Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Thomas Cook Holidays & Airline - Refused to Carry Problem


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3964 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all

 

I am looking for some advice about the below case please. Thanks.

 

Holiday details:

5 of us (4 adults and 1 child of 11 yrs) booked and paid for an all inclusive holiday with Thomas Cook Holidays online.

 

I was refused to get on the Thomas Cook Airline flight in August 2012 due to issues with their contract check-in personnel. I had disagreed with their extortionate excess weight charge of £14 per kg insisting first to speak to the check-in personnel's manager(s) and later to the Stansted Airport Thomas Cook (TC) representative. They were refusing the latter request until they realised that I'll not be giving up. So, the TC lady agreed a reasonable solution to the 18kg excess weight issue with suggesting the use of a little advertised 'flight only bag', which would cost £60 for an extra 20kg baggage allowance (we would have to purchase a bag to qualify for this option). I was not present at this point of discussions between the holiday party, the ground staff and the TC lady, as I had taken my son to the gents, which is a fair distance from the check-in area/desks.

 

I noticed that my wife and our friends (a married couple) were not present at the check-in area when I returned with my son. I asked the TC rep and the check-in person what had been decided, to which she replied 'you better go and ask YOUR LOT over there', pointing in the direction of my friend sitting down away from the check-in desks. I unfortunately lost my rag and indirectly accused them of being 'racist' WITHOUT using such terms or any foul language ('you need to change your glasses so that you can see people as they are', to which the ground personnel check-in lady and the TC rep took exception and regarded my statement as accusing them of being 'racist'). My wife and my friend's wife had gone to purchase a bag to take advantage of the deal offered by the TC rep and returned to the desks to find that the TC rep and primarily the ground staff had decided to refuse to let me on the flight.

 

It is worth noting that at the same time they had obviously called for the Police to attend. But, FOUR ARMED Police Officers turned up?!! So, they must have either asked for this many or by blowing up the situation to a bigger one than it was, the airport security sent a strong and armed unit to deal with me! It was the first time in my 40 years in this country that I had come across / had anything to do with the Police let alone ARMED ones. I found it intimidating and my wife and 11 year-old son were obviously upset and scared.

 

They were using this method to 'bully' me into submission, as I was the most vociferous in the party and had insisted all along that there must be a solution to the extortionate rates they wanted to charge us. And funny enough there was!

 

I was told to 'make my own way' to the resort. They AND the armed Police (?!) refused to provide me with any written confirmation of TC's decision or the names of the personnel involved in making the decision (this is a key point that I'll come back to later in the story).

 

I asked my wife to speak to the TC rep at the holiday resort to ensure that there would be no problems with my flight back. The TC rep confirmed that there will not be any issues or problems, as the 'refuse to carry' was only for the outbound flight. Unfortunately we don't have her name or this in writing, but my friend's wife was present as a witness.

 

Can you guess what happened on the day of the return flight? Yes, of course, I was refused carriage again! But, this time it was due to a 'letter' from TC at Stansted dated 13 days prior to the return flight date, i.e. the day after the outbound flight. So, why had TC failed to notify me of this intention earlier, i.e. at Stansted? Funny enough this is exactly what their legal department is TRYING to say now, that my 'contract' with their airline was effectively 'terminated/cancelled' when they refused to carry me on the outbound flight. Well, in that case why wasn't I given a written notification of this, as I would then have arranged a TWO WAY RETURN flight for myself knowing in advance that I wouldn't be allowed on the return flight.

 

I jumped ahead a bit there, sorry. I complained to TC and requested a compensation for what they had done and for ruining our first family holiday in nearly 8 years. They obviously have refused and the end result has been for me to take the matter to ABTA and their Arbitration service. I have received TC's 'defence' to my claims and now need to get back to the Arbitration service with my reply to their 'defence'.

 

Any advice or help would be much appreciated.

 

radmm0

Edited by radmm0
Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as I can know you have to use both parts of a package tour ticket or you forfeit the whole thing. IMO T C wre correct to refuse your flight and if I were them I would have refused to return you home, however they should have told you that the return ticket would not be honoured, 22kgs over ??

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks AB.

 

I sort of agree with you on the letter of the law if we agree that they were right to refuse me carrtiage. Yes they should have notified me about the fact that I wouldn't be allowed to travel back on the return flight at Stansted, which they 'refused' to do by not agreeing to give me ANY written confirmation of their name(s) or reason(s) for not being allowed on the outbound flight at Stansted.

