We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY
Options
Comments
-
@nigelpm
Is NBA - Next Best Action ie Court ? :-)0 -
Just working on MCOL. Couple of questions:
1. Has anyone got a completed particulars of claim section that I can read and adapt.
2. Thomson say the reason for the delay was "a fault with the fuel valve". Is that extraordinary circumstances?
Cheers.0 -
I have been following this Forum with interest since the end of last year but this is the first time I have made a post. Apologies for the length, but it may prove useful to some....
I can relate to many of the comments on here through my personal experiences with Thomson Airways since that time, since I submitted a claim based on EU261/2004 in December last year that has only just been concluded.
My claim related to a flight taken in late 2006 and my notice before action (ignored) was sent to Thomson in December 2012 with my court instruction taking place in late December (with about three days to spare before the 6 years had expired). The only detail I had was my booking reference through Portland Holidays (which they kindly provided me with over the phone) and once I had that I expected this to be a pretty clear cut case based on the reason given for delay at the time (which clearly wasn’t exceptional circumstances).
Anyway, I hadn’t reckoned with the lengths that Thomson are prepared to go to in order to avoid paying out....
My first court case took place in April in the Small Claims Court, although not before Thomson had missed their deadline for submitting a defence. However, eventually they did submit an error strewn document on the basis of exceptional circumstances stating that a knock-on effect from an earlier flight had caused my delay, which took me by surprise since this was a different reason from the one initially provided. Not to worry though, as I was more than aware that this defence didn’t meet the criteria of exceptional circumstances, and I guess I expected on that basis that a settlement would follow prior to the hearing date. I wasn’t surprised, though, when a revised defence arrived on my doorstep a few days before the hearing....this was the first time I heard of the challenge to the 6 year rule. In addition to the challenge to the 6 year rule, Thomson and their Lawyers also stated that they didn’t think the case was appropriate for a small claims hearing, I guess on the basis of the complexity of their argument that they felt would take a whole day to make but also because they wanted to try the argument in a higher court.
So, to cut a long story short, I attended court in April, placing reliance mainly on the Cuadrench More v KLM case. Thomson were represented by a Lawyer and arepresentative from their own legal team. Eventually, the case was referred to the County Court. It was quite clear that they intended to defend this case using one of the top aviation lawyers in the country (described as ‘pre-eminent’ on this Forum on more than one occasion!). I think the Judge was on my side but erred on the side of caution as the case being argued became quite complex and he could probably see, as I could, that this issue would need to be tried in a higher court at some point in time.
A few weeks passed and I was allocated a County Court date in July. Three or four days beforehand, a few hundred pages of documents arrived at my door along with the QC’s skeleton argument. It was quite impressive, and of course I had serious doubts about whether I was wasting my time or not.
On the day, Thomson were represented by their top QC and a few others, and I have to say I was impressed, even though the defence lasted for about 5 hours! This QC is clearly a man at the top of his game! However, even to my untrained eye I could see that there were tenuous aspects to the defence and the Judge, being far cleverer than I, clearly agreed (albeit after a few days of deliberation). In summary, he concluded that he was bound by the More case (at least the spirit if not the exact wording in the judgement) and that therefore the 6 year statute of limitation as provided by the Limitation Act 1980 applied and not the 2 year limit as set out in the Montreal Convention.
My understanding is that a County Court hearing can’t set a precedent and it would appear that Thomson are not appealing this case, although we are still in the appeal period. To do so would result in a precedent being set by a higher court.
So, I guess the purpose of my post is to encourage anyonewho feels they should be bringing similar claims to do so and not to be put off by the hoops you are made to jump through. Also, it would appear that there are no grounds on which to challenge the More case and therefore the 6 year limitation!
I hadn't been intending to make this post but I see from the Forum that Thomson are still using the '2 year rule' excuse despite being defeated in court on this subject...so I thought it was only right to put the record straight!0 -
Hi,
First time posting so bear with me!
My partner and I are currently in the process of claiming compensation through small claims court against Thomson for 3 delayed flights.
1. Flight to Dom Republic in Jan 2011 - Thomson states cannot claim as over 2 years, but states flight was delayed due to hydraulic leak caused by ruptured hydraulic tube. The plane was actually in Barbados at the time and caused knock on effect to our flight.
