Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
Page 410
    • Paulcox741
    • By Paulcox741 10th May 18, 10:12 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Paulcox741
    Thanks Tyzap.

    Will be issuing the NBA over the weekend.

    How much info do I need to include in the initial claim papers? Do I just need reiterate my original thoughts or should I go into how I disagree with the CEDR judgement?
    • Tyzap
    • By Tyzap 10th May 18, 11:04 PM
    • 1,380 Posts
    • 638 Thanks
    Tyzap
    Thanks Tyzap.

    Will be issuing the NBA over the weekend.

    How much info do I need to include in the initial claim papers? Do I just need reiterate my original thoughts or should I go into how I disagree with the CEDR judgement?
    Originally posted by Paulcox741
    Hi,

    All the information you need can be found in Vaubans Guide, see below here for details.

    I wouldn't bother mentioning about CEDR as it's irrelevant to your claim and will hold no sway either way with a judge.

    Firstly tho, you need to inform CEDR that you reject their decision.

    If the court finds in your favour it will show how out of kilter the CEDR adjudicator was with the EC261 regulations.

    PM me if you need any further help once you have read the guide.

    Good luck.
    Please read Vaubans superb guide. To find it Google and then download 'vaubans guide'.
    • NoviceAngel
    • By NoviceAngel 11th May 18, 12:00 AM
    • 2,034 Posts
    • 608 Thanks
    NoviceAngel
    I have quite a bit to add to Tyzaps post - none of which I disagree with.

    I’ve got a gap in work tomorrow morning so will try and add my uneducated thoughts, but I hope they will be helpful. A link to Vaubans guide is in my signature.

    My initial advice would be to keep the legal claim as simple as possible for now. When you prepare your court bundle we can add all the detail.

    Together with Tyzaps expert knowledge and my uneducated knowledge we can work as a team and win this won* with you.


    * blimey I must be tired should say ‘one’ nighty night all.
    Last edited by NoviceAngel; 11-05-2018 at 12:05 AM. Reason: Going to bed - long day
    After reading PtL Vaubans Guide , please don't desert us, hang around and help others!

    Hi, we’ve had to remove part of your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
    • Paulcox741
    • By Paulcox741 11th May 18, 8:52 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Paulcox741
    Thanks NoviceAngel :-)

    Will need all the help I can get, going into new territory here!!
    • NoviceAngel
    • By NoviceAngel 11th May 18, 11:22 AM
    • 2,034 Posts
    • 608 Thanks
    NoviceAngel
    Apologies for the delay, but I felt I wanted to have a go at looking at your case, I haven't had the benefit of reading the full adjudicators decision, however Tyzap has posted his thoughts after reading it fully and I completely agree with Tyzaps logical reasoned synopsis.

    There are a few statements I'd like to give my thoughts though.. I'm not coming from a legal viewpoint though, these are just my thoughts and nothing more. I'm also going to broaden the arguments a little.

    Under some circumstances a delay to an earlier flight, caused by an extraordinary circumstance (EC), may also affect later flights by that aircraft, such as possibly..

    Acts of terrorism or sabotage
    Political or civil unrest
    Security risks
    Strikes (unrelated to the airline such as, airport staff, ground handlers, or air traffic control)
    Weather conditions incompatible with the safe operation of the flight
    Hidden manufacturing defects (a manufacturer recall that grounds a fleet of aircraft)

    But the merit of each case should be examined on a case by case basis.
    Originally posted by Tyzap
    I know that this is the considered view at the moment and one that judges appear to be taking, hopefully the Blanche v Easyjet CoA case next year will look at knockons caused by ATC restrictions and hopefully the law will become clear.

    My view is much stronger, I do not believe that a knock on delay of any kind however caused EC or non EC should be able to have a knock on effect to follow on flights, I mean where do you draw the line ? That's open for the airlines abuse, that's like me saying 'I'm late for work today, sorry but I had a late night two days ago and I still haven't caught up with my sleep yet ' - Seriously ?

    I think it's fair to say I'm not the only one with this view: Over to you JP

    I still don't get the " knock on delay due to weather maybe an EC"
    Reg. 261/2004 is quite clear about this in preamble paragraph 14 -

    "(14) As under the Montreal Convention, obligations on operating air carriers should be limited or excluded in cases where an event has been caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken. Such circumstances may, in particular, occur in cases of political instability, meteorological conditions incompatible with the operation of the flight concerned, security risks, unexpected flight safety shortcomings and strikes that affect the operation of an operating air carrier."
    Two aspects of this paragraph.
    1. "may" the preamble use of may is ambiguous, it doesn't state that weather affecting an aircraft is always in EC, leaving the door open to Bott's interpretation.
    2. The flight concerned. This is not ambiguous. It concerns the flight, not the aircraft concerned, which is how the airlines want to interpret this.
    Originally posted by JPears
    I completely agree with this it does say the flight concerned - end of.

    I find that this is akin to a bird strike and that it must be deemed an extraordinary circumstances as it is outside the normal activity of the air carrier and outside its actual control-
    by The adjudicator
    This is nonsense, whether it's akin to a bird strike or not has no relevance - it was a previous flight

    "A given extraordinary circumstance can produce more than one cancellation or delay at final destination, such as in the case of an Air Traffic Management decision as referred to in Recital 15 of the Regulation. As derogation from the normal rule, i.e. the payment of compensation, which reflects the objective of consumer protection, it must be interpreted strictly."