 

The main points of my claim are:

 

1. the check-in person did not follow the correct procedure when letting 3 of our 5 suitcases onto the airport conveyor system BEFORE letting us know that we had an 18kg surcharge to pay, which meant we couldn't re-adjust our suitcase content to resolve the situation there and then (one idea we had was to leave our extra belongings at the airport left luggage service, which at £10 per day would have been much cheaper than TC's £14 per kg charge), and

2. they had NO reason(s) to refuse me carriage on the outbound flight, as I hadn't done ANYTHING wrong other than ask to speak to more senior personnel and the TC rep at Stansted airport to escalate the issue. May be I was rather vociferous and assertive in my approach and very demanding, but I certainly I was not abusive, vulgar, disruptive or cause ANY problems or be of potential danger to the flight or any passengers, as stated in TC's 'defence' to my claim.

 

But, how do I convince the ABTA Arbitration service of the above and do I need to get proper legal advice BEFORE I reply to TC's defence?

 

Any help with this matter would be very much appreciated.

 

BTW, the WHOLE group of passengers (5 of us) had 18kg excess weight, not just me!

 

Rgds.

radmm0

Link to post
Share on other sites

Responding to S.O.S - have asked site team for input for you.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks AB.

 

I sort of agree with you on the letter of the law if we agree that they were right to refuse me carrtiage. Yes they should have notified me about the fact that I wouldn't be allowed to travel back on the return flight at Stansted, which they 'refused' to do by not agreeing to give me ANY written confirmation of their name(s) or reason(s) for not being allowed on the outbound flight at Stansted.

 

The main points of my claim are:

 

1. the check-in person did not follow the correct procedure when letting 3 of our 5 suitcases onto the airport conveyor system BEFORE letting us know that we had an 18kg surcharge to pay, which meant we couldn't re-adjust our suitcase content to resolve the situation there and then (one idea we had was to leave our extra belongings at the airport left luggage service, which at £10 per day would have been much cheaper than TC's £14 per kg charge), and

2. they had NO reason(s) to refuse me carriage on the outbound flight, as I hadn't done ANYTHING wrong other than ask to speak to more senior personnel and the TC rep at Stansted airport to escalate the issue. May be I was rather vociferous and assertive in my approach and very demanding, but I certainly I was not abusive, vulgar, disruptive or cause ANY problems or be of potential danger to the flight or any passengers, as stated in TC's 'defence' to my claim.

 

But, how do I convince the ABTA Arbitration service of the above and do I need to get proper legal advice BEFORE I reply to TC's defence?

 

Any help with this matter would be very much appreciated.

 

BTW, the WHOLE group of passengers (5 of us) had 18kg excess weight, not just me!

 

Rgds.

radmm0

 

I fear that you will have little or no redress in this situation.

 

By your own admission you were "rather vociferous and assertive in my approach and very demanding". This demeanour is often taken as hostile by airport staff and can lead, as you experienced, to being removed from a flight or flights. You were raising your voice by saying you wouldn't pay the correct surcharge for overweight luggage which led to this scenario. In the same position I might have reacted in a similar way to the check in staff.

 

Whether you should have been informed that you had been removed from both flights at the earlier time, I know not, certainly one would have assumed that to be the case.

 

As for compensation I cannot see any forthcoming in your case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input cityboy62. However, please note that there are a lot of factors and evidence that I have not mentioned in my original post, as it would have made the post at least 30 pages!

I certainly agree they would have been within their 'rights' to slam me with their various contract clauses and to behave the way they have towards me and my group if I had been drunk, disorderly, raising my voice, abusive, disruptive, shouting, swearing etc etc. But, I was not doing ANY of these, except to ask/demand to speak to the check-in person's superiors and the TC rep at Stansted.

Why are you so confident that I haven't got a case against them, especially not succeeding with my compensation claim? Are you a lawyer or do you work in the industry?

radmm0

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi radmm0

 

So they have refused compensation so the first thing I will ask is under which part of there Terms & Conditions are they refusing compensation?

 

Below is the part of there Terms & Condition on Refusal and Limitation of Carriage:

 

7 Refusal and limitation of carriage

 

7.1 Right to Refuse Carriage

 

In the exercise of our discretion, we may refuse to carry you or your Baggage if we have notified you in writing that we would not at any time after the date of such notice carry you on our flights or if one or more of the following have occurred or may occur:

 

7.1.1 such action is necessary in order to comply with any applicable government laws, regulations, or orders;

 

7.1.2 the carriage of you or your Baggage may endanger the safety, health, comfort or convenience of other passengers or crew;

 

7.1.3 your mental or physical state, including your impairment from alcohol or drugs, presents a hazard or risk to yourself, to Passengers, to crew or to property;

 

7.1.4 you have committed misconduct on a previous flight, and we have reason to believe that such conduct may be repeated;

 

7.1.5 you have refused to submit to a security check;

 

7.1.6 you have not paid any applicable taxes or charges;

 

7.1.7 you do not appear to have valid travel documents, you seek to enter a country through which you may be in transit, or for which you do not have valid travel documents, you destroy your documentation during flight or you refuse to surrender your travel documents to the flight crew, against receipt, when so requested;

 

7.1.8 you present a Ticket that has been acquired unlawfully, has been purchased from an entity other than the Ticket Issuer, has been reported as being lost or stolen or is a counterfeit, or you cannot prove that you are the person named in the Ticket;

 

7.1.9 you have not used the coupons in sequence, or you present a Ticket, which has been issued or altered in any way, other than by the Ticket Issuer or us, or the Ticket is mutilated.

 

7.1.10 we are requested to do so by the Ticket Issuer;

 

7.1.11 you fail to observe our instructions with respect to safety or security;

 

7.1.12 you have previously committed one of the acts or omissions referred to above.

 

7.2 Special Assistance and Passengers with disabilities

 

7.2.1 Acceptance for carriage of passengers with disabilities or with reduced mobility or of unaccompanied children, incapacitated persons, pregnant women, persons with illness or other people requiring special assistance is subject to prior arrangement with us and is also subject to these Conditions of Carriage and the procedures and requirements set out at http://www.thomascookairlines.co.uk/medical.asp. This includes requirements for electric wheelchair / mobility aid acceptance.

 

7.2.2 Passengers with disabilities or with reduced mobility who have advised us of their disability and any special requirements they may have at the time of ticketing, and been accepted by us, shall not subsequently be refused carriage on the basis of such disability or special requirements.

 

7.2.3 We may require that you travel with an attendant if it is essential for safety or you are unable to assist in your own evacuation from the aircraft, or you are unable to understand the safety instructions.

 

7.2.4 Assistance dogs may be taken into the aircraft cabin if applicable laws permit it and if the necessary arrangements are in place at the relevant airports. You assume full responsibility for such animal. We shall not be liable for injury or loss, delay, sickness or death of such animal unless caused by our fault or negligence.

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think 7.1.4, 7.1.11 or 7.1.12

 

im sorry but if if needed police intervention then they are well within their rights to refuse carrage

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think 7.1.4, 7.1.11 or 7.1.12

 

im sorry but if if needed police intervention then they are well within their rights to refuse carrage

 

Sorry guys, but this thread is getting a bit out of control. None of the above clauses quoted by labrat are being used in their counterclaim/defence, so don't know why you have made your post?!

 

I'll post the correct clauses they are claiming against me shortly stu007.

 

As stated in my previous post (#6 above), there are a lot of factors/evidence that I have not stated on this post. One of the facts is that the ARMED POLICE (4 of them) were called in to intimidate and bully me at Stansted. As stated by two of them (overheard by my wife) 'why have they called us, there is no point for us being here, as this is a very low level incident'. So, labrat, there was NO reason for them getting any Police involved, as I was NO threat to anyone or any property unlike some of the typical drunks and mental cases they must have had in the past and still get to have required the clauses listed by stu007.

 

Another one of the Police was overheard by my wife and friend’s wife saying to his colleague ‘why are we wasting our time, let’s just arrest him’. Having been notified by my family and friend of their intention and not wanting to be arrested in front of my 11 year-old son, I accepted the situation with the intention of taking action after the holiday was over.

 

I even asked the TC rep at Stansted about my return flight BEFORE I left Stansted. She stated that I would need to call a 0844 number the next day to find out. I couldn’t call them the next day, as I was travelling from very early in the morning and couldn’t call the 0844 number from the holiday resort either, so decided to let my wife, who was already meeting the resort TC rep about our luggage, to ask about my return flight. None of us envisaged that they would be denying me carriage on the return flight, as according to their own rep at the holiday resort 'there should be NO problems' for my return flight.

