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
    • adonis10
    • By adonis10 10th Apr 18, 2:32 PM
    • 1,578 Posts
    • 204 Thanks
    adonis10
    Thomas Cook - delayed flight compensation
    Using Resolver, I claimed for compensation for a flight that was delayed back in 2012 and within 2 days I got the following responses:


    "Thanks for getting in touch with us about your flight.

    I'm sorry you were delayed. I know how frustrating it can be. We work hard to make sure delays and the disruption they cause are kept to a minimum.

    We've investigated why you were delayed and I'm pleased to let you know that under EU Regulation 261/2004 you should be paid compensation for your claim.

    It works out to 400!!!8364; per person which is the amount payable under the Regulation and as the compensation has been issued as a voucher, we have increased the compensation by an extra £200.00 which is only available when a voucher is accepted as compensation.

    Once again, thank you for contacting us. I hope we're able to welcome you back on board again in the future."



    "Following our conversations we've now completed our investigations.
    We're really sorry about the issues you had during your stay with us and want to confirm that we've offered you and your party the e-Voucher below as full and final settlement for the feedback you gave us.
    Thanks for giving us the chance to put things right. We hope we're able to look after you on holiday with us again soon.


    Kind regards,"



    I am sceptical about how genuine this is given how quickly they responded, particularly as I submitted the claim on a Saturday. I would also have expected them to initially refuse the claim or brush it off with a token gesture, so to get a £900 voucher is quite surprising. Also, should they not pay cash compensation as opposed to vouchers?


    Has anyone else had a similar experience?




    • Justice13075
    • By Justice13075 10th Apr 18, 2:37 PM
    • 1,424 Posts
    • 514 Thanks
    Justice13075
    Your choice to accept the voucher, but you're right you are entitled to cash. Contact them refusing the vouchers and insist on the cash.
    • adonis10
    • By adonis10 11th Apr 18, 9:32 AM
    • 1,578 Posts
    • 204 Thanks
    adonis10
    Your choice to accept the voucher, but you're right you are entitled to cash. Contact them refusing the vouchers and insist on the cash.
    Originally posted by Justice13075
    Thanks, that's good to know.

    To be honest, though, providing the voucher is genuine, I will probably keep it and have a much cheaper holiday!
    • adonis10
    • By adonis10 11th Apr 18, 9:42 AM
    • 1,578 Posts
    • 204 Thanks
    adonis10
    I have recently been awarded compensation for a delayed flight from LGW to Larnaca back in Aug 2012 and want to ensure that the reply and voucher is genuine. I submitted a claim on Friday 6th and by Saturday 7th it had been resolved and a voucher for £900 issued. This seems far too quick for my liking and I would have expected TC to at least try to get out of settling.


    What is the best way to check whether it is genuine or a scam?
    • JPears
    • By JPears 11th Apr 18, 10:06 AM
    • 4,188 Posts
    • 1,140 Thanks
    JPears
    I have to say that is quick, especially for TC. Given your delay was Aug 2012 I am surprised didn't bluff, obfuscate and procrastinate until you ran out of time for a claim in 4 months. (6 yeras limit)
    There is a slim i could be a scam, so be wary of giving bank details. I would insist on cash and insist on a cheque for payment.
    If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide

    The alleged Ringleader.........
    • adonis10
    • By adonis10 11th Apr 18, 10:10 AM
    • 1,578 Posts
    • 204 Thanks
    adonis10
    I have to say that is quick, especially for TC. Given your delay was Aug 2012 I am surprised didn't bluff, obfuscate and procrastinate until you ran out of time for a claim in 4 months. (6 yeras limit)
    There is a slim i could be a scam, so be wary of giving bank details. I would insist on cash and insist on a cheque for payment.
    Originally posted by JPears

    Yeah, I think it is a scam. Far too quick and easy for my liking.


    I don't intend to give bank details but don't see why they would be needed for a voucher, anyway.

    Going to call TC customer relations to see if it is genuine.
    • Liz Webb
    • By Liz Webb 20th Apr 18, 11:10 AM
    • 1 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Liz Webb
    Hi, I am new to this Forum.

    I had a 5 hour delay with them in October 2012 and just had a company call up to say they will fight my case of my behalf for a no win no fee case, but if successful will charge 30% fee plus Vat plus Admin fee per person.

    I did put a claim in myself in 2012 but this was rejected as i had a staff discount as i was a Travel Advisor for them in a Travel Agency, they said i would not get compensation due to this. A lot of family members travelling with me did get compensation. This company said they should not have rejected the claim just because i worked for them at the time.

    Is it worth going thru the company that called me or is it right they rejected my claim?

    Would be grateful if anyone was an employee with them and had a flight delay and got compensation or can help in any way?
    • Justice13075
    • By Justice13075 20th Apr 18, 11:46 AM
    • 1,424 Posts
    • 514 Thanks
    Justice13075
    The regulations state " To qualify for compensation, each passenger needs to have paid a fare available to the
    general public" What do you think?
    • NoviceAngel
    • By NoviceAngel 20th Apr 18, 5:21 PM
    • 2,102 Posts
    • 629 Thanks
    NoviceAngel
    Hi, I am new to this Forum.

