Travel In Europe

[Thomas_Merton]

We have managed, not by our own design, to be relatively lucky, with respect to Visas and the European Union – alas the love affair has ended, when we were refused permission to fly to Greece for our annual holiday.

The History

When we got married (over 6 years ago), I was a British citizen living and working from Denmark. Our marriage took place in Bangkok and the resulting Visa for my wife to travel to Denmark was expedited within two weeks, citing the EU regulations that no neighbouring European state may restrict the free movement of another European citizen.

My wife, shortly before our marriage, gave birth to a son (of which I was not the “sexual” father).

My wife and I travelled to Denmark and spent a year establishing our home and my wife’s job. She applied for an extension to her visa and was granted a permanent (no time limit) residence and working visa.

We then returned to Thailand to collect our son (by this time the Thai police had investigated Martin’s “sexual” father who has never shown any interest in the child, and gave me custody rights over him). We were incorrectly informed by the Danish Embassy that a visa for Martin would take “up to six months”. We did not have this time, so were forced to return to Denmark without him. After seeking legal advice, we returned to the Danish Embassy in Bangkok and produced our lawyer’s opinion that the same interpretation placed on my wife’s visa should apply to her son.

We received the visa within two weeks. The family returned to Denmark to continue our life there.

During our time in Denmark, all three of us visited Greece on two separate occasions to hold our annual holidays. Both the Greek and the Danish immigration authorities interpreting my wife’s permanent visa to also apply to her 3 year old son.

My job, in Denmark, began to role down, so we decided to move to the UK, where I have better employment possibilities.

Both my wife and Martin were granted a years “family” visa for the UK.

Before these visas ran out, we applied for permanent visas for both Martin and my wife, fully expecting to have to pay the £150+ these usually cost. However, when the visas arrived (permanent residency and work visa until 2010), they were granted under EU regulations and did not cost any money.

Not aware of any possibility of there being a problem, we booked and paid for (on-line) with Thomas Cooke to visit Corfu for 14 days.

The Refusal

Under baggage registration at Manchester Airport, the official asked us to have a word with the supervisor, as there appeared to be some small problem with the passports.

The supervisor then informed us that we could not fly to Greece as my wife and her son did not have a Schengen visa in their passports.

I, of course, protested this decision (very politely – I have learnt something from Thailand!) and asked to have the decision confirmed by her superior plus to have that confirmation in writing. I and my wife also informed the lady that my wife had in her possession a current permanent visa for a Schengen land.

At 11.30 pm (3/4 of an hour after the flight’s scheduled departure) we received this confirmation in a series of faxes that had been sent via Switzerland to the Greek authorities, seeking permission for two Thai passport holders who had permanent visas for the UK to travel to Greece. The Greek authorities had refused them entry on the grounds they did not have a Schengen visa.

At no point was it named, or the Greek authorities were informed, that my wife has a permanent residence visa for a Schengen land – Denmark. But this is academic now and in the hands of our solicitor.

Whatever, we could not and did not fly to Greece. £1000 and our holiday has been lost, many tears have been shed, on what I consider to be an incorrect interpretation of the law.

The case continues.

[taxexile]

sorry to hear about your holiday disappointment.

if the law has indeed been interpreted incorrectly and as a result your wife and child were denied the right to travel to greece then you have a good chance of being compensated for your financial losses.

incorrect interpretations of the law are an everyday occurrence in thailand with the aggrieved parties standing little chance of even an apology let alone financial compensation.

[Thomas_Merton]

sorry to hear about your holiday disappointment.

if the law has indeed been interpreted incorrectly and as a result your wife and child were denied the right to travel to greece then you have a good chance of being compensated for your financial losses.

incorrect interpretations of the law are an everyday occurrence in thailand with the aggrieved parties standing little chance of even an apology let alone financial compensation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, Tax.

We live in hope that our interpretation is correct.

There have been some developments:

SAS, who were the flight authorities for Thomas Cooke Airlines, that evening, now say the reason for the refusal was because our son's entry visa to a Schengen land expired in 2003. This is clearly an after rationalisation of an erroneous decision, attempting to find some other reason to uphold their point of view.

However it is true, Martin's entry visa to Denmark did expire in 2003 - but we are talking about a then 3 year old child ( a now 6 year old) travelling together with his mother who has a permanent residence visa in a Schengen land? Is this a reasonable ground to restrict the right to travel to himself, his mother and her husband?

