Taking The Airlines To Court

JPears

Lord Professor Vauban - yet another day in court on Monday?

Vauban

JPears wrote: »

Lord Professor Vauban - yet another day in court on Monday?

Actually no. There will be no third hearing. The Judge decided at the end of the second hearing (after an adjournment was again requested by the other side) that he would invite further evidence and final written submissions, with a view to producing a written judgement this week. So no more court appearances - just an uneasy wait for the verdict ...

ArianSandra

Yikes - how did that happen? I seem to have completed my MCOL without my middle name! Problem?

Vauban

ArianSandra wrote: »

Yikes - how did that happen? I seem to have completed my MCOL without my middle name! Problem?

No it is not.

phritchie

Hello,
I am claiming for my wife and I against Thomson - both of us are named as the claimants. We have a hearing on the 2 year limit next month. Do we both need to attend? Or can I represent us both? One of us needs to be free to look after our daugther, we don't have family nearby who can help out.

Thanks,
Pete

CobyBenson

phritchie wrote: »

Hello,
I am claiming for my wife and I against Thomson - both of us are named as the claimants. We have a hearing on the 2 year limit next month. Do we both need to attend? Or can I represent us both? One of us needs to be free to look after our daugther, we don't have family nearby who can help out.

Thanks,
Pete

I'd be very surprised if the case goes ahead at all. Have Thomson asked you to agree to stay the case?

I don't think the Judge will mind you conducting the case on your own. Make sure you take some sort of written authority from your wife though, confirming that a) she's happy to be a claimant and b) that she's happy for you to present the case on her behalf.

legal_magpie

Is this the actual hearing of the case? If so, I suggest that you should prepare your own witness statement setting out the basis of your case and a short corroborative statement from your wife confirming that she was on the flight (assuming that Thomson are refusing to admit that), confirming what you say in your statement about the delay.

Having said that the fact of the delay is usually admitted by this time. I assume they are also claiming EC's.

Vauban

legal_magpie wrote: »

Is this the actual hearing of the case? If so, I suggest that you should prepare your own witness statement setting out the basis of your case and a short corroborative statement from your wife confirming that she was on the flight (assuming that Thomson are refusing to admit that), confirming what you say in your statement about the delay.

Having said that the fact of the delay is usually admitted by this time. I assume they are also claiming EC's.

I see from your previous postings that this claim was originally struck out by the court without a hearing, since they believe the time limitation was two years. So is this hearing to hear that point only, or is it the full monty? That will obviously affect the content of your statements and associated paperwork.

phritchie

Well, this was due to be a hearing about the 2 year limit only. The judge had believed thomson's 2 year nonsense in their defence before even having a hearing, and ordered the claim to be struck out. I submitted an application to challenge the 2 year limit, and so there will be a short hearing next month on that.

However, there has been an interesting development today. Last week I wrote to Thomson asking for more details (time the fault was discovered etc) on their claimed EC - that another aircraft had suffered technical problems and my plane was substituted. I didn't expect any info back, but it would atleast show them as being uncooperative . But today I got a reply saying they are dropping the ec argument!

So the case will now be on 2 years only, and I suppose the upcoming hearing then becomes e final hearing. I expect it to be stayed on Dawson. , and I'm happy with that.

lucyonline

Hi there

Reposting this in the right thread because apparently I posted my first enquiry in the wrong place - for which I humbly apologise. I have been through this thread and cannot find answers to most of these questions - particularly question 1 - since most of the people posting here seem to be talking about UK airlines so the question doesn't apply to them...

I have been pursing Iberia for compensation since a delayed flight from Bogota to LHR in 2009 got me home over 30 hours late. Iberia have fudged and evaded and refused over and over again, even though the Spanish regulator AESA have now ruled that they DO owe me EUR600 compensation. So the time has come to take them to court. The forums seem to suggest that I can do this through MCOL in this country, but when I rang the CAA for their advice they told me I have to do it through the European Court.

So can someone advise....
1. MCOL or European Court (and if so, which one, there are so many websites!) And if MCOL do I address it to Iberia's UK office or their head office in Madrid?
2. Can I just go ahead and claim now? I already wrote to them 2 weeks ago demanding the money that AESA say they owe and threatening court action if they don't pay and they have written back to me saying they won't. But I can't reply to it because it's from a no-reply email address.
3. Can I claim interest? If so how much and how do you calculate it (compound every year or just as a percentage on top of the 600 EUR)?
4. Do I just claim 600 EUR or do I have to work out what it would have been in 2009?
5. Can I claim court fees back?
6. Does anyone have any advice about how to prepare the claim to make sure it is successful? You can't look ahead on MCOL to see what they're going to require without filling the first pages in.

Your advice would be much appreciated. I'm not a lawyer and have no experience of this, but I WON'T let those B%£$^%DS win just because I'm the little guy and they think if they stonewall me enough I'll go away...!