 

TC notified me about their intention to ‘refuse to carry’ at the airport when checking in to return home with a crappy letter without an addressee name, a signature or a name from TC and it was dated the day after our outbound flight! So, the TC rep at the holiday airport had been sitting on this letter for a long time when they should have informed me or the TC rep at the resort the day they received it. My wife and son refused to fly without me AGAIN, so we had to get a single flight back via Germany for 3 people, which cost a lot of money.

 

I have now revealed a lot more than necessary, but I hope it makes the unacceptable use of ARMED POLICE and TC’s total incompetence clearer for everyone.

 

radmm0

Edited by radmm0
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your post stu007.

 

The clauses used by TC when originally rejecting my compensation claim were stated as 7.1.3, 7.1.4 and 7.1.6. However, in their 'defence' to my claims in the ABTA Arbitration process their Legal Dept have also included 7.1.5, which is totally bizarre, as I didn't refuse to have a security check, as they hadn't asked to do such a check anyway. Don't know why they have suddenly included this clause to their 'defence'?!

 

I have a lot more info/evidence if you require, but would prefer not to post it on the forum.

 

I was rather concerned when I was told by ALL the TC and their ground staff officials present at the Stansted chek-in area, including the Police, that 'they don't have to provide me with any names or a written notification of their decision'. My concerns about the lack of any written notification at Stansted have unfortunately shown themselves to be justified, as they have now included two 'logs' without dates, times and names to 'strengthen' their 'defence', which of course I'll be rejecting as acceptable 'evidence' until they can provide a copy of the WHOLE log(s). But, we all know what officials are capable of doing to get 'convictions', to hide their own incompetence and their failure to follow the correct procedures, e.g. too many to mention, but recently there has been Hillsborough and even more current 'Plebgate'!

 

Thanks again.

 

radmm0

Edited by radmm0
Link to post
Share on other sites

I sympathise with you but I have the feeling that you may be downplaying your attitude in the day and it comes across as if you were a lot more aggressive at check in than you are now saying. Is there any CCTV footage of the incident?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sympathise with you but I have the feeling that you may be downplaying your attitude in the day and it comes across as if you were a lot more aggressive at check in than you are now saying. Is there any CCTV footage of the incident?

 

Thanks for your comment. I don't know about CCTV footage, as I'm sure we could ask for it if necessary.

 

It won't show anything other than myself and my group of 3 other adults and 1 child standing around the check-in desk area speaking face to face with the check-in personnel. There was no 'attitude' and I didn't show any aggression, only questioning their 'zero tolerance' to any excess weight and the extortionate £14 per kg charge. The only time I lost my assertiveness was when the TC rep at Stansted was rather rude towards my friends and myself.

 

Even if I was 'aggressive', which I wasn't, it doesn't justify them refusing carriage, as I was NO threat to anyone. So, no I am definitely not downplaying the incident.

 

radmm0

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its like a publican they can always refuse passage, got to say its best not to argue with them the excess weight charges are clear and 14.00 per kilo isn't that bad.

Thanks again AB.

 

I and the rest of the party were not arguing or refusing to pay the excess charges. We were requesting to speak to their superiors and the TC rep at Stansted for an alternative solution to the surcharge. That's all. They just didn't like us. That's all. That was apparent from the moment we arrived at the desk, as she didn't even reply to our 'good morning' gesture. I'm certainly not paranoid and have never been involved in any incident that requires Police intervention. This case certainly did not require any Police intervention. They were called to intimidate and to carry out a 'well oiled' routine by the authorities to refuse carriage to someone they want to 'punish', as a result of the passenger being too assertive or knowledgeable.

 

The number of posts on this thread that seem to be 'in total agreement' with the authorities' decisions is rather worrying, as that is exactly what the authorities wanted to create by getting FOUR ARMED POLICE involved to cover themselves for any future action by the passenger(s). So, most of the CAGgers posting on this thread have fallen for their use of authority to pervert the course of justice. All I can do is hope that the Arbiter or any future Judge doesn’t fall for the same trick and will take my side of the incident into account as well.

It is worth noting that our group are well travelled and have NEVER had any problem at ANY check in desks of any other airline or airport anywhere in the world!

So, stu007, can you please get back with your comments/suggestions? Thanks.

