Court success thread

benicetome

Hooray! At last...

...Another successful claim to report (Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd).

For all of you that are still in the process of making a genuine claim, I urge you to "keep on, keeping on".

After almost 18 months on from the time of initiating our family group flight delay compensation claim through the small claims track, I/we have now finally received £2,445 as a final "out of court settlement".

Cheque received late last week in the post.

Cheque in the bank first thing this last Monday morning.

Cheque now cleared in my account.

It's party time!!! :beer:

I must admit, it's been a bit of a slog though....

Along the road we collectively agreed to the 2 stays pending the outcome of the Huzar v Jet2 case and the appeal case through the Supreme Court.

As a result of the S C's findings our case was reopened with a court hearing date set for mid March, 2015. In the interim (3-4 weeks ago) I received a letter form the local County Court advising that I seek mediation with T C, to which I agreed to. It turned out T C's legal team had other ideas and refused to go down the mediation route.

A few days later I received a further letter from the C C informing me that T C had yet again requested another stay on the case pending the outcome of (CJEU) Dutch case, Van der Lans v KLM.

What!!! No way!! Not another stay. Enough, is enough.

I immediately responded to T C's latest request by contacting (email to relevant dept) my local C C stating that I/we had already agreed to 2 stays and this latest move by T C had no bearings whatsoever on my particular case, requesting that our case to be pushed through and heard on the already fixed hearing date.

To my surprise (and relief), the Judge ruled in my favour by refusing T C's request for the stay stating that by a specified date T C should send a letter detailing exactly why the defence is alleged to be different to the defence in Huzar v Jet2.com limited so that the court can consider why it should not be struck out and judgement given for the Claimant.

That letter must have shook T C's legal team up as I received a letter from T C's solicitor within a few days informing me that they have now decided to compensate me on a "without admission basis".

Compo breakdown.

400 euros per passenger based on the exchange rate on the date of the historic flight, which amounted to £335.00 per full paying passenger.

Seven claimants in total. Six full paying adults. Only one of our grandchildren of the three grandchildren in our party qualified for compensation. Two were "non paying" infants.

£100 was also included to cover my court costs.

I actually paid £140 court costs in total, plus all other costs such as international telephone calls to Spain (AESA) and first and second class registered post costs to the County Court and Thomas Cook.
Also, no mention of interest on the final payment.

Although there was a shortfall with the final settlement I was quite happy to accept the "out of court" settlement as I'd already worked out that the exchange rate on the 400 euro per passenger I was getting was far better than the current exchange rate on the Euro, the difference making up for the shortfall.

Thanks to the exchange rate being based on the date of the historic flight I've really no need to get all stroppy and push for everything owed. Thank goodness!

Everyone is quite happy with the eventual outcome, and I'm relieved that it's now all over and I don't have to go to court to prove what I always knew was a valid claim against T C.

In summary, we as a family will use Thomas Cook Airlines again because in the main we have always enjoyed our holidays abroad when booking through them.

I just wished that T C had seen sense in the first place and paid up without causing all the unnecessary stress and further costs for them along the way. Crazy! "Bad legal advice may cost them, big time".

Finally, I'd just like to say a big thank you to all of you good people (you know who you are) who have helped and supported me along the way during this whole process. You're stars!

Good luck to everyone.

I hope you get what's rightfully yours.

A H

NoviceAngel

A very good result, and I'm really pleased that the Judge ruled in your favour over the Van der Lans nonsense...

Congratulations and well done on your victory

Cheers,

NoviceAngel

batman44

benicetome wrote: »

Hooray! At last...

...Another successful claim to report (Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd).

For all of you that are still in the process of making a genuine claim, I urge you to "keep on, keeping on".

After almost 18 months on from the time of initiating our family group flight delay compensation claim through the small claims track, I/we have now finally received £2,445 as a final "out of court settlement".

Cheque received late last week in the post.

Cheque in the bank first thing this last Monday morning.

Cheque now cleared in my account.

It's party time!!! :beer:

I must admit, it's been a bit of a slog though....

Along the road we collectively agreed to the 2 stays pending the outcome of the Huzar v Jet2 case and the appeal case through the Supreme Court.

