Court success thread

duchy

I've waded through a load of posts but have yet to find a Delta case-Can anyone point me in the right direction please.

dundee1111

Mark2spark wrote: »

IMO this forum could do with a few more experienced Scots posters who've gone through the process north of the border, - clearly it's a different way of doing things.
Whilst I'm writing, can anyone confirm that the Scots time claim limit is indeed 5 years, as opposed to 6 years in England & Wales?
With a link?
Just seems odd that one, to me.

Try page 17.
Sorry,not allowed to post links.

Vauban

Another example of Monarch folding once legal action was started: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62020349&postcount=2377

Vauban

Centipede100 wrote: »

Success rate is now 25-1 in favour of claimants who started legal action...!

That is a pretty compelling statistic, whichever way one looks at it!

friendofbillw2

Vauban wrote: »

That is a pretty compelling statistic, whichever way one looks at it!

Hmmm... but they're not all 'court successes' though, are they? Are we sure we should be counting cases which are settled before they get to a hearing?

If we are counting cases where the airline folds their hand before all the cards are dealt, shouldn't we also be counting cases on the other side where the claimant decides not to go the distance for whatever reason? (Admittedly those are much harder to track)

romanby1

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

Hmmm... but they're not all 'court successes' though, are they? Are we sure we should be counting cases which are settled before they get to a hearing?

If we are counting cases where the airline folds their hand before all the cards are dealt, shouldn't we also be counting cases on the other side where the claimant decides not to go the distance for whatever reason? (Admittedly those are much harder to track)

It does not matter whether the airline goes to court or admits defeat it is a win win situation if they settle out of court.
You have to show them you are determined to fight your corner always assuming you have a valid case.
They will put every obstacle in your way mostly a rubbish undefendable defence until they can see the battle is likely to be lost.
Too many people who post on this forum are not reading the Sticky pages at the top of the forum before posting questions that have been answered many times before or ar covered in the stick pages.

Vauban

Centipede100 wrote: »

They may not all be 'court successes' and for that it is the thread title that may be misleading rather than the posts in which it conveyed that starting legal action was successful in recovering compensation.

Yes - not all "Court" successes, but all "legal" successes all the same. I think the key point is to show how many of those who start a legal process (having been refused compensation) then secure their compensation by taking the airline to court. It's a pretty impressive stat.

It's a fair point to say that most airlines have in most cases folded before progressing to trial. But you can be fairly confident that they would not have done so if they thought they could notch up the win.

lyndac40

Hi centipede,

Is a NBA classed as the start of court proceedings. I am sure there are a lot of forum users who have been paid out just by sending the NBA letter. So there fore still a court success.

Lynda x

Vauban

Not in my view, Lynda. The letter is a notice BEFORE (legal) action, so I wouldn't count it. Plus the thread would lose its value: it is meant to test the success rate of those who tried writing to the airline, failed, and then took legal action.

romanby1

lyndac40 wrote: »

Hi centipede,

Is a NBA classed as the start of court proceedings. I am sure there are a lot of forum users who have been paid out just by sending the NBA letter. So there fore still a court success.

Lynda x

I suggest yes, if they think your NBA sets out a good claim and it looks as if it stands a good chance of being successful.
They must be getting the message now that if the claimant has a good case that can't be defended on true ECs, why spend large sums defending the un-defendable.