Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

mizzlipzz

Be patient... 14days is long enough never mind 100 days that is ridiculous

Vauban

mizzlipzz wrote: »

Be patient... 14days is long enough never mind 100 days that is ridiculous

I agree. Why would you give the airline three and a half months for an almost certain rejection? That's a wholly unreasonable timetable.

Set your own more reasonable timetable, and concentrate their minds! If they're inclined to settle, they'll do so when they see you mean business.

mizzlipzz

Exactly they are gonna take as long as they possibly can nd if ppl gonna let them take 100+days why would the hurry.. When they dnt need to?

cheshire_mob

My flight was delayed by nearly 24 hours on 12/05/2010.Thomson are not denying that they are responsible but are quoting article 35 of the Montreal Convention which states that claims need to be brought within 2 years and have therefore rejected my compensation claim. Does anyone know whether the Montreal Convention has priority over EC Regulation 261/2004?

Mark2spark

Omg I only posted yesterday @ 1231 on what to do and already there's two posters asking about what I have clarified :undecided

spaceaarvark

cheshire_mob wrote: »

My flight was delayed by nearly 24 hours on 12/05/2010.Thomson are not denying that they are responsible but are quoting article 35 of the Montreal Convention which states that claims need to be brought within 2 years and have therefore rejected my compensation claim. Does anyone know whether the Montreal Convention has priority over EC Regulation 261/2004?

Montreal Convention does not take priority - see the FAQs

romanby1

spaceaarvark wrote: »

Montreal Convention does not take priority - see the FAQs

Claims under EC 261/2004 have a cut off date of 6 years in England and I think also in Wales and N Ireland. quote Section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980

Tresh

FIGHTCOMP wrote: »

Hi

I have received the standard two year letter from Thomson and have decided to take this matter to the courts. I have legal costs insurance on my home insurance policy and have decided to pursue this matter using that policy.

I have been informed by the panel solicitors of the Insurance company that although they will write a standard PAC letter to Thomson on my behalf, my insurance will not cover their costs for Court Proceedings. The explanation they have given is ‘Court Proceedings will not be proportionate as legal costs are unlikely to be recoverable and will substantially exceed the sum in dispute’. Has anyone come across this reasoning before and how have you dealt with it?

My claim from Thomson is for Euros 2,400.

I have checked my legal costs policy document and can’t find any exclusion for ‘Proportionality’, the only similar exclusion I could find was where the dispute amount is less than £125 plus VAT. Any views?

If what I am being told is correct, then legal costs policies are not really what they purport to be when the matter has to be taken to court, they will mainly work when the claim amounts are very high or the legal costs can be recovered from the other party, any views?

Legal expenses insurers usually exclude small claims nowadays (up to £10,000), principally because to pursue them would work out disproportionate.

Consider this, your claim is for approx £2,000. Were the insurers to instruct solicitors to represent you all the way through to a final hearing, the costs of doing so would be substantially greater than the £2,000. Since costs would not be recoverable from the Defendant, such claims are not economic to pursue. If insurers are expected to pursue these claims then the cost of legal expenses insurance would increase significantly over and above the few quid per year it costs at the moment. Remember an insurance company is a business and needs to make profit to survive.

Further, the small claims track is designed so that people are able to pursue their own claims without the need to instruct lawyers. District Judges are very used to dealing with lay-people representing themselves and will be supportive so long as you turn up with the evidence and set out the basis why you consider the Defendant owes you compensation (legal liability).

However, you shoudl definitely ask the insurer to specify the clause upon which they rely. If there is no such exclusion then they will be obliged to honour to the terms of the contract. I would be very surprised if the exclusion isn't in there though.

Good luck.

catoutthebag

No reply after 3.5 weeks to nba

Registered details with mcol...anything I need to know before I get stuck in?

Think ill be paying £60 to file & if it goes to court another £80...can see why people get put off. If I win I get it back & if I lose (unlikely), gone!

111KAB

catoutthebag wrote: »

Registered details with mcol...anything I need to know before I get stuck in?
Think ill be paying £60 to file & if it goes to court another £80...can see why people get put off. If I win I get it back & if I lose (unlikely), gone!

Yes but you will also get interest on your money (if you get 8% where else can you get that?) + travelling + attendance + put one up Thomson