Taking The Airlines To Court

gallaghb

Well just logged onto Mcol and the status had changed to Defence to say that United have submitted a defence. Is the next step then that I receive a copy of this defence in the post from the court? Really interested to see it actually as they would not tell me anything about the issue in correspondence before going to court other than technical fault = EC!

Vauban

gallaghb wrote: »

Well just logged onto Mcol and the status had changed to Defence to say that United have submitted a defence. Is the next step then that I receive a copy of this defence in the post from the court? Really interested to see it actually as they would not tell me anything about the issue in correspondence before going to court other than technical fault = EC!

Yes - you should get it in the next few days. And then a further form, the allocation questionnaire, to put the case onto the small claims track in your local court. Eventually you will then get a hearing date and a deadline for submitting all your arguments and papers - but that's many months away most likely!

gallaghb

So, I have today received United's defence:

(the typos, spellings, grammatical errors etc are all in the actual defence!)

United conducted a thorough investigation of the cancellation of United Airlines flight 935 on April 23, 2012 and firmly maintains that the root cause of the irregularity was due to extraordinary circumstances beyond its control that could not have been reasonably predicted or avoided and believe that we have fully complied with Regulation EC261/2004.
This flight was scheduled to depart as flight 935 at 10:25am arriving in Los Angeles at 13:36 on April 23,2012 United traditionally maintains One of the one of the most stringent, rigid and thorough standard maintenance schedules in the airline industry.In keeping with our high standard, all aircraft are thoroughly inspected and cleared by our engineers prior to dispatch of every scheduled flight.During the standard pre-flight inspection of the aircraft, the Control Status message was investigated by the maintenance department. After an in-depth analysis, technicians determined that a wiring issue was indicating a short at one of the canon plugs.

- I think it is actually known as a cannon plug. The sentence in my mind doesn't make sense, is it a wiring issue causing a short or what. How can a wiring issue indicate a short?

They cleaned allthe connectors after checking all of the wiring and had a successful checkout.

- I am presuming this was after the flight was cancelled.


- Best bit:

There were two prior indications of this problem on April 20 and April 21. History was checked back to January 1, 2012 with no other indications. The Maintenance Control Shift / Aircraft Log details the mandated inspection and repair. The flight was canceled in London.This particular mechanical process takes time and is not a normal occurrence. This aircraft has been through all of its normal maintenance checks. As reported, this was a technical issue that arose during the pre-flight check and therefore it was an extraordinary event to arise. United has a proven track record for its scheduled maintenance and completion factors in addition to cooperating with all FAA Directives, Requirements and Changes.EC261 Compliance Preamble Item 15: Extraordinary circumstances should be deemed to exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay, or the cancellation of oneor more flights by that aircraft, even though all reasonable measures has been taken by the air carrier concerned toavoid the delays or cancellations. This technical issue was identified during the preflight check due to extraordinary circumstances that were uncommon and unforeseen.

- Spot the contradiction!

- Article 5(3) Compensation is not warranted when the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances.
- Article 7 Right to Compensation, Compensation is not warranted under the exception noted in Article 5(3).
- Article 14 Obligation to inform Passengers of Their Rights,As soon as United was aware of the impending cancellation,we informed all passengers we had contact information for of their rebooking options. Onward travel arrangements via alternate routes were expeditiously made for all customers. The xxxxx's were rebooked on UA 959 the same day scheduled to depart London at 15:20 and connect to flight 411 with Arrival in Los Angeles at 23:06. Those passengers who we were unable to reach and those connecting in London from other cities were offered hotel and meal accommodations as well as international call allowance at the airport in full compliance with EU261 regulation.A website address with goodwill compensation options was communicated to all passengers scheduled to travel on United flight 935.

- It wasn't communicated. But I did complain right after returning home and received vouchers which I neither accepted or used.

