Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

romanby1

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Here is a sample of the "defence" as I have access to OCR so scanned documents can be made into computer text so I can be a nifty at cutting and pasting!

• It is strictly denied that the Defendant ("the Airline") is liable for compensation under what is assumed to the Denied Boarding Regulations 2004 (EC 261/2004) (the "Regulation").

• By reason of article 3 of EC Regulation 2027 as amended, as a matter of English law the liability of a Community air carrier in respect of passengers and their baggage shall be governed by all provisions of the Montreal Convention relevant to such liability.

• The Montreal Convention deals with the liability of the carrier, including (by its article 19), for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers and baggage.

• As a matter of English law, where it is applicable the Montreal Convention sets out the conditions under which claims to establish liability, if disputed, are to be made.

• One such condition set out by the Montreal Convention is its article 35, which provides that:

1. "The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years, reckonedfrom the date of arrival at the destination, or from the dale on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped.
2. The method of calculating that period shall be determined by the law of the court seised of the case."

• In the premises: Any claim for 261 Delay Compensation is subject to the conditions set by the Montreal Convention, including that contained in its article 35, in that it is a claim against a Community air carrier (the Defendant) in respect of the delay in the carriage by air of a passenger. And

• As a matter of English law any right to damages in respect of 261 Delay Compensation was therefore extinguished if no action was brought against the Defendant in respect of it within two years of February 2009. No such action was brought within that 2 year period (this action having been issued in 2013). Accordingly, the current proceedings fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action and/or are an abuse of the court's process.

THE DEFENCE THEN GOES ON TO CLAIM EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH I WONT BORE YOU WITH BUT IT WAS A "TECHNICAL FAULT"

• The Defendant will rely on Nelson and TUI (Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10), in particular Paragraph 39.

• The Claimant is put to strict proof as to their loss.

• As to the contingent claim for interest, it is denied that 8% is an appropriate interest rate.

THANK YOU AND GOOD NIGHT :rotfl::T


Anyone else get a similar result?

Ours is almost identical quoting the Wallentin-Hermann case. Doesn't the ruling in that case shoot them in the foot.

Sammie1

I'm on watchdog tonight if you all want to watch about this subject I had the 2 year excuse letter from Thomson and have wrote to CAA who will be advising me they say not to go to court yet till I have them onside. But watchdog have director of CAA on the programme tonight .
I don't know what peices of my interview they will use but think it will be worth a watch 8pm bbc1

Vauban

Sammie1 wrote: »

I'm on watchdog tonight if you all want to watch about this subject I had the 2 year excuse letter from Thomson and have wrote to CAA who will be advising me they say not to go to court yet till I have them onside. But watchdog have director of CAA on the programme tonight .
I don't know what peices of my interview they will use but think it will be worth a watch 8pm bbc1

Look forward to it. But what did the CAA say to you? Are they not "onside" with you already?

Lisajanemcc

I was delayed in 2011 for 12 hours on a flight from Manchester to palma. I wrote to Thomson on 29 March 2013 and have have no reply back yet (as at 8 may 2013) or even a letter acknowledging my letter. Can anyone tell me what the normal timescale is for Thomson replyin?

Sammie1

I wrote to the CAA and didn't get a response so I rang them and they said my travel delay claim was on the system and advised me not to go ahead with court action till they had looked at the case in more details.
They said they didn't know why Thomson was saying this but they have over 5000 claims referred to them for a decision and they will look at them all individually.
Can't understand why all the tour operators aren't saying the same if what they are saying was right.
Maybe tonight's programme will throw some light onto the issue.

Sammie1

Lisajanemcc wrote: »

I was delayed in 2011 for 12 hours on a flight from Manchester to palma. I wrote to Thomson on 29 March 2013 and have have no reply back yet (as at 8 may 2013) or even a letter acknowledging my letter. Can anyone tell me what the normal timescale is for Thomson replyin?

They don't reply very quickly I had to send a letter and three emails before I got a response from them and that was after I went to the shop and complained too then they emailed instead of writing so they could put without prejudice

catoutthebag

Thomson should have replied to my nba yesterday - will give them til Friday

Will be reading through small claims & checking with my contents insurance

Quick q: if i win, do thomson refund me the court fee?

And by using home insurance - do the ins co represent you & pay court fee?!

laticsforlife

A quick question (and yes I have read all 29 pages but I cannot exactly find where it is I read the answers to this simple query);

Who do I quote on the MCOL, is it TUI UK Ltd or Thomson Airways Ltd, and do I quote their Registered Office (Crawley), or the Luton address?

markavo1

laticsforlife wrote: »

A quick question (and yes I have read all 29 pages but I cannot exactly find where it is I read the answers to this simple query);

Who do I quote on the MCOL, is it TUI UK Ltd or Thomson Airways Ltd, and do I quote their Registered Office (Crawley), or the Luton address?

Thomson Airways. I used the Crawley address but Thomson filed a change of address notice, to the luton address

LULU5779

On watchdog now !!!!