Court success thread

IanHarris

Another success after what felt at times to be a rather doubtful claim.
VS0016 from Orlando to Gatwick on Oct 26th 2008. Received my cheque for £500ish after doing the usual business of filing for court action.
Originally blamed on a problem with the belly fairing on a previous flight they conceded before court that this is not exceptional.
Thanks to all on the site that have helped directly or by constantly posting other comments I have used for support.

Topgun20060

Hi. Have just come across this forum and a very interesting read it is too! I have two separate Virgin flights I am thinking of claiming compensation for. The first was flight VS028 from Orlando to Gatwick, which should have taken off on the 5/8/2010, but eventually took off some 23 hours later. We were told that either the day before, or two days before, our plane was on the ground in the West Indies somewhere, when a truck delivering the food drove into one of the engines. This necessitated a new engine being flown out and attached, and the knock on effect was that our flight was cancelled. From reading this thread I have decided that this does not come under "exceptional circumstances", so hopefully will be ok with this one.
The second one I'm not so sure about. It was flight VS043 from Gatwick to Las Vegas on 23/10/2012, which suffered a 207 minute delay, we were told because of damage caused by a bird strike as the plane was inbound to Gatwick from wherever it was coming from on the previous flight. Does that actually constitute "exceptional circumstances" do you think, or is that just Virgin's bad luck?
Also, just on the off chance, has anybody else on here claimed for either of these flights and if so with what result?
Thanks.


Well, that was my initial post which seems like ages ago, but it's now all over. I'm not sure if I should be posting this here because I didn't actually get as far as court, but it may be helpful for someone so here goes!
With regards to the Orlando flight, Virgin paid up without a fight, four cheques received for 500 odd quid, result.
The Las Vegas flight they did defend however and we ended up at mediation. After a bit of back and forth, they made me an offer, which although not the full amount, I decided to accept as I deemed it wasn't worth the aggravation for the difference.
After we had reached our agreement I was having a bit of a chat with the mediator who told me a couple of interesting things. Please keep in mind however, that this was a three way conversation and I have no way of confirming any of the following. As part of my case, I relied quite heavily on the Huzar V Jet2.com ruling, when as expected, the issue of the bird strike was raised, Virgin quoted the "committee" that suggested that this was an EC. I then quoted the last part of para. 29 in the Huzar ruling, which I thought dealt with that quite nicely. According to the Virgin representative (apparently) this committee does have some sort of legal standing and the suggestion was that Judge Platts had got it wrong! I was also told that the Huzar case was going to be appealed by the airline as a matter of urgency, because the airlines realise if it stands, they are going to lose virtually every case.
I would just like to make clear again that I have no evidence to back up either of those points, but as this conversation took place after I had accepted the offer, I can't see what the Virgin representative would have to gain by misleading me.
Well hope some of that is of a vague interest to someone and I would finish by advising anyone who thinks they are in the right to stick to their guns! Good luck.

JPears

Topgun20060 wrote: »

Hi. Have just come across this forum and a very interesting read it is too! I have two separate Virgin flights I am thinking of claiming compensation for. The first was flight VS028 from Orlando to Gatwick, which should have taken off on the 5/8/2010, but eventually took off some 23 hours later. We were told that either the day before, or two days before, our plane was on the ground in the West Indies somewhere, when a truck delivering the food drove into one of the engines. This necessitated a new engine being flown out and attached, and the knock on effect was that our flight was cancelled. From reading this thread I have decided that this does not come under "exceptional circumstances", so hopefully will be ok with this one.
The second one I'm not so sure about. It was flight VS043 from Gatwick to Las Vegas on 23/10/2012, which suffered a 207 minute delay, we were told because of damage caused by a bird strike as the plane was inbound to Gatwick from wherever it was coming from on the previous flight. Does that actually constitute "exceptional circumstances" do you think, or is that just Virgin's bad luck?
Also, just on the off chance, has anybody else on here claimed for either of these flights and if so with what result?
Thanks.


Well, that was my initial post which seems like ages ago, but it's now all over. I'm not sure if I should be posting this here because I didn't actually get as far as court, but it may be helpful for someone so here goes!
With regards to the Orlando flight, Virgin paid up without a fight, four cheques received for 500 odd quid, result.
The Las Vegas flight they did defend however and we ended up at mediation. After a bit of back and forth, they made me an offer, which although not the full amount, I decided to accept as I deemed it wasn't worth the aggravation for the difference.
After we had reached our agreement I was having a bit of a chat with the mediator who told me a couple of interesting things. Please keep in mind however, that this was a three way conversation and I have no way of confirming any of the following. As part of my case, I relied quite heavily on the Huzar V Jet2.com ruling, when as expected, the issue of the bird strike was raised, Virgin quoted the "committee" that suggested that this was an EC. I then quoted the last part of para. 29 in the Huzar ruling, which I thought dealt with that quite nicely. According to the Virgin representative (apparently) this committee does have some sort of legal standing and the suggestion was that Judge Platts had got it wrong! I was also told that the Huzar case was going to be appealed by the airline as a matter of urgency, because the airlines realise if it stands, they are going to lose virtually every case.
I would just like to make clear again that I have no evidence to back up either of those points, but as this conversation took place after I had accepted the offer, I can't see what the Virgin representative would have to gain by misleading me.
Well hope some of that is of a vague interest to someone and I would finish by advising anyone who thinks they are in the right to stick to their guns! Good luck.

