We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Huzar appeal
Options
Comments
-
debteliminator1 wrote: »
Reason being, we have already received written confirmation from Air Safety State Agency "AESA" (Spain) stating:
In this case, AESA considers that the company has not proved the concurrence of extraordinary circumstances pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004. Accordingly, the air carrier should pay you a compensation for the amount of 400 Euro per passenger, being a flight of more than 1500 km (Almeria - Birmingam, 1736 km).
It was purely on the strength of the above paragraph why we decided to pursue our collective claim for delayed flight compensation against Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd.
This is not a strong enough statement to continue with the claim. The Spanish NEB has no jurisdiction whatsoever in UK law. Nice statement to have but that's about it. In my case when I questioned the Judge (I had similar support documentation from Madrid AESA) he said that in reality their letter was not worth the paper it was written on and about the nicest thing about it all was the Spanish stamp on the envelope.0 -
debteliminator1 wrote: »COULD YOU PLEASE HELP.
It's decision time...
...And we are not sure which route to take at this time regarding our recent compensation claim against Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd for a delayed (9 hours)inbound flight, back in June, 2013.
Claiming flight delay compensation for a family party of 9 passengers in total, including 2 infants and 1 baby.
Received "Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track" from Northampton (CCBC) County Court informing us that it is now a defended claim.
Thomas Cook Airlines have written to my wife (the Claimant), and the Court, that they are requesting her consent to our collective claim being stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the case of Huzar v Jet2.
Thomas Cook Airlines go on to state, "Our experience to date has been that Courts are granting stays in cases that proceed to final hearing and we are simply trying to avoid wasting Court time and costs of attendance".
We have yet to respond to Thomas Cook Airlines request as we do not know what to do for the best at this particular time.
Personally, I do feel we have a strong enough case against Thomas Cook Airlines to go right ahead and pursue our claim regardless of the final outcome of the Huzar v Jet2 case.
Reason being, we have already received written confirmation from Air Safety State Agency "AESA" (Spain) stating:
In this case, AESA considers that the company has not proved the concurrence of extraordinary circumstances pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 261/2004. Accordingly, the air carrier should pay you a compensation for the amount of 400 Euro per passenger, being a flight of more than 1500 km (Almeria - Birmingam, 1736 km).
It was purely on the strength of the above paragraph why we decided to pursue our collective claim for delayed flight compensation against Thomas Cook Airlines Ltd.
I would really appreciate any advice on what our best course of action should be at this time going on the information I have presented to you above.
Do you reckon we should pursue our claim in the hope that the Court does not grant a stay in our particular case, or accept Thomas Cook Airlines stay, pending the outcome of the appeal in the case of Huzar v Jet2?
Obviously any forthcoming advice would not be construed as legal advice, but would help towards us making an informed decision on how best to move forward with our claim.
Many thanks in advance,
I would suggest you go to the TC thread as this thread is a bout the famous huzar case due for hearing/request to appeal the famous honoured decision by HHJPlatts.
The request for stay by TC is a standard request to stall your claim in the hope you will give up. If your read the TC thread you will find many claimants with the same letter from TC including me.Check out Vaubans Flight Delay Guide, you will be glad you did....
:):)
Thomas Cook Claim - Settled Monarch Claim - Settled0 -
As Batman says, this issue - of stay or not stay - has been discussed ad nauseum. You just need to search for and read the posts, and you'll see the respective arguments.
One further point: I think there is a good chance that your claim will come unstuck on a technicality: it looks like you have used MCOL to claim for a party of nine. Strictly speaking, only those named in the claimant box are eligible for compensation. Again, this has been discussed lots of times. Search for "locus" and "MCOL" ...0 -
You will have to apply to the Court for permission to add the other passengers as claimants. If you include the infants and baby you will have to go through the procedure of being appointed as litigation friend as any settlement has to be approved by the Court and damages protected. You may not think it's worthwhile and you should check to see whether the infants and baby are eligible anyway.0
-
That it doesn't matter how a technical failure is discovered, since fixing a normal technical failure (a fuel shut off value in Huzar's instance) is both inherent in an airline's operation and within its control (the Wallentin test).
sorry to drive you mad Vauban! But what is the Wallentin test?
Kind regards
Mr.D0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards