Anyone used EU Claim/Bott & Co?

Dave_Z

Thanks all for the resources. I'll pen something for Bott using those and see what happens.

I am still somewhat skeptical as there doesn't seem to be any cases with similar background to mine. 'Reasonable measures' for an Easyjet flight in London could mean pulling in a spare aircraft which is already at that airport. Even for a Ryanair flight within Europe they wouldn't have to look far for another plane and crew to second at the last minute so I can kind of see how those judgements were reached. In Denver there's not likely to be another BA plane within 1,000 miles. Even then, all 'nearby' BA aircraft (PHX/LAS/LAX) will be operating other flights so the problem would just shift elsewhere if they moved one of those planes. I'm not trying to sound defeatist but it looks like a tough call.

As an aside, I worked in flight operations between 2007-2013 for an airline at Heathrow (not BA!) so I can understand the logistics of handling a situation like this and has probably shaped my definition of reasonable measures.

glentoran99

Seems that Bott have decided just to stick to easy cases now

JPears

It maybe the case that the glut/backlog of claims have now been paid or are in the process. The main legal arguements have been resolved. The number of new claims will be a trickle in comparison to the backlog over past 6 years.
Simple claims will be dealt with - higher risk claims will probably be rejected with a view to maximising profits and return. Its a business for profit at the end of the day.
Bott & Co. have done a great deal for the consumer for which I am sure we are all grateful. Hats off.

NoviceAngel

JPears wrote: »

.......Simple claims will be dealt with - higher risk claims will probably be rejected with a view to maximising profits and return. Its a business for profit at the end of the day.......

I do hope not, they have been pioneers and helped thousands of travelers claim what is rightfully there's.

Solicitors fees are generally in the region of £250 per hour, so with that in mind, 27% of a few hundred Euros isn't a great deal for their efforts. From what I recall, Botts were trying to make the process automated as much as possible to retain profits.

The Huzar, Dawson and Allen cases to name a few, we're all down to Bott & Co I hope they still relish the opportunity to win a few more, and knock on weather delays could be the next new case! I could do with another trip to Liverpool to meet the team!

Go on lets do it Botts!

Mark2spark

Dave_Z wrote: »

In Denver there's not likely to be another BA plane within 1,000 miles. Even then, all 'nearby' BA aircraft (PHX/LAS/LAX) will be operating other flights so the problem would just shift elsewhere if they moved one of those planes.

I hear your reasoning. But I disagree, and the angle that I would use is that BA have not allowed a long enough timeframe between legs of flights, (especially as Denver can be a known snowbound airport) to minimise delays should weather be a factor on any preceding leg.
You could also use time of year, extra chance of snow/ice delaying departing leg (even though, strictly, it is *the flight concerned* that has the weather yardstick applied)
BA simply have adopted a commercial timetable to maximise profits whist not giving due consideration to the implications of EU261/2004 should something go wrong at a remote airport from their operational centre.

kuepper

I started this thread all those years ago. I used Bott and have just been notified by them Jet2 have finally agreed to pay.

NoviceAngel

kuepper wrote: »

I started this thread all those years ago. I used Bott and have just been notified by them Jet2 have finally agreed to pay.

Hmmm, so good news?

It's really difficult I haven't used Botts services and at times I wish I had, but then I'd lose 27% of my compo..

Are you pleased you used there services ? Although I know you've been around these parts of the forum as long as I have so do you begrudge paying the 27%?

At least you finally got your compensation congrats for that.....

kuepper

NoviceAngel wrote: »

Hmmm, so good news?

It's really difficult I haven't used Botts services and at times I wish I had, but then I'd lose 27% of my compo..

Are you pleased you used there services ? Although I know you've been around these parts of the forum as long as I have so do you begrudge paying the 27%?

At least you finally got your compensation congrats for that.....

I wouldn't have had the stamina to keep interested if i'd try to do things myself I think, most of the time was waiting for the european court to give definitive advice and then jet 2 appealed etc. Bott kept me up to date throughout so they've earned their money. May use them for my 2 other cases (Germania and Lufthansa) if persuasion doesnt work and my patience runs out

legal_magpie

Not everyone has the ability or time, even with all the help available to take on the airlines on their own, so while you may lose 27% or whatever of your compensation you keep the other 73% as opposed to getting nothing.

Without Bott and Co there would have been no Huzar v Jet2 or Dawson v Thomson. Test cases generally don't do well where a litigant s in person. So unless Messrs Huzar or Dawson had been prepared to pay huge sums to lawyers to pursue what s a small claim, we would not be enjoying the fruits of their efforts. Bott and co stood to be well out of pocket had the cases not been won.

Fletchasketch

I have nothing but praise for Bott & Co. Professional, friendly honest ad most importantly, efficient.