2. Flight to Morocco in Sept 2011- Thomson states our plane was delayed earlier in the day by Greek Strikes which again caused knock on effect to our flight.
3. Flight to Jamaica in Jan 2013 - Thomson states delay due to OLEO strut (one shock absorber in landing gears). Again this plane was in a different country at time and caused knock on effect to our flight.
We tried normally letter, which was refused, then numerous phone calls, finally resulting in court claim which they have decided to defend.
We're struggling to find guidance on whether these are true extraordinary circumstances and whether the face they were all knock on effects count.
Time of delays were 28 hours, 10.5 hours and 18 hours respectively.
Cautious about going to court but considering compensation is nearly £3000 we feel it necessary.
If anyone has any views I'd like to hear them
0 -
Max, it might be worth pm ing Coby Benson to see exactly which track/court level you were at and if useful precedent was set?I have been following this Forum with interest since the end of last year but this is the first time I have made a post. Apologies for the length, but it may prove useful to some....
My understanding is that a County Court hearing can’t set a precedent and it would appear that Thomson are not appealing this case, although we are still in the appeal period. To do so would result in a precedent being set by a higher court.
So, I guess the purpose of my post is to encourage anyonewho feels they should be bringing similar claims to do so and not to be put off by the hoops you are made to jump through. Also, it would appear that there are no grounds on which to challenge the More case and therefore the 6 year limitation!
I hadn't been intending to make this post but I see from the Forum that Thomson are still using the '2 year rule' excuse despite being defeated in court on this subject...so I thought it was only right to put the record straight!
And many congrats on your sucess - Power to the people!:T:TIf you're new. read The FAQ and Vauban's Guide
The alleged Ringleader.........0 -
Well done! That's given me the momentum to crack on. One thing though, how detailed were your particulars of claim?0
-
dreamergirl32 wrote: »Hi,
First time posting so bear with me!
My partner and I are currently in the process of claiming compensation through small claims court against Thomson for 3 delayed flights.
1. Flight to Dom Republic in Jan 2011 - Thomson states cannot claim as over 2 years, but states flight was delayed due to hydraulic leak caused by ruptured hydraulic tube. The plane was actually in Barbados at the time and caused knock on effect to our flight.
2. Flight to Morocco in Sept 2011- Thomson states our plane was delayed earlier in the day by Greek Strikes which again caused knock on effect to our flight.
3. Flight to Jamaica in Jan 2013 - Thomson states delay due to OLEO strut (one shock absorber in landing gears). Again this plane was in a different country at time and caused knock on effect to our flight.
We tried normally letter, which was refused, then numerous phone calls, finally resulting in court claim which they have decided to defend.
We're struggling to find guidance on whether these are true extraordinary circumstances and whether the face they were all knock on effects count.
Time of delays were 28 hours, 10.5 hours and 18 hours respectively.
Cautious about going to court but considering compensation is nearly £3000 we feel it necessary.
If anyone has any views I'd like to hear them
Sounds to me like you have a great case (or three), and you should pursue it all the way or at least employ a 'No-win-no-fee' company to act on your behalf. The rewards far outweigh the risks in your case0 -
I've currently read up to page 38 of this thread, searching for a sample particulars of claim. Can anyone point me to a post without having to search all 136 pages?!0
-
@nigelpm
Is NBA - Next Best Action ie Court ? :-)
NBA = Notice Before Action
same as
LBA = Letter Before Action
Its basically sending a letter marked with either to (Thomson Airways), giving them 14 days to reply with compensation/offer, then you'll take the matter to court without advising them any further if no favourable response is made.0 -
Case about to go to final small claims hearing in County Court in respect of a 19 hour delay caused by a hydraulic leak.It is defended.I rely on Wallentin which seems quite clear.Thomson seek to argue that this is an extraordinary circumstance in that it was a technical fault which could not reasonably have been picked up by regular maintenance and seek to rely on a paper by Jochem Croon(who appears to be Counsel for Transavia Airlines) and a CAA paper of 14 September 2012.
Should I be worried?0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards