Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

bazaar_2

kandm wrote: »

Hi all
after a bit of advice if anyone could help ..
I filed the MCOL for myself & party of 5 others (2 children) and received the thomson defence which does aknowledge that the claim is for myself & 5 others, however I have since read that I shouldn't have claimed via MCOL but N1.
My case has been transfered to my local county court with a hearing date set in September. I telephoned them to ask how I could go about changing the claimant details to show all names in my party & they really couldnt tell me. They said I needed legal advice as the case involved children as all monies received for them would need to go into trust? and that without legal advice i wouldn't be able to amend the forms? Surely this isn't correct?
Could I submit a claim form N1 & pay an amendment fee? or am I going to have to either just go with the case I have got or completely start again?
Any help will be very much appreciated

Yes , you me and quite a few others have made this "Mistake". Its certainly worth calling up MCOL and ask them ( As I did), then make youre assessment of what theyve told you.
In mine, I named all the party members on my POC. It may well be that only I will get anything as the named claimant, if its successful in court,( who knows). the advise on these threads, is just that, while the cases get honed to get maximum benefit for all claimants.
Centipede has made a great comment earlier on and it should be read as this is now seemingly the way to go.
Anyway, call MCOL, see what they say, if later on a judge tells you to amend your claim ( thatll be OK, you then do so) If the judge only allows you as claimant, then OK too, you just have to go through the process again via an N1 filed at court by snail mail and not via MCOL.

shellbob83_2

blondmark wrote: »

No don't bother with the CAA. Thomson's 2 year scam relates to claims brought under the Montreal Convention, but that's nothing to do with your claim.

If your plane was delayed or cancelled you would bring a claim for compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004 instead, and therefore time limits under the Montreal Convention are irrelevant. Thomson is essentially a fundamentally dishonest company that hopes you won't realise this and will go away empty handed while they steal the compensation that is rightfully yours.

Write back giving them 14 days to settle your claim and then sue for the compensation they owe you.

Thank you for this.

Is there a template letter for the reply to Thomson like there was for the first complaint email I sent or is there anything in particular I need to be saying in my email back to them?

Just a bit confused because on the MSE page with the template letters it says to write to the CAA next as the departure airport was non EU.

matt2baker

blondmark wrote: »

A 'C Duct' is apparently one of THESE. This isn't a sealed unit or one that would never be expected to go wrong. This is another part like any other that would reasonably be expected to wear out and require routine replacement. In the language of Wallentin-Hermann a fault arising in the C Duct would be 'inherent in the normal exercise of an air carrier’s activity'.

As such, a routine failure of the C Duct would not constitute extraordinary circumstances.

Then there is the issue of the air carrier's failure to deploy standby crew to take over immediately from the crew that went out of hours. Having failed to take all reasonable measures to minimise the effect of the delay they caused, they cannot possibly sustain a defence of ECs.

You should write them a Letter Before Claim warning of legal action in two weeks if they do not settle your claim for compensation.

blondmark..... how on earth did you find that sort of detail AND even consider using it in a claim??!! I can't wait for the details of what my "technical fault" is, (although I expect that Google will find me a zillion answers in a millionth of a nano-second)

blondmark

matt2baker wrote: »

blondmark..... how on earth did you find that sort of detail AND even consider using it in a claim??!! I can't wait for the details of what my "technical fault" is, (although I expect that Google will find me a zillion answers in a millionth of a nano-second)

Haha well I don't really know anything about planes, but you're right - Google threw that gem up. But it's quite helpful if you attempt at least to follow what they say caused the fault, and insist on them proving it too because Thomson in particular are notorious for their works of fiction! In my case they went from fictitious bad weather then switched to a fictitious runway closure and finally to a fictitious early landing that never happened.

A useful rule of thumb with Thomson is to assume that every word they utter is a lie, then you won't go far wrong.

matt2baker

blondmark wrote: »

Haha well I don't really know anything about planes, but you're right - Google threw that gem up. But it's quite helpful if you attempt at least to follow what they say caused the fault, and insist on them proving it too because Thomson in particular are notorious for their works of fiction! In my case they went from fictitious bad weather then switched to a fictitious runway closure and finally to a fictitious early landing that never happened.

A useful rule of thumb with Thomson is to assume that every word they utter is a lie, then you won't go far wrong.

lol yeah, i WAS that sad to see what the link was - and actually as I scanned through to the 'conclusions' it did look as thought it was a useful document to have as back-up - even if it was gobbledy-gook to us mere portals :cool:

just received my "sorry -its an EC tech fault" letter for one of my claims - with "specific causes" mentioned but none given
oh well, it keeps the Royal Mail in business with letters to and fro before my LBA drops :j

kandm_2

bazaar wrote: »

Yes , you me and quite a few others have made this "Mistake". Its certainly worth calling up MCOL and ask them ( As I did), then make youre assessment of what theyve told you.
In mine, I named all the party members on my POC. It may well be that only I will get anything as the named claimant, if its successful in court,( who knows). the advise on these threads, is just that, while the cases get honed to get maximum benefit for all claimants.
Centipede has made a great comment earlier on and it should be read as this is now seemingly the way to go.
Anyway, call MCOL, see what they say, if later on a judge tells you to amend your claim ( thatll be OK, you then do so) If the judge only allows you as claimant, then OK too, you just have to go through the process again via an N1 filed at court by snail mail and not via MCOL.

I called MCOL who said that I should have filed an N1, as did the courts. Nobody can tell me how to go about amending the claim though. I am now thinking that when my next court fee is due (next week) I will send it with a completed N1 titled "amendment" and detail all of the claimants separately. If nothing else it may show I tried to amend the claim!

Thanks for your help. Will post any further developments in here.

blondmark

kandm wrote: »

I called MCOL who said that I should have filed an N1, as did the courts. Nobody can tell me how to go about amending the claim though. I am now thinking that when my next court fee is due (next week) I will send it with a completed N1 titled "amendment" and detail all of the claimants separately. If nothing else it may show I tried to amend the claim!

Thanks for your help. Will post any further developments in here.

There are links from Google on how to amend particulars of claim - HERE is the official version.

kandm_2

blondmark wrote: »

There are links from Google on how to amend particulars of claim -

Thank you, I will follow the procedure from the link

bazaar_2

kandm wrote: »

blondmark wrote: »

There are links from Google on how to amend particulars of claim -

Thank you, I will follow the procedure from the link

this link might help also,
http://www.moneyclaimsuk.co.uk/creditor-and-claimant-questions-and-answers/can-I-change-the-defendant-name.aspx

2013archers

romanby1 wrote: »

Your CC statement should be enough to proove to Thomsons you were on the flight. Ask them for the details they hold on you from the flight manifest. Send a NBA letter with a 14 or 21 day response time. As a matter of course they will refuse, or even ignore you, they ignored me for 2 months but as you know you were on the flight they will have to prove you were not on it if you proceed to court. Go Ahead if you think you have a reasonable chance of success.

Hi, Romanby1 Thank you for your advice. I have followed everything you have been saying over several weeks (congrats on win). Am I right in thinking you also had no 'documents of proof'. again, many thanks