 

radmm0

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just got to say without cctv it will porobably be their word against yours, unfortunately a gesture or assertiveness can be misconstrued and one persons take on something will not be anothers. without actually witnessing the incident it is impossible who to say is right and who is wrong I can only wish you the best of luck.

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just got to say without cctv it will porobably be their word against yours, unfortunately a gesture or assertiveness can be misconstrued and one persons take on something will not be anothers. without actually witnessing the incident it is impossible who to say is right and who is wrong I can only wish you the best of luck.

 

 

I agree that it is subjective and if the check in girl felt intimidated or threatened she had every right to escalate the situation and refuse check in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well if you feel its been over stated then your welcome to take it to small claims for your costs

 

however personally i feel that

  • the airline is well covered by their own terms and conditions
  • you didnt get the agreement to allow on the return flight in writing
  • the fact that the police were called will suggest on its own to a judge that your behaviour may be more than you have stated
  • the airline would press that it is not obliged to meet any costs you have created from miss behaviour

 

however all that above and dispite my reservations that you would fail i give any small claim against the airline a roughly 80% chance of success just because they are unlikely to turn up and you would win by default

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its like a publican they can always refuse passage, got to say its best not to argue with them the excess weight charges are clear and 14.00 per kilo isn't that bad.

 

they can just refuse passage, but then compensation is due under EU regulation 261.

If I was the OP I would send them a SAR to see what information they have recorded about him, and also try get any CCTV footage. Possibly could also try get the notes made by the police officers on the day.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

they can just refuse passage, but then compensation is due under EU regulation 261.

If I was the OP I would send them a SAR to see what information they have recorded about him, and also try get any CCTV footage. Possibly could also try get the notes made by the police officers on the day.

 

Thanks a lot for your timely input Steveod, much appreciated. I'll have to carry out your suggestions in case I lose the claim the ABTA Arbitration, for which I need to reply to TC's 'defence' by this Friday (21st July). Unfortunately I can't delay the reply any longer, as I've already used that option last week. So, any assistance for responding to their 'defence' would be extremely helpful. They have mainly rejected ALL my claims for compensation using the following:

1. Terms & Conditions for Refuse to Carriage clauses (refer posts #7 and #10)

2. Terms & Conditions of their ground staff contracting company (whereby they state that their obligation to return the passenger is cancelled due to the outbound refusal). This is the most important point that people with legal knowledge have pointed out as a potential failure for their defence, as they should have notified me of this when refusing me carriage on the outbound flight, which they didn't. In fact, they used the armed police as an 'enforcer' of their intention NOT to provide me with ANY written notification about the refusal or their names.

3. they have referred to the 'duty manager's LOGs' to point out what they have said about the whole episode. The main issue with the LOGs is that neither have a 'heading', date, time or name. They are just a copy of text in capitals, which could have been done at anytime since their actions against me on any word processing software!

 

Any ideas or suggestions please? Thanks.

 

radmm0

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there.

 

I'll let the site team know you're looking for legal-type advice and hope someone will be able to pop in to give you a few pointers.

 

My best, HB

 

Thanks HB. Just getting worried that there haven't been any comments yet. I need to reply to TC's ABTA Arbitration 'defence' by tomorrow, so any comments/advice/suggestions would be much appreciated.

 

radmm0

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again.

 

I let the team know, but sadly if you've had no replies it could be that people don't feel able to help. It's a bit of a long shot, but do you have legal advice cover with your household insurance? They might be able to give you some tips.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again.

 

I let the team know, but sadly if you've had no replies it could be that people don't feel able to help. It's a bit of a long shot, but do you have legal advice cover with your household insurance? They might be able to give you some tips.

 

HB

 

Thanks again HB. I have the cover, but unfortunately it came into force after the problems with TC started, so they won't help.

 

I was rather hoping stu007 may come back with something, as he asked for specifics in an earlier post.

 

radmm0

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Quick Update.

 

The Arbitration process has yielded a part victory for me, which is fantastic really. However, I may still take them to court, as I believe they have a bigger case to answer, both financially and legally.

 

I'm meeting a local solicitor next week for some free advice to gauge whether or not to go down the court route.

 

Thanks everyone for all your comments and help.

 

Rgds.

radmm0

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi radmm0

 

Thank you for the update now the part victory with arbitration would it be possible to let us know what they held in your favour.

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...