    This is the bit I think IS a bit sticky. That's why your getting in my view wrong decisions being made not only by CEDR but judges up and down the country, the difference here though is they use the example of an ATC decision as being a genuine EC, so therefore all EC's are equal ? So knock on delays that are caused by any EC can produce more than one delayed flight ? That's of course if you do accept the premise, that ATC restrictions to a previous flight are allowed to have a genuine EC for further flights in the first place. Rubbish nonsense, the intended meaning is quite clear - it's how some lawyers and judges interpret that as a get out of jail free card for the airline which is wrong in my view.

    I believe that this case would succeed in the small claims track (MCOL), especially if allocated to one of the specialist flight delay courts.
    Originally posted by Tyzap
    Exactly, but as you rightly point out with a flight delay specialist court, such as Liverpool. There are quite frankly bonkers decisions going on up and down the county because the regulations are not fully understood. I've been on here for years helping others and half the time it's difficult for me to understand some parts of EC261/2004 so often a judge does make a wrong decision and that's the danger here, yes you can appeal but if you do so and subsequently lose then you could be hit financially as the airline may be ordered costs against you for appealing.

    One of the great benefits of CEDR is the uncomplicated fashion you can put your case forward without having to understand the court system. CEDR need to FULLY understand EC261/2004 and there's no excuse for wrong decisions, there should be an appeals process and only then will I recommend this path.

    I wish Paul all the luck in the world with his court case and hope that his case can be heard at Liverpool, if so it will be another day out for me.It could be a long journey from all prospectives, let's just hope common sense prevails for once.

    Thank you for reading my ramblings.

    Cheers

    NoviceAngel

    EDIT - I've just added the Judment in the Blanche case to do with knock ons caused by ATC over in the Easyjet thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4384709&page=147
    Last edited by NoviceAngel; 11-05-2018 at 11:54 AM. Reason: typo
    After reading PtL Vaubans Guide , please don't desert us, hang around and help others!

    Hi, we’ve had to remove part of your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
    • Paulcox741
    • By Paulcox741 12th May 18, 8:21 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Paulcox741
    Thanks so much, for the comprehensive response NoviceAngel!!

    Will get the NBA issued and then be back in touch to pull the right info together for MCOL.
    • daddymilner
    • By daddymilner 20th May 18, 10:05 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    daddymilner
    Hello
    We just returned home from salou yesterday ....
    we were due to fly at 10.15am however we did not fly until 3.40pm . (Tcx1057)
    We were told by captain this was due to technical difficulties to two air crafts?!
    I have submitted a claim via the Thomas cook claim page . Just wondering what happens next , a lot of the other flyers in departure lounge said we can not claim to to it being technical difficulties?!
    • Justice13075
    • By Justice13075 20th May 18, 10:23 PM
    • 1,124 Posts
    • 459 Thanks
    Justice13075
    If your flight was 19th May from Reus airport to Manchester EuClaim say you are due 250euro per passenger. You could always put your flight details into bottonline and see what they say. Technical faults are not extraordinary circumstances so this should be a straightforward claim. You now need to wait to see if they accept or reject your claim. If they reject it come back for more help. I'd give them 2 weeks.
    • daddymilner
    • By daddymilner 20th May 18, 10:30 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    daddymilner
    Yes that!!!8217;s our flight . It was 5 hours and 18 minutes late.
    They did provide us with a !!!8364;8 food voucher . We were traveling with our 3 year old
    Daughter is she entitled to it too?
    I looked at that company but I!!!8217;m guessing they charge a huge fee .
    • Justice13075
    • By Justice13075 20th May 18, 10:33 PM
    • 1,124 Posts
    • 459 Thanks
    Justice13075
    If you paid anything towards her fare even a nominal charge then yes she is also entitled.
    • daddymilner
    • By daddymilner 20th May 18, 10:51 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    daddymilner
    Yes we paid same as us total including holiday was £1300 for all 3 of us , il update as soon as I hear anything
    • cgreene
    • By cgreene 22nd May 18, 11:06 AM
    • 3 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    cgreene
    Claiming as a group or separately
    Hi all, read through a lot of the excellent advice on this forum and couldn’t find if this question was answered - but apologies if it has been.

    I travelled in a group of 16 from London Gatwick to Tenerife on Friday. Flight was delayed by 3 hours 20 minutes due to a delayed maintenance check (so we were told). I believe we are eligible for a claim of €400 each.

    Looking at the online form, it asks for ‘Lead Booking Name’ only. Should we submit one form/start the process for the entire group or make 16 separate claims?
    • Tyzap
    • By Tyzap 22nd May 18, 9:19 PM
    • 1,380 Posts
    • 638 Thanks
    Tyzap
    Hi all, read through a lot of the excellent advice on this forum and couldn’t find if this question was answered - but apologies if it has been.

    I travelled in a group of 16 from London Gatwick to Tenerife on Friday. Flight was delayed by 3 hours 20 minutes due to a delayed maintenance check (so we were told). I believe we are eligible for a claim of €400 each.

    Looking at the online form, it asks for ‘Lead Booking Name’ only. Should we submit one form/start the process for the entire group or make 16 separate claims?
    Originally posted by cgreene
    You can do either, but if you use a lead name they will require authority from the other claimants at some point. Probably the best way forwards tho for a group of 16.

    Good luck.
    Please read Vaubans superb guide. To find it Google and then download 'vaubans guide'.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,482Posts Today

8,064Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin