Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

catoutthebag

Bonters wrote: »

I have referred mine to euclaim.co.uk but they say it will be 4 to 6 weeks before they take it up properly as they're so busy with these!

That's too long for such a big bite of your entitlement how much do they nab?

If its 30% that's £100 each of our entitlement and too much for me to stomach...do they pay the filing of the court £80(?) too or do you pay that on top & get back if you win ?

Mark2spark

jenn1ewest1 wrote: »

today was the day that Thomson were meant to file their defence by.How long should I give them before asking the court to make a judgement .I realise that they cant actually file anything today or tomorrow but shouldnt they have done it by friday in that case
JH

Friday sounds good to me too. But don't communicate with Thomson.
Just apply for judgement by default at the court.

romanby1

Mark2spark wrote: »

Friday sounds good to me too. But don't communicate with Thomson.
Just apply for judgement by default at the court.

In our case Thomsons sent their defence by email on the last possible day. Also their Allocation questionaire was 3 weeks late.
Suggest you phone the court for progress.
My wife read somewhere that Thomsons are so overloaded with claims they are taking something like 6-8 weeks to answer correspondence. Or maybe it is just another delaying tacktic.

Bonters

catoutthebag wrote: »

That's too long for such a big bite of your entitlement how much do they nab?

If its 30% that's £100 each of our entitlement and too much for me to stomach...do they pay the filing of the court £80(?) too or do you pay that on top & get back if you win ?

They want 29% plus 26 Euros Admin fee. I figure that with the 8% interest over two and a half years or so, and given the amount in the first place (800 Euros for myself and wife), I'm prepared to accept that to rid myself of all the hassle and avoid the pitfalls. 71% of something is better than 100% of nothing to my mind. Always a personal choice of course. It is NOT clear from what they tell me whether they pay the initial Court fees, and I believe they may ask me for it. Which does seem to go against their 'No Win, No Fee' policy but we'll see.

Willornot

Check your Buildings and contents insurance.Many of us have Legal Expenses cover through DAS. They are generally very helpful. Currently investigating my claim. To act in for you there needs to be an 'over 60% chance of success '. .. Awaiting their decision now. Will post findings.

Gorbar

Willornot wrote: »

Check your Buildings and contents insurance.Many of us have Legal Expenses cover through DAS. They are generally very helpful. Currently investigating my claim. To act in for you there needs to be an 'over 60% chance of success '. .. Awaiting their decision now. Will post findings.

We are using e.u delay, they take 25%,we had to pay the £78 court fee. We feel a little is better than nothing. Since all this started we have taken the legal cover on our Insurance, we will use them if we get no joy from Ryanair

Gooseman41

Ok so here goes. I have finally received a defence. Brief outline of my claim is we had a 24 hour delay in January 2011 from Gatwick to Cancun. The defence states of course about the Montreal convention two year rule, which I believe and know to be incorrect. Then there are the alternative reasons being that due to the loss of another aircraft in the defendants fleet, which was the result of an unexpected technical fault.

This resulted in a reactionary delay. At all material times the defendant operated a reasonable system of checks and maintenance to the aircraft concerned. The defect was found prior to the departure of the other aircraft in question.

The defect was the result of extraordinary circumstances outside the airlines actual control.

The defect did not stem from events inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier.

The defendant will rely on Nelson and TUI (Case C-581/10 and C-629/10) in particular paragraph 39.


Ok so this is where the real stuff starts. The letter from the court states that this case is suitable for allocation to the small claims track. If I don't believe this is appropriate I have to complete the box C1 and explain why. It also gives details of a small claims mediation service which may avoid court hearings etc.

So I'm looking for some advice really. Based on the details of defence, firstly I presume I should continue on. Secondly if I proceed do I go down the route of this mediation service or do I say onto mediation and proceed to a court hearing.

Any help would be welcome.

Many thanks

111KAB

Gooseman41 - in my case (Monarch) a solicitor advised I should tick the 'agree to mediation' box as this showed a willingness to negotiate. In the end it was a joke as Monarch were not prepared to move a fraction of an inch never mind a whole inch. Yes the small claims route is appropriate. Sounds like you have a solid case - enjoy your 'windfall'.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

I have now had a defence relying on the Montreal convention and in alternative to that extraordinary circumstances due to a technical fault. I wonder if the defence for everyone is the same and is the person trotting these out the same?

Vauban

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I have now had a defence relying on the Montreal convention and in alternative to that extraordinary circumstances due to a technical fault. I wonder if the defence for everyone is the same and is the person trotting these out the same?

I suspect it is. Given the Nelson/Tui judgement on October last year dealt firmly with the Montreal point, it is impossible (or nearly!) to conceive of the airline really bringing this point before the Court. What price credibility?