We shall see.

Concerning your point about Thailand: I fear there is a darker side to our story, even LOS would have difficulty in repeating:

- It is impossible to get in touch with anyone who will take responsibility for the decision.

- Telephones to Manchester Airport result in endless passing of the buck to employees who unfortunately have either just ended their shift or have now begun their holidays.

- No-one will give their full name, "We only give our Christian names, company policy"

- I have been literally screamed at by some junior SAS clerk, repeating again and again, "have you got a Schengen visa, have you got a Schengen visa, have you got a Schengen visa" before I could explain our position.

- all attempts to get an explanation out of Thomas Cooke end in blind allays.

But then, a tiny light: today (14 days after the refusal to fly) I received an email from Thomas Cook Airlines Administration Department saying "We are looking into the comments you have made and will reply to you as soon as our investigations are completed."

[The_Moog]

Who are you planning on litigating against? Airport, SAS, Thomas Cook - all are possible plaintiffs.

My sense is that all would seek to pass the buck and absolve themselves of primary responsibility. Indeed, they would say that it is their duty to let you fly only in possession of explicitly correct visas.

Try to make sure you don't run up too much in legal costs. Lawyers letters don't come cheap.

I sued a travel company once and won quite a lot of money. I wrote the legal pleading myself and took them to a Court where lawyers weren't allowed on either side. Small Claims Court would be your equivalent.

(Finally, can we use the preferred term "Biological").

Edited September 28, 2005 by The_Moog

[Thomas_Merton]

Who are you planning on litigating against? Airport, SAS, Thomas Cook - all are possible plaintiffs.

My sense is that all would seek to pass the buck and absolve themselves of primary responsibility. Indeed, they would say that it is their duty to let you fly only in possession of explicitly correct visas.

This is the major point: the only legal interpretations of the Schengen Agreement I have found, are written in the languages of the Schengen countries, of which the UK is not.

However, on the Danish Police (the first immigration authority a visitor meets in Denmark) website it states that a Schengen visa is either a stamped visa in a passport, or a permenant visa for any Schengen country carried as a separate document - this is what my wife has.

Therefore she has explicitly a Schengen visa and this is inherited by her under-age son.

If there is any weakness in our case it is in our interpretation of "inheritance".

But I find it almost beyond belief that had the Greek authorities been presented with all the information, they would have refused us entry, on what can surely only be a small technicality contrary to the spirit of the law. Especially given that we - all three of us - have travelled to Greece twice before with the same documentation, albeit directly from another Schengen land.

Try to make sure you don't run up too much in legal costs. Lawyers letters don't come cheap.

I sued a travel company once and won quite a lot of money. I wrote the legal pleading myself and took them to a Court where lawyers weren't allowed on either side. Small Claims Court would be your equivalent.

Only formaly going this way when:

1. I get legal confirmation we are correct

2. Thomas Cooke do not make an offer.

(Finally, can we use the preferred term "Biological").

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Blame over 20 years in Denmark, where sh*t is sh*t, sex is sex, biology has to do with flowers and frogs and pompous pedants are pricks.

Edited September 28, 2005 by Thomas_Merton

[The_Moog]

Ok, well I don't know about the Schengken tecnicalities and you're right to sort that out first.

Lets assume you're right though.

I don't think you need lawyers then. You write your legal pleading, mail it, give them 15 days for a reply (they'll probably ignore you!) then you get the papers from the Small Claims Court and file them. Its easy but most people drop it before going to this level.

They ignore that at their peril because if they don't show, they'll lose.

[Thomas_Merton]

Ok, well I don't know about the Schengken tecnicalities and you're right to sort that out first.

Lets assume you're right though.

I don't think you need lawyers then. You write your legal pleading, mail it, give them 15 days for a reply (they'll probably ignore you!) then you get the papers from the Small Claims Court and file them. Its easy but most people drop it before going to this level.

They ignore that at their peril because if they don't show, they'll lose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the advice.

""Yes," said Winnie-the-Pooh.

"I see now," said Winnie-the-Pooh.

"I have been Foolish and Deluded," said he, "and I am a Bear of no Brain at All."

[samran]

I think the concept of "union" in "European Union" is strictly optional, especially from a British Perspective.

[bkkmadness]

Sorry to hear about your holiday TM, it sounds like a horrible dissapointment for your family, I hope you can get it sorted out soon. Good Luck!

[caledonia]

Yes this seems to be a perfect example of Britians great policy of opting out of all the joint EU immigration rules !!

if you are traveling withing the Schegen area then you don't need any additional visas hence you having no problems traveling from Denmark.

However as you were traveling outwith the Schengin (I know I can't spell) area into it they were a little bit more scrupulous.

In all reality the Greek authorities would prob not have noticed, however if they did then they wouldn't have permitted your son to enter - regardless of the fact he is only 6 and his mother has correct papers.

I'm just surprised the staff here noticed - when the blazes did they get efficient!!

[Thomas_Merton]

Sorry to hear about your holiday TM, it sounds like a horrible dissapointment for your family, I hope you can get it sorted out soon. Good Luck!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks, bkk - as my wife says, "it's all because we didn't want to visit LOS for just 2 weeks. Bad Karma."

So the lesson is: VISIT LOS WHENEVER YOU CAN.

Yes this seems to be a perfect example of Britians great policy of opting out of all the joint EU immigration rules !!

if you are traveling withing the Schegen area then you don't need any additional visas hence you having no problems traveling from Denmark.

However as you were traveling outwith the Schengin (I know I can't spell) area into it they were a little bit more scrupulous.

In all reality the Greek authorities would prob not have noticed, however if they did then they wouldn't have permitted your son to enter - regardless of the fact he is only 6 and his mother has correct papers.

I'm just surprised the staff here noticed - when the blazes did they get efficient!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suspect and fear, you may be right.

But what kind of logic supports this way of administering innocent people?

Nothing more than pedantic bureaucracy completely in opposition to any spirit of freedom of movement within the European Community.

As my mother so aptly put it, "We fought a war against those who wanted to sort the Aryans to the right and the Jews and other "Black hairs" to the left. I thought we won."

Edited September 29, 2005 by Thomas_Merton

[GuestHouse]

Sorry to hear your holiday plans have been ruined.

I have two comments:

Therefore she has explicitly a Schengen visa and this is inherited by her under-age son

1. Assetain if this is actually correct. Does your wife's child requires a schengen visa of his own, as opposed to rights to a entry on the basis of his mother having a visa?

I think if your wife's visa is valid and your child definately does not need a visa of his own then you could very easily demonstrate (in a small claims court) unnecessary refusal to carry you on the flight.

2. Do be aware that if Lawyers get involved you might get caught with the Hague Convention, which requires parental permision from both parents to cross international boarders with a child - if you have not legally adotped your wife's child you may be asked to provide evidence that the natural father has given his permission for his son to travel.

I mention this because if lawyers do get involved they tend to cross T's and dot I's in matters of legal procedure.

Because of this second point, I would first write to Thomas Cook (with whom yuo had a contract) and ask them to explain in writing why you were refused permission to fly. Get it in writing so they can't later turn around and claim another reason.

Again, sorry to hear this, you must be right p1ssed... I would be.

Edited September 29, 2005 by GuestHouse

[Thomas_Merton]

Just had a long chat with the Danish Consul in Manchester, UK (who turned out to be an old acquaintance from my Red Cross days – so I was able to get some background information).

The main point, he made, was, that my assumption that the child inherited the mother’s visa status is incorrect. It was correct in the days, pre-Schengen, when children could appear on their parents’ passports. But not any more since children must have their own passports and, consequently, their own visa.

We then went on to discuss the nature of the responsibility for ensuring the visa and passports were correct and up to date.

In the 80’s the responsibility lay with the flying authorities (the airline or their representatives) but without any sanctions should they fail to do their duty and refuse flights to those without adequate documentation.

This resulted in companies such as Inter-Flug, and others with either vested interests or general incompetence, flying planeloads of “illegals” from places such as Beirut or East Berlin to European countries in the EF. These “illegals” on arrival, immediately became “spontaneous” asylum- seekers, as they had no other chance of being allowed to arrive.

The rules and regulations were tightened up to give the airlines not only responsibility to ensure every passenger was in possession of the correct documentation, but also made them economically responsible, incurring huge fines for any errors made.

This has resulted, since the Schengen Agreement (that only involves some European countries – not all) and further post-terrorist tightening, in a Fortress Europe being created that is protected by a combination of a Berlin Wall and an Iron Curtain, the administration of which would make Checkpoint Charlie seem like a revolving door in comparison.

If we reluctantly accept the necessity for such a situation, plus the awful fact that it appears it is the purchasers’ responsibility to be aware of the quagmire of rules and regulations ensuring he or she is in possession of the correct documentation before embarking on a trip to a European country that may or may not be a Schengen land; then how is it, that a ticket seller, be they an airline or a travel agent, who after all must be professionals in these rules and regulations, can sell a ticket without ensuring the purchaser is in possession of the correct documentation for that journey?

After all, you cannot buy a new car without producing a valid driver’s licence, paying for your tax and having an insurance agreement. Or rather, the seller cannot sell.

Then why are not the innocent, and naturally ignorant, airline-passenger also protected in this way from making purchases that can only lead to economic and emotional losses – satisfying no-one?

[kayo]

Hi TMerton. Sorry to hear about the holiday/visa troubles. I have no knowledge of current european litigation, so nor do I have anything constructive to add.. My condolences to the current situation though, and wishing you the best.

[The_Moog]

I don't think you have a claim against the airline or British Airports Authority given what you have mentioned.

You may have a claim against your Travel Agent. Was there any discussion of visas when booking the holiday, or were they aware that Martin was not a UK passport holder?

Of course Thomas Cook will point to regulations that say in the small print that its entirely your duty, but don't worry about that. A Small Claims court would set that aside in a 'Reasonableness Test' if Cook's just didn't discharge their obligations sensibly.

And, hey, i'm not being flippant when I say use the term 'biological' ! You want to be sure that your pleading sounds legal, kosher and a proper Court document. I'll take a look at it if you like when you've drafted something

[Thomas_Merton]

I don't think you have a claim against the airline or British Airports Authority given what you have mentioned.

You may have a claim against your Travel Agent. Was there any discussion of visas when booking the holiday, or were they aware that Martin was not a UK passport holder?

Interesting.

I've just followed the booking procedure again on line - there is no place to stipulate the nationality of the passengers.

However, paragraph 4. of Thomas Cook's "Terms and Conditions" states:

For persons who are resident in the United Kingdom or any other country of the European Union, the applicable booking and purchase conditions are those which appear on the relevant product pages and you must read these before confirming your booking or purchase. Residents of other countries must identify themselves as such at the time of booking or purchase and ascertain whether the booking or purchase will be accepted from their country of residence and the conditions applicable to their booking or purchase. All bookings and purchases are also subject to the general information appearing in our current On-line brochure and product descriptions. We recommend you print a copy of our applicable booking conditions and this additional information together with all other relevant details relating to your chosen holiday or travel arrangements prior to making a booking with us.

Of course Thomas Cook will point to regulations that say in the small print that its entirely your duty, but don't worry about that. A Small Claims court would set that aside in a 'Reasonableness Test' if Cook's just didn't discharge their obligations sensibly.

Your guess is as good as mine if that is reasonable.

And, hey, i'm not being flippant when I say use the term 'biological' ! You want to be sure that your pleading sounds legal, kosher and a proper Court document. I'll take a look at it if you like when you've drafted something

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks. I guess being bilingual means 95% English and 95% Danish - in ever decreasing circles after the age of 50.

Just wait until you've been in Thailand for 20 years.

[The_Moog]

However, paragraph 4. of Thomas Cook's "Terms and Conditions" states:

Ok, i've looked at the website and read the other paragraphs too.

If you'd made them aware in any way that Martin was a non EU passport holder then you should pursue a Case for negligence against Thomas Cook, making the assertion that it was their duty to check he had the correct Visa after being identified as a non EU Citizen.

I think even if you'd said to them that you thought his Visa was okay, you can still litigate, as they should have checked.

If you haven't a Small Claim Court - then have a look at this. (Though i'm unfamiliar with it). Say you will claim the maximum that the Small Claims Court allows and add that any excess over the holiday cost was due to your time spent on resolving it. Then, say that if they settle now, you make a without prejudice offer (you have to say those words), to accept the cost of the holiday.

https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/csmco2/index.jsp

Also tell them (in your letter- which has to be as detailed as possible) you're notifying ABTA and the UK newspapers. Give them 15 days to respond, then file the papers.

They usually have insurance for this kind of thing anyway, so they won't lose even if they refund you.

[Thomas_Merton]

However, paragraph 4. of Thomas Cook's "Terms and Conditions" states:

Ok, i've looked at the website and read the other paragraphs too.

If you'd made them aware in any way that Martin was a non EU passport holder then you should pursue a Case for negligence against Thomas Cook, making the assertion that it was their duty to check he had the correct Visa after being identified as a non EU Citizen.

I think even if you'd said to them that you thought his Visa was okay, you can still litigate, as they should have checked.

If you haven't a Small Claim Court - then have a look at this. (Though i'm unfamiliar with it). Say you will claim the maximum that the Small Claims Court allows and add that any excess over the holiday cost was due to your time spent on resolving it. Then, say that if they settle now, you make a without prejudice offer (you have to say those words), to accept the cost of the holiday.

https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/csmco2/index.jsp

Also tell them (in your letter- which has to be as detailed as possible) you're notifying ABTA and the UK newspapers. Give them 15 days to respond, then file the papers.

They usually have insurance for this kind of thing anyway, so they won't lose even if they refund you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Moog,

After some consideration, we have decided to go the way you have outlined in this posting - with some small nuances (including the lack of information provided to my wife).

I will be writing my formal letter to Thomas Cook, outlining our grievances and allowing them 15 days to come up with a settlement without prejudice then we will begin proceedings in the Small Claims Court (we have one not 5 miles from where we live).

I would be very grateful if you could cast an eye over this initial letter and, eventually, any other pleadings etc. we may have to produce.

PM me with confirmation - perhaps this should all take place via email?

We consider this case to be not only our personal search for compensation, but also an attempt to make Thomas Cook aware that their web site booking procedure in no way clearly helps costumers who are in a similar "passport/visa" situation.

There are not only thousands of UK/Thai families who could be "persuaded" into purchasing tickets they, unfortunately, will be prevented from using unless their visa situation is changed.

But given the multi-cultural and multi-national nature of both the UK, and especially the WWW, travel agents must feel obliged to specifically request visa information and to advise on any changes that must be made before they sell their tickets to their customers, who are not only often unsuspecting of any necessary changes, but more than likely, find the visa regulations incomprehensible.

[ProThaiExpat]

You might consider including in your settlement demand letter a paragraph inviting them to provide you with their reason for the refusal and any documents they have in support of their position.

Forewarned is forearmed.

I could see as a defense of theirs that they have no control over the discretionary authority of the Greek government in visa matters. I am bothered by the fact that visa issuance is largely discretionary in most countries and since you were traveling from a non-signatory country, the treaty language assuring visa issuance to signatories may not apply.

The first question any judge asks a litigant in civil matters is "Have you tried to settle this". The suggested paragraph goes a long way toward indicating that you tried to find out the reason for the refusal in a spirit of dismissing the claim if there was not merit to it, but their stonewalling approach forced the matter to litigation.

[Thomas_Merton]

You might consider including in your settlement demand letter a paragraph inviting them to provide you with their reason for the refusal and any documents they have in support of their position.

I received a written explanation in the form of series of faxes sent via a Swiss intermediary to the Greek authorities. No mention was made of my wife's Schengen visa - the word Schengen did not appear. The Greek authorities advised on not allowing us to fly alone on the basis of my wife's and Martin's long term (expires 2010) UK visas.

Forewarned is forearmed.

I could see as a defense of theirs that they have no control over the discretionary authority of the Greek government in visa matters.  I am bothered by the fact that visa issuance is largely discretionary in most countries and since you were traveling from a non-signatory country, the treaty language assuring visa issuance to signatories may not apply.

This still does not deny my argument that in matters as complicated as this, it is not unreasonable to expect the travel agent to fully advise their customers on any necessary visa additions that may be necessary before they sell them a ticket.

The agents have, after all, this area of legal complexities as part of their daily life. A state of affairs the fewest customers could hope to achieve.

The first question any judge asks a litigant in civil matters is "Have you tried to settle this".  The suggested paragraph goes a long way toward indicating that you tried to find out the reason for the refusal in a spirit of dismissing the claim if there was not merit to it, but their stonewalling approach forced the matter to litigation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I will, of course, having received an email from Thomas Cook Airlines Administration Department, 3 days ago, saying they are investigating the matter, await, within a reasonable length of time (14-21 days) their reply, before I proceed to the next phase.

[samran]

This still does not deny my argument that in matters as complicated as this, it is not unreasonable to expect the travel agent to fully advise their customers on any necessary visa additions that may be necessary before they sell them a ticket.

The agents have, after all, this area of legal complexities as part of their daily life. A state of affairs the fewest customers could hope to achieve.

Just based on my experience, but I have always seen a disclaimer when booking a ticket that it is the responsibility of the traveller to ensure that they have the correct visas for travelling.

This still doesn't take away from your case as a whole - by the sounds of it you had the right visa (which you had used before), but I don't think arguing that it is the travel agents responsibility to dispense legal advice (albeit immigration law) will work. I'd doubt that from a liabilty perspective travel agencies would be authorised to give this type of advice anyway, as they'd be facing more legal hassles if they did.

[ProThaiExpat]

I admire your tenacity and urge you on, as only though brave hearts such as yourself is progress and justice advanced.

On the other hand, short of a luxury cruise or luxury tour, the very small commisssion travel agents make in selling airline tickets, reduces service to minimal or non-existent these days, in my experience.

There was the day when you turned everything over to a good travel agent and then received your package of documents, itinerary and instructions on what to look out for and off you went without a worry, with the travel agents telephone number to call if something went amiss. Not anymore in my experience.

If U.K. travel agents offer more service than just booking your transportation and collecting your money and then hands off, they are to be congratulated and you are indeed fortunate, as that is not the case in the U.S. or Thailand, again in my experience.

While I agree with you that travel agents should be held to the standard of other professionals offering services, such as solicitors or physicians, I doubt that is the case legally in England. You do present an irritant to the the travel agents involved and perhaps a settlement with be forthcoming based on a public relations or expense of handling basis, but I doubt you will get relief from a court when your particular visa "story" is so complicated and subject to different interpretations, even among professionals.

Good luck and hopefully you will keep us informed. Travellers everywhere will let out a "cheer" when hearing any good news you provide.

[taxexile]

This still does not deny my argument that in matters as complicated as this, it is not unreasonable to expect the travel agent to fully advise their customers on any necessary visa additions that may be necessary before they sell them a ticket.

The agents have, after all, this area of legal complexities as part of their daily life. A state of affairs the fewest customers could hope to achieve.

i think it is unreasonable.

i doubt if an employee of any travel agent would have the necessary expertise do deal with complicated cases like this.

ideally she / he should have advised you that they were not sure and that you should check for yourself before buying tickets.

do travel agents have advisors on hand with immigration and visa knowledge sitting in a call centre somewhere so that employees can call them for advice?

surely the agents and airlines would have disclaimers on their documents to prevent themselves getting caught up in something like this.

the ultimate responsibility should be with the customer to check that the agents advice is correct.

travel agents cannot be expected to have the knowledge base of lawyers when it comes to visas and immigration.

it may be that only "learned" judges on 1000 euro a day sitting in a court room in the bowels of some lavish airconditioned brussels edifice (built with taxpayers hard earned) can sort this one out , in which case this thread will run and run.

hopefully cooks or the airline will offer mr. merton a settlement without prejudice to get him off their backs.

keep at 'em tm.

[Thomas_Merton]

This still does not deny my argument that in matters as complicated as this, it is not unreasonable to expect the travel agent to fully advise their customers on any necessary visa additions that may be necessary before they sell them a ticket.

The agents have, after all, this area of legal complexities as part of their daily life. A state of affairs the fewest customers could hope to achieve.

i think it is unreasonable.

i doubt if an employee of any travel agent would have the necessary expertise do deal with complicated cases like this.

ideally she / he should have advised you that they were not sure and that you should check for yourself before buying tickets.

do travel agents have advisors on hand with immigration and visa knowledge sitting in a call centre somewhere so that employees can call them for advice?

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Travel Agents represent flight Agents (who issue the boarding passes). These agents have fax connections to experts in Switzerland (who, if in doubt, can query the relevant local national authority) to supply them with accurate information. There is a database (whose name escapes me) with the latest information regarding visa requirements, they (flight agents) also have access to.