Conclusion,United firmly contends that EC 261/2004 compensation is not warranted as the root cause of the cancellation was due to extraordinary circumstances as outlines above:United has clearly demonstrated that all reasonable measures to mitigate the unavoidable inconvenience and additional hardship on its customers were taken.United ensured that this incident was handled with the utmost care and customer service as possible.

Thoughts? Is it ok to post responses here, or could they be reading this? Happy for anyone to PM me if they like.

Can't believe how badly written it is, doesn't appear that they have even read it through!

Thanks

JPears

gallaghb wrote: »

So, I have today received United's defence:

(the typos, spellings, grammatical errors etc are all in the actual defence!)




Can't believe how badly written it is, doesn't appear that they have even read it through!

Thanks

I think I would get on with your witness statement, picking so many gapin holes in this lamentable defence. If possible get an engineers report via CPR18 and get to know Wallentin very well.

greeneyedlad

urban469 wrote: »

Excellent. I think you've got it spot on there. Knock-on effects are not ECs anyway, and that's been established, so I don't think you'll need to push very hard. But it's good to do so anyway.

My only comment is that I would re-word some of the questions. I've done a few FOIs (never in a court questionnaire), and the key point there is always to be specific and to make sure it is info that can be gathered relatively easily. So, with that in mind, see below...

Urban469 may i ask u when/when Knock-on effects were established as not ECs?
Thomson have used this an excuse to me but I thought this was a grey area as they had not been established yet.
It would help me greatly if I could show/prove where it was ruled they are not ECs.

Many Thanks

gallaghb

I just received the below email from CAA

Thank you for your patience with us while we investigated your complaint about the disruption to flight UA935 on 23/04/12. United Airlines have agreed to pay you compensation for the disruption to your flight, they will get in contact with you directly to arrange payment. If you haven’t heard from them within 8 weeks please follow your claim up with them directly using a copy of this email.

But United submitted a defence to my court claim and I received this 2 days ago. So I am not quite sure what to believe!

I have an email address for a customer care manager at United that was on the defence papers. Wondering whether I should forward the CAA email to her and ask for clarification?!

Confused.

JPears

gallaghb wrote: »

I just received the below email from CAA



But United submitted a defence to my court claim and I received this 2 days ago. So I am not quite sure what to believe!

I have an email address for a customer care manager at United that was on the defence papers. Wondering whether I should forward the CAA email to her and ask for clarification?!

Confused.

I think I would send a copy of the CAA email directly to legal team. It won't look good for them in front of Judge if they have agreed payment then do an about turn.

gallaghb

JPears wrote: »

I think I would send a copy of the CAA email directly to legal team. It won't look good for them in front of Judge if they have agreed payment then do an about turn.

Will definitely do so if it comes to it. They submitted defence last week so its possible the CAA have advised them to pay up this week and they have decided to.
If they have decided to pay I will be asking for the £70 court fee as well!

markavo1

greeneyedlad wrote: »

Urban469 may i ask u when/when Knock-on effects were established as not ECs?
Thomson have used this an excuse to me but I thought this was a grey area as they had not been established yet.
It would help me greatly if I could show/prove where it was ruled they are not ECs.


Many Thanks

Theres a case of finnair oyj v timy lassooy which applies to denied boarding. This is where it is a grey area as it is not known whether judges would also apply the same theory to flight delays.

Also reg 261/2004 mentions air traffic management decisions effecting a specific plane on a specific day, but then this seems only to refer to air traffic management decisions

razorsedge

On the Notice that Acknowledgement of Service Has Been Filed letter sent by the court the defendant airline has 'given a new address for service of documents' as address 'X'. This is listed on the court document.

However sent from the court a few weeks later with the Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims track Form N149A the airline after their defence statement have given an address for receiving documents as 'Y'.

The two addresses are very different. Can somebody offer advice as to which address should be used? Address 'X' on the earlier official court form or address 'Y' on the later defence document that was sent by the court but not an official court form in itself?

Thanks