As a result of the S C's findings our case was reopened with a court hearing date set for mid March, 2015. In the interim (3-4 weeks ago) I received a letter form the local County Court advising that I seek mediation with T C, to which I agreed to. It turned out T C's legal team had other ideas and refused to go down the mediation route.

A few days later I received a further letter from the C C informing me that T C had yet again requested another stay on the case pending the outcome of (CJEU) Dutch case, Van der Lans v KLM.

What!!! No way!! Not another stay. Enough, is enough.

I immediately responded to T C's latest request by contacting (email to relevant dept) my local C C stating that I/we had already agreed to 2 stays and this latest move by T C had no bearings whatsoever on my particular case, requesting that our case to be pushed through and heard on the already fixed hearing date.

To my surprise (and relief), the Judge ruled in my favour by refusing T C's request for the stay stating that by a specified date T C should send a letter detailing exactly why the defence is alleged to be different to the defence in Huzar v Jet2.com limited so that the court can consider why it should not be struck out and judgement given for the Claimant.

That letter must have shook T C's legal team up as I received a letter from T C's solicitor within a few days informing me that they have now decided to compensate me on a "without admission basis".

Compo breakdown.

400 euros per passenger based on the exchange rate on the date of the historic flight, which amounted to £335.00 per full paying passenger.

Seven claimants in total. Six full paying adults. Only one of our grandchildren of the three grandchildren in our party qualified for compensation. Two were "non paying" infants.

£100 was also included to cover my court costs.

I actually paid £140 court costs in total, plus all other costs such as international telephone calls to Spain (AESA) and first and second class registered post costs to the County Court and Thomas Cook.
Also, no mention of interest on the final payment.

Although there was a shortfall with the final settlement I was quite happy to accept the "out of court" settlement as I'd already worked out that the exchange rate on the 400 euro per passenger I was getting was far better than the current exchange rate on the Euro, the difference making up for the shortfall.

Thanks to the exchange rate being based on the date of the historic flight I've really no need to get all stroppy and push for everything owed. Thank goodness!

Everyone is quite happy with the eventual outcome, and I'm relieved that it's now all over and I don't have to go to court to prove what I always knew was a valid claim against T C.

In summary, we as a family will use Thomas Cook Airlines again because in the main we have always enjoyed our holidays abroad when booking through them.

I just wished that T C had seen sense in the first place and paid up without causing all the unnecessary stress and further costs for them along the way. Crazy! "Bad legal advice may cost them, big time".

Finally, I'd just like to say a big thank you to all of you good people (you know who you are) who have helped and supported me along the way during this whole process. You're stars!

Good luck to everyone.

I hope you get what's rightfully yours.

A H

Excellent!, sounds very much like my case, what court was it that refused Van der lans? I seen a whole bunch of cases listed going to Liverpool.

kim_turton

Does anyone know the answer.

If I issue an N1 Claim in the County Court and pay the appropriate fee, minimum £25 if completed online, and the Company at fault pay my money owed before they are "served"-I am told it will take up to 5 working days, Can I persue said claim for the cost of court fee?

Vauban

kim_turton wrote: »

Does anyone know the answer.

If I issue an N1 Claim in the County Court and pay the appropriate fee, minimum £25 if completed online, and the Company at fault pay my money owed before they are "served"-I am told it will take up to 5 working days, Can I persue said claim for the cost of court fee?

If you have give them amply warning with a NBA, and they did not respond within the reasonable timescale you gave them, then I am sure you are at liberty to claim this from them. But whether you want the hassle for £25 is less certain - you might prefer to move on.

stevemej

Vauban wrote: »

If you have give them amply warning with a NBA, and they did not respond within the reasonable timescale you gave them, then I am sure you are at liberty to claim this from them. But whether you want the hassle for £25 is less certain - you might prefer to move on.

If the claim is done online then you woudnt be using the N1 form would you? (i think this is for postal claims)

Vauban

stevemej wrote: »

If the claim is done online then you woudnt be using the N1 form would you? (i think this is for postal claims)

Whether you use the online (MCOL) or paper method (N1) you still need to have written an NBA.

Or have I misunderstood what you mean?

benicetome

batman44 wrote: »

Excellent!, sounds very much like my case, what court was it that refused Van der lans? I seen a whole bunch of cases listed going to Liverpool.