    I had a 5 hour delay with them in October 2012 and just had a company call up to say they will fight my case of my behalf for a no win no fee case, but if successful will charge 30% fee plus Vat plus Admin fee per person.

    I did put a claim in myself in 2012 but this was rejected as i had a staff discount as i was a Travel Advisor for them in a Travel Agency, they said i would not get compensation due to this. A lot of family members travelling with me did get compensation. This company said they should not have rejected the claim just because i worked for them at the time.

    Is it worth going thru the company that called me or is it right they rejected my claim?

    Would be grateful if anyone was an employee with them and had a flight delay and got compensation or can help in any way?
    Originally posted by Liz Webb
    I think you should name and shame that claims handling company.

    The regulations state " To qualify for compensation, each passenger needs to have paid a fare available to the
    general public" What do you think?
    Originally posted by Justice13075
    It is funny that every year, Jet2 run a Xmas calendar competition and give flights away, I recall posting I hope I donít win because if I was delayed, that I wouldnít be able to make a claim!
    After reading PtL Vaubans Guide , please don't desert us, hang around and help others!

    Hi, weíve had to remove part of your signature. If youíre not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if youíre still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
    • legal magpie
    • By legal magpie 20th Apr 18, 5:24 PM
    • 922 Posts
    • 404 Thanks
    legal magpie
    I don't think you'll be on Jet2'sXmas card list, nor Tyzap !!!55357;!!!56832;
    • Paulcox741
    • By Paulcox741 4th May 18, 2:54 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Paulcox741
    Have had my claim rejected by TC and CEDR (despite someone else having theirs accepted).

    Delay was 5 hours but they've managed to somehow justify 2 hours and 5 minutes were due to extraordinary circumstances. Miraculously taking the delay down to just under the limit 2hr 55mins.

    However, I think they've taken the final time from the time we landed rather than the time the doors opened. I'm going to take this down the small claims court route but wondered if there is anywhere I can double check?

    Flight is MT2929 5/8/17. I logged the flight landing time as 11:20 with doors opening at 11:30. They've logged it as 11:25.
    • Justice13075
    • By Justice13075 4th May 18, 3:01 PM
    • 1,424 Posts
    • 514 Thanks
    Justice13075
    EuClaim believe you are due 600euro per passenger. Put you flight details into bottonline and see what they say.
    • Paulcox741
    • By Paulcox741 4th May 18, 8:39 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Paulcox741
    Yeah, been through the whole process. All indications are we're due but CEDR disagreed so this is my last hope.
    • Justice13075
    • By Justice13075 4th May 18, 10:09 PM
    • 1,424 Posts
    • 514 Thanks
    Justice13075
    Good Luck, if you need any help just come back.
    • Tyzap
    • By Tyzap 4th May 18, 11:13 PM
    • 1,640 Posts
    • 715 Thanks
    Tyzap
    Have had my claim rejected by TC and CEDR (despite someone else having theirs accepted).

    Delay was 5 hours but they've managed to somehow justify 2 hours and 5 minutes were due to extraordinary circumstances. Miraculously taking the delay down to just under the limit 2hr 55mins.

    However, I think they've taken the final time from the time we landed rather than the time the doors opened. I'm going to take this down the small claims court route but wondered if there is anywhere I can double check?

    Flight is MT2929 5/8/17. I logged the flight landing time as 11:20 with doors opening at 11:30. They've logged it as 11:25.
    Originally posted by Paulcox741
    Looking at a replay on PlaneFinder, you landed at 11.20 and took 5 minutes to taxi to stand, then a few more minutes until the door would be opened. I would say your timings look accurate.

    Can you post or pm the CEDR findings? I'd love to see how they managed to justify 2h 55m.
    Please read Vaubans superb guide. To find it Google and then download 'vaubans guide'.
    • NoviceAngel
    • By NoviceAngel 5th May 18, 9:21 AM
    • 2,102 Posts
    • 629 Thanks
    NoviceAngel
    Have had my claim rejected by TC and CEDR (despite someone else having theirs accepted).

    Delay was 5 hours but they've managed to somehow justify 2 hours and 5 minutes were due to extraordinary circumstances. Miraculously taking the delay down to just under the limit 2hr 55mins......
    Originally posted by Paulcox741
    We all said CEDR would be a disaster, just wish we could be proved wrong!

    Donít give up, Iíd issue an NBA see what happens, when they donít respond either follow Vaubans guide or give your case to a good NWNF Solicitors, Iím sure youíll win your case.
    After reading PtL Vaubans Guide , please don't desert us, hang around and help others!

    Hi, weíve had to remove part of your signature. If youíre not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if youíre still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
    • Paulcox741
    • By Paulcox741 7th May 18, 3:08 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Paulcox741
    Thanks Tyzap/NoviceAngel.

    Tyzap - have sent you a PM
    Novice/Angel - NBA is my next step. Just wanted to be 100% on my timings first.
    • Tyzap
    • By Tyzap 8th May 18, 7:29 PM
    • 1,640 Posts
    • 715 Thanks
    Tyzap
    Thanks PaulCox741 for the PM and the details of the CEDR findings.

    I'll post my thoughts here once I have given the document due consideration.
    Please read Vaubans superb guide. To find it Google and then download 'vaubans guide'.
    • Tyzap
    • By Tyzap 9th May 18, 3:30 PM
    • 1,640 Posts
    • 715 Thanks
    Tyzap
    Hi PaulCox741,

    Ive read the reasons that CEDR denied your claim for compensation from Thomas Cook and these are my observations on that decision.

    The adjudicators document -reasons for decision- consists of two A4 sheets and eight paragraphs, the first two of which contain general and background information.

    The next FIVE paragraphs go on to detail the reasons that the previous two flights prior to yours were delayed. These are reasons that caused a delay to the flight before yours (MT2928) but not directly to your flight. Your flight was delayed as a result of problems to those earlier flights, which the airline and the adjudicator then passed on to your flight. Generally know as a knock on delay.

    Only the final paragraph (8) addresses your flight and confirms that there were no further delays incurred, but that your flight still arrived with a five hour delay.

    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.

    However, the airline has claimed that the previous flight to yours was struck by lightening as it landed at Stansted Airport and that this was an EC which caused a delay of 1hour and 5 minutes. The adjudicator has then erroneously knocked this time off the delay incurred by your flight, there is no precedent.

    The adjudicator says - 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-

    The adjudicator has concocted a rule for this adjudication that is not supported by the EC261 regulations or any case law to support this view.

    The airline suggests that a second delay was incurred when the previous flight to yours (MT2928) arrived at Orlando International Airport (MCO). The landing aircraft was already 3hours and 48minutes late when it arrived. By this time other aircraft were using all the available gates and flight MT2928 was forced to wait 1hour and 25minutes before it docked at the arrival gate.

    The adjudicator says -I must find that the airline was unable to travel to the gate due to airport restriction. These restrictions must also be seen as extraordinary circumstances as, whilst travel to the gates within the normal activity of the airline, the lack of any gate availability is outside the normal activity. The provision of gates is also within the control of the airport and therefore outside the airlines control. I find that a minimum of a further 1 hour of delay was incurred due to there being no gate available on landing-

    Once again the adjudicator has concocted another rule as factual, which is unsupported by the EC261 regulations or any case law, there is no precedent set by previous legal cases to support this view.

    He decided that this delay amounts to an EC and has then erroneously deducted 1 hour from the delay incurred by your flight, making a total deduction of 2hours and 5minutes.

    The adjudicator states that your flight (MT2929) arrived back at Stansted Airport exactly 5 hours late, which would ordinarily qualify you for compensation at the full rate. However, the adjudicator has then erroneously deducted 2hours and 5minutes from your delay time because he says it was due to two ECs on the previous flight. This has the effect of reducing your delay to 2hours and 55minutes, 5 minutes under the lower rate of compensation, resulting in no compensation payment for your delay.


    My feeling is that the adjudicator got this decision wrong by drawing his own conclusions and not adhering to the EC261 regulation, case law and some general understanding of what the regulation intentions are.

    He seems to have lost sight of the fact that the pre-amble to the regulations states...

    Action by the Community in the field of air transport should aim, among other things, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers. Moreover, full account should be taken of the requirements of consumer protection in general.

    and

    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. Therefore all the extraordinary circumstances which surround an event such as those listed in Recital 14 are not necessarily grounds for an exemption from the obligation to pay compensation, but require a case-by-case assessment.

    My interpretation of this is that the benefit of the doubt should always be given to the claimant, I cannot see why CEDR would view it any differently.
    An airline must prove that a delay was caused by an EC to be exempted from paying compensation. The claimant does not have to disprove it. I do not feel that the airline proved its case or that the adjudicator fully understands the meaning of an EC.

    There were also other areas of the decision that I would question, but these were the most compelling imo.

    I believe that this case would succeed in the small claims track (MCOL), especially if allocated to one of the specialist flight delay courts. Perhaps that should be your next move.

    Good luck.
    Last edited by Tyzap; 09-05-2018 at 4:26 PM. Reason: Try to remove added rubbish when using spec characters
    Please read Vaubans superb guide. To find it Google and then download 'vaubans guide'.
    • JPears
    • By JPears 9th May 18, 3:49 PM
    • 4,188 Posts
    • 1,140 Thanks
    JPears
    Was the flight that was (allegedly) hit by lightening already delayed too?
    If so one could argue that if the flight was not delayed in the first instance, it may not have suffered the lightening strike in the first place. Are lightening strikes reportable to CAA?
    And not all of the original delay and therefore the missed gate excuse was due to the lightening strike.
    The reasoning by the CEDR adjuticator is specious in the least (we haven't seen that word for a while ). Spurious even?
    Last edited by JPears; 09-05-2018 at 3:54 PM.
    If you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide

    The alleged Ringleader.........
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

887Posts Today

7,196Users online

Martin's Twitter