Court success thread

studentgti

Just thought I'd post my own success with Virgin here as it might help encourage others! A big thanks again to everyone that has shared information and experiences.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62433959&postcount=616

sky_rat

Good news ! Finally, having been through the small claims court I have received a letter admitting liablity on the condition that I provide a booking reference number (seems I forgot to include the reference number on the claim form!).

The flight delay was 23 hours and the distance was 6950km (Orlando to Gatwick). I made a claim of 600 euros for each passenger, as there were 3 of us the total claim was for 1800 euros.

However, Thomas Cook stated that the claim amount should use the exchange rate on the date of the delayed flight (20/10/07), this being 69p to the euro. Therefore the claim amount would be £1252.80 (this actually makes an exchange rate of 69.6p to the euro).

I just wanted to confirm that Thomas Cook are correct about using the exchange rate at the time of the delayed flight, before responding to them with details of the booking reference number.

Also, what about the £80 court fee I had to pay ? Does Thomas Cook have to refund this too ?

I had to go through the small claims court because they refused to pay out when I initially wrote to them and the CAA.

markavo1

sky_rat wrote: »

Good news ! Finally, having been through the small claims court I have received a letter admitting liablity on the condition that I provide a booking reference number (seems I forgot to include the reference number on the claim form!).

The flight delay was 23 hours and the distance was 6950km (Orlando to Gatwick). I made a claim of 600 euros for each passenger, as there were 3 of us the total claim was for 1800 euros.

However, Thomas Cook stated that the claim amount should use the exchange rate on the date of the delayed flight (20/10/07), this being 69p to the euro. Therefore the claim amount would be £1252.80 (this actually makes an exchange rate of 69.6p to the euro).

I just wanted to confirm that Thomas Cook are correct about using the exchange rate at the time of the delayed flight, before responding to them with details of the booking reference number.

Also, what about the £80 court fee I had to pay ? Does Thomas Cook have to refund this too ?

I had to go through the small claims court because they refused to pay out when I initially wrote to them and the CAA.

Sky rat

Congratulations first of all! Yes it would be normal for the exchange rate on the date of delay to be the one used, as effectively, this is the date that the debt became payable. In terms of the £80 court fee, I'm presuming that you've yet to attend a hearing and Thomas Cook have given you an offer to settle. Thomas Cook can make any offer they wish and there is no obligation on them to include the court fee in their settlement figure. It is up to you to decide if their offer to settle is suitable. If the case went to a hearing, and you won the case, then you will also be awarded any court fee which you have already paid.

As they are admitting liability, clearly, they don't fancy their chances of winning in Court, so I would give Thomas Cook a ring and tell them you would agree to settle on the basis they also pay your court fee. If they refuse, and you are adamant that you want the £80 court fee on top, you would have to decline their offer to settle and have your day in court

romanby1

markavo1 wrote: »

Sky rat

Congratulations first of all! Yes it would be normal for the exchange rate on the date of delay to be the one used, as effectively, this is the date that the debt became payable. In terms of the £80 court fee, I'm presuming that you've yet to attend a hearing and Thomas Cook have given you an offer to settle. Thomas Cook can make any offer they wish and there is no obligation on them to include the court fee in their settlement figure. It is up to you to decide if their offer to settle is suitable. If the case went to a hearing, and you won the case, then you will also be awarded any court fee which you have already paid.

As they are admitting liability, clearly, they don't fancy their chances of winning in Court, so I would give Thomas Cook a ring and tell them you would agree to settle on the basis they also pay your court fee. If they refuse, and you are adamant that you want the £80 court fee on top, you would have to decline their offer to settle and have your day in court

I agree with the above. Thomsons emailed us an offer we phoned accepted the compensation offered (the amount we claimed) and insisted they pay all the court expenses and the money was deposited in our account by the end of the week. It was there next day.

P_Doff

Centipede100 wrote: »

Score up to 37-1 in favour of claimants once legal proceedings commenced...

Make that 38. I have today spent about 3 hours in court arguing the toss with Jet2.com's barrister and two witnesses. Fortunately for me the District Judge, who said he had not come across this argument before, understood what the ECJ were getting at in Wallentin.
ie. Para 24 "air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise". Therefore it is not extraordinary.

and Para 44. 2, "The frequency of the technical problems experienced by an air carrier is not in itself a factor from which the presence or absence of "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004 can be concluded"

Judgement for the Claimants (the wife and I) in the some of £690 plus £150 court fees. Not going to spend it yet as I fear that an application for leave to appeal may well be made.

richardw

P_Doff wrote: »

...Fortunately for me the District Judge, who said he had not come across this argument before, understood what the ECJ were getting at in Wallentin. ....

Hallelujah for the DJ!! Hope they talk about it down the DJ club and spread the word.

Vauban

P_Doff wrote: »

Make that 38. I have today spent about 3 hours in court arguing the toss with Jet2.com's barrister and two witnesses. Fortunately for me the District Judge, who said he had not come across this argument before, understood what the ECJ were getting at in Wallentin.
ie. Para 24 "air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise". Therefore it is not extraordinary.

and Para 44. 2, "The frequency of the technical problems experienced by an air carrier is not in itself a factor from which the presence or absence of "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004 can be concluded"

Judgement for the Claimants (the wife and I) in the some of £690 plus £150 court fees. Not going to spend it yet as I fear that an application for leave to appeal may well be made.

Brilliant result. Well done to you!

111KAB

P_Doff wrote: »

Not going to spend it yet as I fear that an application for leave to appeal may well be made.

Well done but I very much doubt the appeal as basically they are questioning a Judge's decision and telling him/her that the decision is flawed.

David_e

P_Doff wrote: »

Make that 38. I have today spent about 3 hours in court arguing the toss with Jet2.com's barrister and two witnesses. Fortunately for me the District Judge, who said he had not come across this argument before, understood what the ECJ were getting at in Wallentin.
ie. Para 24 "air carriers are confronted as a matter of course in the exercise of their activity with various technical problems to which the operation of those aircraft inevitably gives rise". Therefore it is not extraordinary.

and Para 44. 2, "The frequency of the technical problems experienced by an air carrier is not in itself a factor from which the presence or absence of "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation 261/2004 can be concluded"

Well done and thanks for the pointer to the aspects of Wallentin that swayed it for you.

P_Doff

111KAB wrote: »

Well done but I very much doubt the appeal as basically they are questioning a Judge's decision and telling him/her that the decision is flawed.

I do hope you're right.