court had stated interest should be due, about £300, so I turned down the offer. And also reminded (again) Thomas Cook that it had overcharged me on an excursion (40 euros per person) and failed to provide usable compensation when they failed to pick us up on another excursion (total £120).

They wrote back, after reading my full complaint this time, and offered me £905. No interest. But they sent me links to two court cases where interest wasn't awarded so I accepted this offer. I had been given the name and email address of the Thomas Cook legal assistant, so I corresponded directly by email.

It was a big step to take make the county court claim, but it shows that was all TC would respect.

JPears

Interest can only be awarded by the court, I don't think it is automatically added, unless the judgement is by default and the defendant doesn't seek setaside.
Whilst TC may have sent you cases where interest wasn't awarded, there are cases where it was, so the usual deceptive guff from airlines.

inittogether

You might well be right there. But it seemed a gamble. Court hearings were being arranged in Liverpool, then Manchester and I live in South Wales. I did not want the hassle.

Here's a quote from the pdf judgement they sent me between Porter/Kerr and Thomas Cook (Case No: B06YM813):

28. For all those reasons, I am not persuaded that the compensation payable pursuant to Article 7 should properly be construed as any type of debt, be that a debt under a statute or otherwise, or any other type of claim within the scope of applicability of section 69 and I reject any claim for interest.
Conclusion
29. The Claimants are each entitled to a regulatory award of €400, subject to an appropriate exchange rate, together, it would seem, with fixed costs which two final matters are hopefully capable of agreement.
John Baldwin
District Judge
9th May 2016

JPears

The arguement would be that the airline is indebted to the customer for the compensation from the moment the delay/denied boarding/cancellation occurs, not the point at which the judgement is made. As the airlines, almost without exception deliberatly and disingenuously delay, obfuscate, procrastinate, misinform and lie to the claimants, interest is deserved.
In the end the compensation is a statutoy right, not an "award" by the judge. What the court is deciding is if the compensation claim is valid.
Its a subtle point but important IMHO.

legal_magpie

I agree that a claim under the regulations does not attract interest so if the airline pays even after, say, a month, interest is not payable. So, if an airline paid up before Court proceedings were issued, it would be madness to issue court proceedings solely to recover interest. But once the airline refuses to pay or simply drags its feet and the court finds that the claim is valid, interest is payable because, notwithstanding the decision of the learned judge, this WAS a debt or alternatively damages. So provided you have claimed interest in the claim form you should get it.
On the other hand, if the airline pays the claim and court costs after issue but without interest it may not be practical or economic to continue with the case solely to recover the interest.

JPears

for lazy newbs

Pete_R_2

As seems the theme here, I am getting bounced from pillar to post by TC. I have gone via the CEDR route, and now TC have come back stating that Birdstrike is a valid "exceptional circumstance", per below;

"...There is no binding legislation in the UK which says a bird strike does not constitute an Extraodinary circumstance in accordance with Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004.
...refer to the following county court rulings (sic);
Marshall v Virgin Atlantic (Bromley County Court), 11 May 2016
Hammond v Thomas Cook (Leicester County Court), 5 Feb 2016
Penn v Virgin (Horsham ), 13 Nov 2015
Henderson v Virgin (Horsham), 6 Nov 2015
Kang v Easyjet (Luton, 8 Dec 2014..."

My internet searching shows a recent Czech case where an EU Opinion is made stating bird strike to not be an Extraordinary Circumstance per 261/2004. it is not yet available in English.

Does anybody have any idea if the above defence by TC is legit, or is the usual obfuscation tactics?

Any help greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Pete

111KAB

I wonder why they didn't quote this case? Most unusual!!!


http://www.bottonline.co.uk/flight-compensation-latest-news/ruffling-the-airlines-feathers