Taking The Airlines To Court

darkwarrior

bazaar wrote: »

check youre MCOL online, with the N180, did you get a notice to say the case is being defended? have you received a defence at all either from thomson or the court?

The MCOL online says it has gone to defence which was submitted on the 9th of July. I checked because I hadn't received anything by the cut off date, but there doesn't seem to be any way to see this defence online at the moment. I emailed them to ask what to do and they said that the defence was sent to me on the 9th but I have yet to receive it. So at the moment a defence has been submitted but I cannot see it.

bazaar_2

darkwarrior wrote: »

The MCOL online says it has gone to defence which was submitted on the 9th of July. I checked because I hadn't received anything by the cut off date, but there doesn't seem to be any way to see this defence online at the moment. I emailed them to ask what to do and they said that the defence was sent to me on the 9th but I have yet to receive it. So at the moment a defence has been submitted but I cannot see it.

hmmm, well, you should have received a copy of the defence direct from the court, also, it is procedure to get a copy served on you by the defendant.
ask them to resend it as you have not received it

darkwarrior

bazaar wrote: »

hmmm, well, you should have received a copy of the defence direct from the court, also, it is procedure to get a copy served on you by the defendant.
ask them to resend it as you have not received it

Ok thank you.

darkwarrior

So I have received Thomsons defence.

1) It is strictly denied that the Defendant is liable for compensation under what is assumed to be the Denied Boarding Regulations 2004 (EC261/2004) ('the regulations')

2) It is admitted and averred that the Airline operated Flight "Flight No" on the 15th June 2007 from "Departure", to "Destination" ('the flight')

3) The claimant is required to prove that he travelled on the flight.

4) BY reason of Article 3 of EC Regulation 2027 as amended as a matter of English law, the liability of a Community air carrier in respect of passengers and their baggage shall be governed by all provisions of the Montreal Convention relevant to such liability.

5) The Montreal Convention deals with the liability of the carrier, including (by its Article 19), for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers and baggage.

6) As a matter of English Law, where it is applicable, the Montreal Convention sets out the condititons under which claims to establish liability, if disputed, are to be made.

7) One such condition set out by the Montreal Convention is its Article 35 which provides that:

"(1) The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped.
(2) The method of calculating that period that period shall be determined by the law of the court, seised of the case."

8) In the premises: Any claim for 261 Delay Compensation is subject to the conditions set by the Montreal Convention, including that contained in its Article 35, in that it is a claim against a Community air carrier (the Defendant) in respect of the delay in the carriage by air of a passenger (MY NAME). And (yes it does end like that)

9) As a matter of English law any right to damages in respect of 261 Delay Compensation was therefore extinguished if no action was brought against the Defendant in respect of it within two years of the 15th June 2007. No such action was brought within that two year period (this action having been issued on 7th June 2013). Accordingly, the current proceedings fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action and/or are an abuse of the Court's process.

Further and in the alternative

10) It will be said by the Defendant that the aircraft intended to operation the Claimant's Inbound Flight was subject to a lightning strike on its previous sector. This resulted in the aircraft being diverted to Luton for inspection. An alternative aircraft was sought to operate the Claimant's Inbound flight as soon as possible.

11) This resulted in a delay to the departure of the Claiman't's Inbound Flight

12) It is averred that the matters pleaded in Paragraphs 10 above were caused by extraordinary circumstnaces which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measured had been taken and that, pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Denied Boarding Regulations, no compensation is payable in the circumstances.

13) For the reasons set out above, the claim for compensation of 200 Euros per passenger pursuant to the Denied Boarding Regulations is denied.

14) THe claimant is put to strict proof as of their loss.

15) As to the contingent claim for interest, it is denied that 8% is an appropriate interest rate.

The defendant beleives the facts stated in this defence to be true

The bold is important because it isn't true. I've asked for £320 not 200 Euros and I didn't ask for interest on it.

I'm pretty sure people have said things like lightning are not considered exceptional circumstances, but where do I go from here now? I was emailed an n180 to fill out as well. I will struggle to prove independently I was on the flight but I assume there are records of such. Thanks for reading.

millsmum

just a quickie, if I am claiming 4 persons at 6oo euro, do you work it out at todays conversion rates?

David_e

millsmum wrote: »

just a quickie, if I am claiming 4 persons at 6oo euro, do you work it out at todays conversion rates?

rajivsingh100 raised that point yesterday and I gave my thoughts here:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62663991&postcount=205

Not sure if there is a strictly right answer but you may as well claim in a way which benefits you. You can guarantee the airline will seek to adopt the approach that favours them.

macatelier

darkwarrior wrote: »

So I have received Thomsons defence.


The bold is important because it isn't true. I've asked for £320 not 200 Euros and I didn't ask for interest on it.

I'm pretty sure people have said things like lightning are not considered exceptional circumstances, but where do I go from here now? I was emailed an n180 to fill out as well. I will struggle to prove independently I was on the flight but I assume there are records of such. Thanks for reading.

They make it sound as though you're claiming for damaged baggage and not compensation for delay. :rotfl: Sorry it isn't funny really asThomson's will probably use the same thing for us. (we're claiming from Thomson and Thomas Cook on 2 separate flights.) Thomson won't even acknowledge our letters any more because they say we're over the 2 year period, and we don't even know why our flight was delayed.

111KAB

millsmum wrote: »

just a quickie, if I am claiming 4 persons at 6oo euro, do you work it out at todays conversion rates?

No you work it out on the date of the delay. If the matter goes to Court the Judge will calculate interest from that date as well.

32Nirvana

VA have submitted a defence although I am not convinced because it is not clear from their defence that the EC directly relates to our flight or its a knock-on effect from a previous flight (so if a knock-on effect not EC in my limited understanding). Anyway when completing the Directions Questionnaire (DQ) I believe because the 6 family members all have the same claim number I can submit 1 DQ for the whole family?

Also do I send VA a copy of the DQ and because I now have an email for the claims manager handling my case, can I email a copy or should it be a hard copy?

Thanks in advance,

David_e

111KAB wrote: »

If the matter goes to Court the Judge will calculate interest from that date as well.

Does it matter if you seek interest in your claim or not? Is it more or less likely that you will recover interest if you originally claim?