I think HHJ Platts was quite careful and guarded in his wording regarding the "guidelines'. Whilst these were supposedly issued by the various national NEBs, we do not know who instigated, what remit they had, who actually represented each NEB. More importantly they have NOT been adopted in anyway by the EC. They do in fact contradict the latest advocated Reg261/2004 guidelines published by the EC, to be adopted and finalised.

David_e

JPears wrote: »

I think HHJ Platts was quite careful and guarded in his wording regarding the "guidelines'..

I thought he was pretty well rubbishing the guidelines albeit in wonderfully restrained and subtle legal language. I have a mental image of HHJ Platts delivering this withering assessment while peering disdainfully over half moon glasses:

"I am informed that a meeting of European national enforcement bodies has provided guidance on this issue which would tend to support the respondent’s argument. However its provenance is unclear and in any event the guidance is just that. It does not purport to be definitive or binding. Whilst it is drawn up by a body whose view deserves some respect, that body is not part of the legislature and is not tasked with interpreting the intention of the legislative body in any particular case."

Topgun20060 wrote: »

According to the Virgin representative (apparently) this committee does have some sort of legal standing and the suggestion was that Judge Platts had got it wrong! I was also told that the Huzar case was going to be appealed by the airline as a matter of urgency, because the airlines realise if it stands, they are going to lose virtually every case.

My money would be on HHL Platts when it comes to questions of legal interpretation! Does the guidance itself not say it's only guidance?! Hardly a definitive view even from the industry!

Funny how the airline industry letter to the then Transport Minister in December 2009 said:

“The result is that as things stand in the vast majority (around 80%) of claims for compensation under the regulation, airlines do not have the benefit of the extraordinary circumstances defence available to them.”

JPears

David_e wrote: »

I thought he was pretty well rubbishing the guidelines albeit in wonderfully restrained and subtle legal language. I have a mental image of HHJ Platts delivering this withering assessment while peering disdainfully over half moon glasses:

"I am informed that a meeting of European national enforcement bodies has provided guidance on this issue which would tend to support the respondent’s argument. However its provenance is unclear and in any event the guidance is just that. It does not purport to be definitive or binding. Whilst it is drawn up by a body whose view deserves some respect, that body is not part of the legislature and is not tasked with interpreting the intention of the legislative body in any particular case."

.”

Like I said - careful and guarded

Tyzap

I have just received an email from Bott & Co to say that Qatar Airways have agreed to pay us compensation, within the next 42 days, for a 5.5 hour delay in our flight from Manchester to Dubai last year.

I had initially asked the CAA to look into the claim, which Qatar had refused, but in June I ran out of patience with them. While discussing my Jet2 appeal with Bott & Co I asked them to also handle the claim against Qatar Airways.

It's not money in the bank yet so fingers crossed that it soon will be and also for the hearing of Jet2's request to appeal in January.

David_e

Tyzap wrote: »

I have just received an email from Bott & Co to say that Qatar Airways have agreed to pay us compensation, within the next 42 days

Well done! Why do you suppose it takes 6 weeks to write a cheque?!

NoviceAngel

Congrats, six weeks for a cheque from an airline, ohh well it's still a victory!


Are Bott and Co handling your appeal against Jet2? and if so on a NWNF basis?

Tyzap

Hi NoviceAngel, please see post 31 from Coby Benson in the 'HUZAR APPEAL' thread but basically yes and yes.

David_e. Why payment takes up to 42 days I don't know, but will try to find out.

heather_p03

Firstly I must thank everyone on the TC forum for their help and also for the support given to all. It enables people to believe that they can indeed take on the big firms.

After the ever so familiar story involving extraordinary circumstances and MOT's, CAA ... (you know the rest) I submitted a claim via MCOL.

The hearing was listed for 16th December 2013.
On 12th November we received a letter with an offer to settle 'without prejudice' for the full amount plus the initial court fee.

We were happy to accept this and sent off a letter of acceptance and waited for the cheque to arrive.

It arrived 29th November (after a couple of phone calls to chase it up).
Court hearing is now cancelled and the cheque has cleared.

If you are certain that you have a claim, then you should persevere if at all possible.

Again, thanks to my fellow MSEers. :T