Hi batman. It was Stoke On Trent C C.

stevemej

Vauban wrote: »

Whether you use the online (MCOL) or paper method (N1) you still need to have written an NBA.

Or have I misunderstood what you mean?

i should have quoted: 'If I issue an N1 Claim in the County Court and pay the appropriate fee, minimum £25 if completed online, and the Company at fault pay my money owed before they are "served"-I am told it will take up to 5 working days, Can I persue said claim for the cost of court fee?" really.'

All I was saying was that MCOL is for online (1 person) and N1 for multiple claimees BY POST.

len49

Saw the article below in today's Herald, Scotland;

The Herald, Scotland, Helen McArdle Transport Correspondent Saturday 14 February 2015

Sheriff tells Ryanair: never mind flap asymmetry, you need to compensate delayed Scots tourist after two-year battle.

A Scottish holidaymaker whose flight from the Canary Islands was delayed by more than 18 hours has won his two-year battle for compensation with a budget airline.

VICTORY: Donald Cowan, from Alloa, has won his two-year battle with Ryanair for compensation over an 18-hour flight delay
The low cost carrier has been ordered to pay Donald Cowan and his wife, Lydia, €800 (£600) plus £73 expenses after the retired police officer finally took Ryanair to court over its repeated refusal to pay out.

His victory could cost Ryanair up to €80,000 (£59,000) if all passengers travelling on the affected Fuerteventura to Prestwick flight now come forward.

Under European Union law, airline passengers are entitled to up to €600 compensation if they arrive at their final destination more than three hours late, unless the airline can demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" such as natural disaster.

The couple, from Alloa, Clackmannanshire, were stranded in Fuerteventura for 18 and a half hours when Ryanair flight FR6954 was hit by a technical glitch on March 22 2013.

The flight was scheduled to take off at 7.10pm on Friday but did not leave until 1.45pm the following day. Mr Cowan, 54, said: "We had no communication from anybody. Absolutely nothing. When we arrived at the airport at 4pm the screens were already saying 'delayed' but Ryanair don't have anyone based in Fuerteventura, so we were all just sitting there waiting for information.
"By 11pm the airport staff came over to say 'you can't stay here, we're closing up now'."

The Cowans paid for a hotel and eventually got home to Alloa on the Saturday night. Although the couple's hotel and taxi costs were "reimbursed very promptly", Mr Cowan said his attempts to claim compensation were stonewalled.

After writing to complain about poor customer service, he received a letter from Ryanair which blamed the delay on an "unexpected safety/technical problem" and circumstances "outside Ryanair's control". Mr Cowan wrote again, appealing the decision but was again knocked back.

In January 2014, after watching a television programme about passenger rights, Mr Cowan wrote to the Irish carrier making reference to the EU rules. He was told that Ryanair's aircraft are "maintained to the highest European standard" but "despite our excellent maintenance, unexpected technical faults do occur". Again, the airline refused to back down and eventually Mr Cowan decided to mount a small claims case against the airline at Alloa Sheriff Court, representing himself.

At a hearing on February 5, Ryanair said that the plane being used for flight FR6954 was en route to Fuerteventura when it experienced a technical fault on its wing, known as "flap asymmetry", and was forced to divert to Faro, Portugal.
The replacement plane was then hit by lightning on take-off from Faro and "had to be withdrawn from commercial service for inspection".

A third plane was then grounded at Faro because the Canary Islands' night curfew meant it would not have been allowed to land until the Saturday morning. Mr Cowan said he was surprised by these details, which first emerged during the court case.
Nonetheless, the Sheriff upheld Mr Cowan's claim and ordered Ryanair to pay out, ruling that the airline had "not taken all reasonable measures" to avoid the delay.

Mr Cowan said: "I think they thought they were taking on a country bumpkin. But it's not about me, it's about the principle of it and for all the people in the same position. "What annoyed me most was the total lack of communication and the dismissive way we were treated."

A Ryanair spokesman said they are considering an appeal.
He said: "This flight was delayed after the aircraft suffered a lightning strike. Affected customers were reimbursed for refreshment and accommodation expenses. As this delay was caused by extraordinary circumstances beyond our control, no compensation was due. "Ryanair fully complies with all EU261 passenger legislation and deals with each claim on a case by case basis. Our lawyers are studying this decision and we don't comment on pending legal matters."