Vauban
-
Posts
127 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Vauban
-
I think the only thing the OP can do is to be honest with the Entry Clearance Officer when they seek re-entry into the UK. Or perhaps try to speak to UKBA about what is likely to happen, so they can make preparations accordingly. To be honest, if you steal something of that value whilst on a student visa (and thus a guest in this country) then there have to be consequences for that criminal action. Much better - in my view - to see the authorities doing due process than to have the likes of RLP dishing out their saloon bar justice.
-
You don't think that Virgin are monitoring this thread? Or that seeking to mislead the Court over correspondence received might not therefore be the smartest move?
-
Jet2 delay - asking for individual claims from a family group
Vauban replied to howticklediam's topic in General Legal Issues
I hope you're right, but I fear you're not. What obligation in the regulation is being limited or waived? None that I can see. There's no mention of limitation periods in the original Regulation, but was subsequently clarified in the "More" case. The ECJ confirmed that it was national limitation periods that applied. So the point is whether it's legitimate under the Statute of Limitation to agree a shorter period. My understanding is that it can be. But I obviously hope I'm not right! -
Jet2 delay - asking for individual claims from a family group
Vauban replied to howticklediam's topic in General Legal Issues
I appreciate the 2 year point can get quite technical - and I'm not a lawyer, so I can't pretend to speak with authority on it. But my point was merely to stress that I don't think it is a baseless argument on their part, and it is necessarily inconsistent with the Limitations Act. The fact that you complained to the airline within 24 hours is immaterial - the matter relates solely to the period for which you may initiate legal action, and the clock doesn't stop ticking until you serve court papers. As for the rest of their arguments, I agree with you that they are bunkum. The check in point is just silly - for the reasons you state. As is the claims recovery company point. The van der Lans case is being used by a number of airlines to persuade the courts to agree further stays. This is nonsense too. As you say, the VDL case refers to whether technical problems can be considered extraordinary. This was dealt with by the European Court in 2008 (in the Wallentin judgement). In the UK, as you say, the Huzar v Jet2 case went as high as the Supreme Court, who endorsed the Court of Appeals' view that technical problems are generally not to be regarded as extraordinary circumstances. Interesting, it was a low-level Dutch court that referred the VDL to the European Court but the Dutch courts do not anticipate a different result to Wallentin and are continuing to apply that law - and not staying flight delay cases. Points four and five are all covered by Huzar/Wallentin. They are rehashing arguments already dismissed by the highest Court in England and Wales. I agree with you that all these extra points are relatively easy to deal with. The only thing I remain uncertain about is the two year limitation by dint of contractual agreement. But - as you say - that becomes quite legal and technical. I still think your best argument is that the Dawson case confirmed six years applies as a general rule, and it is unfair for passengers to extinguish this right in exchange for a ticket. The MSE Flight Delay forum is a good place to go for support and advice. There is a Jet.com thread here: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4384707 I've also pulled together a guide on how to claim flight delay compensation, based on my own experience with Monarch Airlines. You can get that from here: http://db.orangedox.com/GdfSa4xUZdZI5GJadr/Vauban's%20Guide%20to%20Claiming%20Flight%20Delay%20Compensation.pdf Good luck with your case! -
Jet2 delay - asking for individual claims from a family group
Vauban replied to howticklediam's topic in General Legal Issues
The Supreme Court endorsed the idea (in the Dawson case) that the period for making a retrospective claim under Reg 261/04 was the national statute of limitation, rather than the Montreal Convention (which was two years). The potential difficulty for the claimant is that - as I understand it - the period of limitation under UK law in these circumstances is six years or whatever period may be agreed between the parties. The airline's argument is that you agreed this period would be two years. Your challenge to this would be two-fold, I suggest: first, that this is an unfair contractual clause as it unreasonably restrictive; second, that the airline is put to strict proof that you agreed these T&Cs (it's not clear to me when they were amended to include 261/04 compensation - they originally referred to "damages", which is not the same thing as statutory compensation. I have not read of these arguments tested in a court yet though. -
I agree with this. You've got the judgement in your favour, and they've paid up. As far as I would be concerned, the matter rests there. If they want further comfort (though, as others have said, it's not obvious what they're really asking for - the judgement can't be rescinded or set aside now they've paid up) they can go whistle. I had this situation when I sued Monarch Airlines. Though fought tooth and nail until the very end - when the judge ruled against them. They sent me a cheque as ordered - with a draft agreement that the terms of the settlement would be confidential. That letter got filed in the bin, obviously. Because if you win, you win on your own terms!
-
My TAXI nudged a fence - court papers ***Settled by ADR***
Vauban replied to maybelate's topic in General Legal Issues
Presumably you will also want to show evidence that you tried to settle this matter before court. Because you are potentially liable for the other side's court fee costs if you lose (which will be about £150 I guess?). -
I don't understand why, for such a significant sum of money, you are relying on CAG for your legal advice - particularly if you are taking on a firm of lawyers. I'd echo the advice of those who suggest you need to get proper legal advice immediately - you don't have the benefit of the protections of the small claims track for this claim, so you must have significant liabilities in play.
-
To be clear, Regulation 261/04 entitles you to a refund of the accommodation costs incurred by the delay only (ie the enforced overnight stay in Brussels). Other "consequential losses", such as booked accommodation etc, cannot be reclaimed from the airline. You would need to claim this from your insurance policy.
-
I'm sure the OP would value your advice on which cases s/he might include in their bundle. And where they can get them. Personally, I'm not persuaded that District Judges are so familiar with Parking Eye's practices (including selective quoting of other cases) that including transcripts of other cases isn't helpful. But I am sure there are differing opinions on this. I think the guides produced by the Prankster and those on the MSE forum are quite helpful. Good luck to the OP!
-
Current thinking by whom? The other side are known to assemble bundles of cases that support their arguments, so I don't think it is unhelpful to collect those that illustrate the points of law you're seeking to argue. But it is right of course that none of these is binding.
-
The Parking Prankster's website has a treasure trove of such transcripts.
-
Forgot my railcard discussion thread
Vauban replied to mere's topic in Public transport (Trains, tubes and buses)
Without getting involved in any spat, it strikes me as fundamentally unfair if a passenger has a ticket, forgets their railcard, but can subsequently prove they do have the entitlement to travel at the reduced rate. Whatever the T&Cs, one ought be able reasonably to rely on the train company to demonstrate some common sense: these are not fare dodgers. I don't think the CAG community should be unsympathetic in these circumstances. -
Thanks for confirming that. Glad it's not an illegitimate ruse ...
-
Shold i accept the offer from thomson or take it further
Vauban replied to Lyndell's topic in Holiday & Airline companies
This seems a pretty good result to me - they are paying for the full cost of an upgrade to a room superior to the one you booked. I doubt that you would get any more if you went to a small claims court. So I would bank the cheque and feel positive you forced them to make the full offer. -
Sorry if I missed this, but what resolution are you looking for? If the complaint is that the caravan was dirty, a discount on the cost of the holiday might be appropriate. But as your parents only paid £9.50, I'm not sure that the outcome is going to be worth the effort.
-
Bazza kindly offered his thoughts, but he's a lone voice: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?434156-Annual-Gold-Card&p=4624440#post4624440
-
I think mere may be hitting the buffers on this one ... What a really odd thread. Of course if someone wouldclike to take a look at my question on a separate train thread, I'd be genuinely grateful for any thoughts (unlike Mr. Mere, it seems).
-
You seem very sure of your position. I had always understood that a successful prosecution in such circumstances does not require the train company to demonstrate intent. But I'm not an expert. It will be very interesting to hear how this plays out, though.
-
Something a little bit different for the train experts this time - at least not a fare evasion, at any rate. I have an annual Gold Card season ticket that allows me to travel from a station about 80 miles from London into London terminals every day. It costs about four and half grand - and runs from spring 2014 to 2015. Changes in my personal circumstances mean I am unlikely to need this card soon. Though I can "cash it in", the rail company only count the first ten months of validity to work out a pro-rata refund. However, I am permitted apparently to change the "origin" station - where my train journey begins - for free, and the difference in fare is refunded on a 12 month pro rata basis. Still with me? I have established that changing the validity of my gold card for a station much closer to London saves me more money than if I was to ask for a simple refund. There's nothing in the National Rail conditions of carriage or train company's T&Cs that stop me from doing this, so far as I can tell. So my question is: am I overlooking something? Thanks for any insights!
-
Disciplinary for using mobile phone
Vauban replied to M_Ons's topic in Employment and minimum wage problems
Because, as others have tried to explain, you'd have to demonstrate that the difference in treatment was caused or motivated by your race or gender - not simply that you were treated differently from someone of a different race or gender. If you had previous "form" for, for the sake of argument, being a difficult employee or someone with a record of misdemeanor then perhaps that could explain why management took a less forgiving line: I imagine they have some discretion. -
If it's a WP letter, then by definition that's what it is - an attempt to reach a settlement out of court. The point about savings to costs will presumably be so that they can show the judge they tried to compromise with you, and you we're unreasonably resolute. So this letter could make your costs situation worse not better (if the Judge concluded you were unreasonable in rebuffing this effort to settle). On the other hand, you would stress the offer wasn't received until the eve of the hearing as it was mis-addressed. And, if you were on the small claims track, both sides are generally responsible for their own costs. If you were the Defendant, you'll have to pay the claimant's court fees - does the £2100 include those or other costs?
-
Yes. That's my understanding too. But be clear that you now owe £2100, not £1500: an offer to settle out of court is just that. You can't ignore it, proceed to a judgement, lose, and then take them up on their out of court offer.
-
Virgin Free Flight Offered But Have Been Unable To Book?
Vauban replied to Rob3770's topic in Holiday & Airline companies
I don't think this is right: the Regulation makes clear (Article 7, para 3): *"The compensation referred to in paragraph 1 shall be paid in cash, by electronic bank transfer, bank orders or bank cheques or, with the signed agreement of the passenger, in travel vouchers and/or other services." If it was accepted in full and final settlement of a 261/04 claim, the fact the flight has not been used is probably immaterial. However ... Airlines are also obliged to inform you of your right to the compensation due under the Regulation, and if they failed to do so then I think you could argue you were not properly informed of your options. I still think it likely however that you were offered the flight as a gesture of goodwill, in which case you still have a cash claim. -
Virgin Free Flight Offered But Have Been Unable To Book?
Vauban replied to Rob3770's topic in Holiday & Airline companies
To be clear, it's 600 Euros each you'd be owed. If you accepted the free flight in final settlement of your claim, then you wouldn't be able to claim compensation. If it was offered Asa gesture of goodwill however then you can have both.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS