Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

bazaar_2

blondmark wrote: »

You are the Litigation Friend (SEE HERE) of your children and you speak for them (I'm assuming a fare was paid on their behalf entitling them to claim).

In response to your question about whether you can decide whether to go to court or not after issuing proceedings, you are committed to pursue the claim unless both sides agree you may vacate the action. Your particulars of claim are not the same as your witness statement, so put in your full claim straight away if you haven't already.

Mark,
Would this be the same if you did not tick the box at the MCOL POC? if so, maybe we need to make a sticky with the detailed process, IE, we know they defend to weed out the claimants, so
1. MCOL,
2. Click box additonal POC to follow,
3. defense, next steps.

jenn1ewest1

bazaar wrote: »

I started mine on MCOL and stated at the begining i was claiming on behalf of party and named them.
You can ( which i didnt do ) tick the box stating you will send more detailed POC to the defendant.
So you should be covered.

I too have claimed for a party of eight and have named everyone individually and up to now nobody has disputed this
JH

Basingstoke_Betty

can anyone comment on the other points I raised? Would really like some help. Thanks, BB

Mark2spark

Basingstoke_Betty wrote: »

1) They have included the 'claimant is required to prove that she travelled on the flight' line. I don't have boarding cards, but I do have booking confirmation, letter handed to us as we de-planed in the UK and ALL their correspondence with me since about why my flight was delayed - is that enough?
Yes

2) My claim is twofold - firstly that the delay cannot be attributed to a previous flight - what is the legal example I need to quote to back this up? Is it Oyj v Timy Lassooy (Case C-22/11)???
IMO you simply quote the relevant part of EU261, preamble 14: EU261stating that the intention of the regulation is clear, in that EC's only apply 'to the flight concerned'

3) Secondly, if the court DOES accept that Thomson can refer to a previously delayed flight (against the above ruling), that exceptional circumstances cannot be applied to a 'pressure regulator valve defect' on the previous flight. This was essentially a minor defect which was fixed in a timeous manner and did not result in a serious delay to that flight, it landed approximately 1 1/2 hours late.
Simply state that a 90 minute delay on a previous sector does not equate to an 18 + half hour delay on your flight. Ask for documentary evidence that they could not source an alternate crew for the return leg.

3) I maintain that the delay was due to poor management of staffing rotas. Our departure was actually only delayed by 2 hours, but our ARRIVAL was delayed by 18 1/2 hours because we could only fly for 4 hours rather than 6 hours and we had to stop off on our way home to let the staff rest. Does anyone have any advice on this? If the plane was refuelled, and if we were ready to depart and actually took off only 2 hours delayed, but we had to fly to Tenerife and stop overnight to allow the staff to rest, surely that cannot be exceptional circumstance, just poor rota management?

4) No one gave us ANY opportunity to NOT fly - we weren't told about the delay AT all even though, from the MOMENT they had a delay on the previous flight, they would have known that the staff would not have had enough hours to get us home (that's at least 8 hours of notice); there were no information boards and no ground staff, so they waited until we were on the plane to tell us about the plan to fly us four hours to Tennerife rather than 6 hours home - I'm sure EU law states somewhere that we should have been given the right to cancel our tickets and receive a full refund instead. Where can I find our that information?

5) Finally, my claim form clearly states 'My family, 2 adults and 3 children are
claiming compensation from Thomson Airways
(TUI Travel)for an 18.5 hour delayed flight
on 1st November 2012 under the EU Denied
Boarding Regulation upheld by the European
Court of Justice (ECJ) on 23 October 2012.
Our delay was over 4 hours and our journey
was more than 3,500km (2,175 miles). This
entitles us to 600 Euros per passenger in
compensation'. The DEFENCE letter from Thomson says that 'the claimant is required to prove that she travelled on the flight'....do you think they are going to try to wriggle out of the other 4 claims?

I know I have written a lot here, but it's getting to the point where I need to start getting detailed with Thomson and I really want to get it right.
Thank you

I can't answer 3 & 4 in depth as they don't raise it as their defence.
I didn't go the court route myself so I only have limited input.

WILLIAM4023

Submitted MCOL. Put Defendant 1 as Thomson Airways and Defendant 2 as TUI Travel Plc is this ok ?

stavros42

WILLIAM4023 wrote: »

Submitted MCOL. Put Defendant 1 as Thomson Airways and Defendant 2 as TUI Travel Plc is this ok ?

You are taking the airline only to court ie Thomson Airways Ltd.

Jayneygirl64

Any suggestions to my last post #1427 (page 72). Not really sure where to go from here.

111KAB

Jayneygirl64 wrote: »

Looking for some advice.... We put a claim in, in January 2013 regarding our 4+ hour delay from Gatwick to Cancun in December 2011. We were told at the time that the pilot had gone over his flying hours and they were trying to get a replacement pilot. My brother in law received a phone call today to say that we were not eligible for compensation as the delay was due to a blocked toilet on the aircraft. Seems funny that we were told by Thomson staff at the airport about the pilot, and now it's changed to a blocked loo! They are saying its a health & safety issue. I actually think its because there were 17 of us all on one booking! We have asked for them to put this in writing to us, and we will take further action. Any advice on what to do next would be very much appreciated.

Sorry missed this one! Have they put it in writing yet? I imagine not! You have a valid claim and there are a number of ways of going about it.
Firstly decided if you are going to claim yourselves or use a no win no fee firm. Secondly once you have decided you can then think about if all 17 of you claim together (you cannot do this by MCOL you will have to complete forms 'longhand') - due to the amount concerned the Court and hearing fees will be high. Another way is for just say 2 of you to front a claim (those maybe that are the most up to speed with the regs in case it goes to Court) and whilst the result of that 2 person claim will not set a precedent for the other 15 it will create a damned good argument should they have to go to court! By fronting with 2 of you the MCOL route is useful and should you go 'down' (doubtful) it would be limited financial exposure.
Good luck!

Jayneygirl64

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayneygirl64
Looking for some advice.... We put a claim in, in January 2013 regarding our 4+ hour delay from Gatwick to Cancun in December 2011. We were told at the time that the pilot had gone over his flying hours and they were trying to get a replacement pilot. My brother in law received a phone call today to say that we were not eligible for compensation as the delay was due to a blocked toilet on the aircraft. Seems funny that we were told by Thomson staff at the airport about the pilot, and now it's changed to a blocked loo! They are saying its a health & safety issue. I actually think its because there were 17 of us all on one booking! We have asked for them to put this in writing to us, and we will take further action. Any advice on what to do next would be very much appreciated.
Sorry missed this one! Have they put it in writing yet? I imagine not! You have a valid claim and there are a number of ways of going about it.
Firstly decided if you are going to claim yourselves or use a no win no fee firm. Secondly once you have decided you can then think about if all 17 of you claim together (you cannot do this by MCOL you will have to complete forms 'longhand') - due to the amount concerned the Court and hearing fees will be high. Another way is for just say 2 of you to front a claim (those maybe that are the most up to speed with the regs in case it goes to Court) and whilst the result of that 2 person claim will not set a precedent for the other 15 it will create a damned good argument should they have to go to court! By fronting with 2 of you the MCOL route is useful and should you go 'down' (doubtful) it would be limited financial exposure.
Good luck!

Thanks 111KAB for the reply. I'm very new to all this!! Can you explain what MCOL is?? I take it its some kind of Court of Law maybe?? This whole thing is very frustrating. My sister in law just said we might as well give up. But I believe, after reading a lot of the posts on here that we are entitled to compensation and that we have a good case. What gets me is, that how it's changed from a pilot going over his flying hours to a blocked loo on the aircraft!!!

Vauban

Jayneygirl64 wrote: »

Thanks 111KAB for the reply. I'm very new to all this!! Can you explain what MCOL is?? I take it its some kind of Court of Law maybe?? This whole thing is very frustrating. My sister in law just said we might as well give up. But I believe, after reading a lot of the posts on here that we are entitled to compensation and that we have a good case. What gets me is, that how it's changed from a pilot going over his flying hours to a blocked loo on the aircraft!!!

Jayney - you need to do some work or walk away! You've just been give a heap of help by 111KAB, and yet seem to want to be spoonfed? If you are going to get your compensation, you will have to work for it.

Have you even typed MCOL into Google before asking your question, just to see what you might get? Go on - have a go: click on the first result you get.