But we are not talking about a visit to a travel agent shop - or even a telephone call - where even a casual, voiced, "remember to check the visa requirements here" would have been sufficient to absolve them of any responsibility.

We are talking about faceless, "anonymous" booking via a website, where IMHO "implicit", "understood" or "see our terms and conditions" are not sufficient arguments for the transmission of such vital information, the misunderstanding of which, can have horrible consequences - inability to fly, lost holidays, lost money and extremely upset families.

[The_Moog]

I'm very positive we'll win this.

Lord Denning once observed that one lost night of sleep is actionable.

Cooks have been negligent in taking his money and not giving him advice. They have tons of info about Visa requirements in their Corporation.

The points raised above are useful though as we'll address them (and overcome them) in the documents.

I once had the holiday of a lifetime in Tibet. The Travel Agents made one mistake, and, bang, I nailed them on it - and got a full refund.

[taxexile]

I once had the holiday of a lifetime in Tibet. The Travel Agents made one mistake, and, bang, I nailed them on it - and got a full refund.

i dont know what this mistake made by the travel agents was , you didnt say , but it didnt seem to have affected your holiday or your health and if as you said , you had the holiday of a lifetime then you should not have sued them.

sounds like a letter would have sufficed.

mistakes do happen , and if their effect is minimal it,s better to forget about it and get on with life.

for some people , seeking compensation for damages real or imagined is a way of life unfortunately , which is why the rest of us have to read through reams of disclaimers every time we step out of our houses or have basic fredoms curtailed.

for some though , the prospect of a free holiday is too much temptation to refuse.

tm , however , deserves compensation for having his family holiday ruined.

[The_Moog]

if as you said , you had the holiday of a lifetime then you should not have sued them.

sounds like a letter would have sufficed.

Yeah, ain't I a stinker.

Actually, I like it when people sue me too ! I've had multi-nationals try to squeeze me. Jackasses !

[Seen all,learnt nothing]

I entirely sympathise with your predicament and understand your indignation.

However in my opinion you will be unsuccesful in any claim for compensation.

You may have been denied boarding for a confused reason at the time, but a reason, as you have conceded exists. Your child did not have a valid visa.

Your booking was made with Thomas Cook and at some stage you would have signed a contract even if the booking was made online and you simply ticked a box. I gaurantee this contract would have specified, or referred to brochure conditons, that it is a passengers responsibilty to ensure they have a valid passport and any neccesary visa. This is standard for ALL UK package travel companies.

Unless at some stage you were specifically advised your child did not require a visa (which you were not) I am sorry to say you have no case.

Your best hope is an ex-gratia goodwill payment from the airline or Thos Cook -but don't hold your breath.

Of no importance - a previous contributor refered to British Airports Authority. Manchester Aiport is owned by the local authority although HM Govt constantly tell them to privatise.

[Seen all,learnt nothing]

OK. Apologies. I speed read previous posts and failed to spot an extract from the online contract has been posted. However this reinforces my post and I stick to my view.

I have no doubt a judge would find it resonable that unless you were given wrong advice you, having a Thai wife and son should have prompted you to make certain you had correct documentation. You yourself say you ASSUMED your son would be covered by your wifes visa. You have condemned yourself to lose.

[The_Moog]

Ok, the mistake you're all making is that you're thinking like Judges.

.....but you're not Judges.

I'm not saying that your grasp of British jurisprudence is not superb, or likewise for how to solve Muslim radicalism. Or any and every other subject under the sun necessitating bar-stool philosophy!

But what we are trying to do here is put together a case, cause a bit of a stink. 80% of civil cases are settled 'on the courtroom steps'.

I don't care what Thomas Cook's contract says. Perhaps it does have some boilerplate saying 'we can be negligent but its still your fault'. They put that in trying to lead a fair-minded person to thinking.

"Hmmm, perhaps a stern letter of admonishment would teach them a lesson or two".

M.

ps My own case was being dumped in the Himalayas in a tent with no potable water while the guides went to stay in a warm hotel. By virtue of my own efforts I made the best of it, and despite getting sick, had a reasonable time.

That wasn't due to the US$250 a day it was costing though. You may think I was being too unfair on them, but people in the legal profession don't share your verdict!