Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Gromit22 wrote: »

Directions questionnaire - both copies back to court or one sent to Thomson? thanks

Hi
One copy (original) to court and another to Thomson. Just done it myself.
Thanks

Hi Folks,

I've had my defence in from Thomson for flight Tom374 Birmingham to Cancun on 22nd Feb 2010, delayed by 4hrs 20mins.

As well as the 2 years nonsense (obviously I'll use More v KLM, but intrestingly they mention the Dawson appeal) they have claimed that my delay was a reactionary delay due to another aircraft in the fleet suffering a failure of an angle of attack sensor. It's intersting to see what they've picked out from their tombola full of excuses! I remember at the time the captian said it was late departing the Carribean due to weather.

They've named the aircraft (actually put G-YI which I've worked out is meant to by G-OBYI) so I'm trying to work out how my aircraft was involved in the situtation. They said it occured on the date of our flight, which was due to leave at 8am, so I suspect it doesn't add up. Flight Stats (I know I can't use that in court... ) says that the previous flight into Birmingham was from the Dominican Rep, and arrived late before being turned around for ours. Flight stats doesn't give you the aircraft reg to track, so the only way I can fathom Thomson's defence is if that aircraft from the DR was never intended to be our aircraft; instead our original aircraft was divereted somewhere else to support the technical failure, then another flown in to take us...

To try to work it out, I'm going to put in a CPR Part 18 request to get the flight logs for the various aircraft involved, but here's my questions:

1. I understand you can't use Part 18 once your case has been assigned to small claims. I recieved their defence at the end of last week, so how long do I have to get the Part 18 request in before I get the allocation questionare and are assigned to small claims?

2. The copy of the defense I got didn't have a signature on the statement of truth. Can I use this against them?


I tried searching but haven't got anywhere. I've been following this thread since it started in January so I'd like to think I've read every page. All help appreciated.

Moneyedout wrote: »

If I add Thomson Airways to the claim he tells me the court will have to issue another claim to Thomson Airways and as we are now passed the six year limit it would obviously fail.
...
How likely is it that a judge would take pity on us if it gets to court although we are reluctant to spend any more money if our case is hopeless

I don't know what the answer is but if it was me, I think I would give it a go. If there is a strict time limit then the judge's pity may unfortunately not help. However, if you do make an application to add (substitute?) a defendant you should be as clear as you can about the circumstances that caused you to name the "wrong" defendant and how helpful (or otherwise) TUI were in identifying the correct company. If there is any discretion for the judge, then this might help sway the outcome in your favour.

This link relates to the legal aspects of changing the parties although it makes no specific reference to time limits (ie, whether the 6 years applies to a new defendant in your case).

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part19/pd_part19a

3.1 The Civil Procedure Rules apply to a new defendant who has been added or substituted as they apply to any other defendant (see in particular the provisions of Parts 9, 10, 11 and 15).
3.2 Where the court has made an order adding or substituting a defendant whether on its own initiative or on an application, the court may direct:
(1) the claimant to file with the court within 14 days (or as ordered) an amended claim form and particulars of claim for the court file,
(2) a copy of the order to be served on all parties to the proceedings and any other person affected by it,
(3) the amended claim form and particulars of claim, forms for admitting, defending and acknowledging the claim and copies of the statements of case and any other documents referred to in any statement of case to be served on the new defendant.
(4) unless the court orders otherwise, the amended claim form and particulars of claim to be served on any other defendants.
3.3 A new defendant does not become a party to the proceedings until the amended claim form has been served on him.

Good luck!

phritchie wrote: »

I've had my defence in from Thomson for flight Tom374 Birmingham to Cancun on 22nd Feb 2010, delayed by 4hrs 20mins.

they have claimed that my delay was a reactionary delay due to another aircraft in the fleet suffering a failure of an angle of attack sensor.

They've named the aircraft (actually put G-YI which I've worked out is meant to by G-OBYI) so I'm trying to work out how my aircraft was involved in the situtation. They said it occured on the date of our flight, which was due to leave at 8am, so I suspect it doesn't add up. Flight Stats (I know I can't use that in court... ) says that the previous flight into Birmingham was from the Dominican Rep, and arrived late before being turned around for ours. Flight stats doesn't give you the aircraft reg to track, so the only way I can fathom Thomson's defence is if that aircraft from the DR was never intended to be our aircraft; instead our original aircraft was divereted somewhere else to support the technical failure, then another flown in to take us.

Funnily enough that plane and that run was used in my case (not the same dates though).

When the full defence is placed with the Court (about two weeks prior to your hearing), you will find they copy their internal Operational Log in their bundle (which of course they could have let you have all along but don't), and that will have all sorts of info both about your plane and any other shifting around they have done.

In my case it was contradictory and mentioned our replacement plane twice in two different Countries at the same time, so I was able to discredit the whole thing so much so as it couldn't then be relied upon that our flight was delayed by lightning (which of course might be an EC).

They will also likely use witness statements that either back up (or again in my case) totally contradict their own evidence.

What you can then do is use Flightstats to track all the flights that seem to matter to your case and use them to discredit their evidence, and hopefully win your case. There is nothing to say you CANNOT use Flightstats, it is up to the Judge if they accept it as evidence in the abscence of anything to the contrary. Even if it doesn't identify the exact plane registration, if they are saying that it is a DOM flight, then you can at least show the times that flight was meant to be leaving etc, and if it helps prove your case, then try to use it.

Thomson are notoriously bad at putting up the right evidence in these cases, applying a slapdash approach, and this has been mentioned in these threads in the past that whilst they employ perfectly good barristers, they are given very poor evidence bundles to argue with, and don't seem to feel too aggreieved when they (often) lose.

They won't likely present their witnesses for cross-examination so if there are any questions over witness statements then tell the Judge you would have wanted to cross-examine and as you cant, do not think it right or fair to allow their statements as evidence (especially is they are full of holes).

Moneyedout wrote: »

I have now contacted the legal team who are representing the defendants in our claim (TUI Travel) and have been told, as you advised, I should have named Thomson Airways as the defendant.
If I add Thomson Airways to the claim he tells me the court will have to issue another claim to Thomson Airways and as we are now passed the six year limit it would obviously fail.
Is there any way around this or are we stumped.
The thing that I could not understand was that he said he was speaking on behalf of Thomson on the phone although he was representing TUI in our claim.
How likely is it that a judge would take pity on us if it gets to court although we are reluctant to spend any more money if our case is hopeless

You will need to make an Application on Form N244 to substitute the Defendant.

The relevant part of the Civil Procedure Rules is 19.5 and that will need to be followed strictly in order for your Application to succeed.