Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

bazaar_2

zzx wrote: »

How many of us have recived a fake defence from Thomson, signed as a true statemen t of fact? In my case they cited air traffic control as the cause of a 17 hour delay.
When I prodduced a witness statement from the person responsible for time slots in 2010 at Gatwick, Thomson changed their defence to EC.
If there is a pattern here of Thomson signing true statements of facts then changing their defences perhaps we can deploy this to mutual advantage.
surely courts would not be happy with this abuse of process?

thats why thomsons usually fold at the last minute, so they dont perjure themselves in court.

bazaar_2

MGOR wrote: »

Hi

I'm after some guidance re completing form N1. I am claiming for my family - me, wife and 2 kids re a 24 hour delay in August 2011. Therefore as there are 4 claimants cannot use MCOL.To avoid complications re 2 year argument I am now applying to Court. NBA sent and deadline expired last week.

Looking at the form there are 2 sections to complete:

Brief Details of Claim - I was going to give a bit of background similar to what others have done for MCOL.

Particulars of Claim - do need to complete this? There is a field suggestion to follow. This is the one which has stumped me.

Any thoughts please

Many thanks


Digging further it seems that brief details are a summary in 1 sentence - I am seeking compensation of £x on behalf of w,x,y,z as per article 7 EC 261/2004

Particulars of claim are the more detailed preamble

Is that a fair summary?

pretty much , you can tick a box and file full particulars of claim on seperate documents, ( just make sure you copy them in triplicvate), Theres no harm in detailing everything that happened up to you bringing your claim, IE, the letters back and forth, etc. When you actually get your court allocated, then youll provide witness statements, which will have basically the same as POC, but will debunk their defence, youll also be providing copies of the case law you will rely on etc.

richardw

Kaiser 06, is it reasonable for them to have a back up system for checking in passengers?

blondmark

delvey wrote: »

Which case vs finnair is it that states about aircraft being used on a previous flight?

That would be Finnair Oyj v Timy Lassooy (Case C-22/11) which in my view contains some important analogous legal principles in relation to the knock-on effect of extraordinary circumstances, notwithstanding that it concerns cancellation under 261/2004 rather than delay under 261/2004.

It is standard practice in English litigation to plead in the alternative. This means that you can put forward a variety of different arguments as to why the defendant is liable, and these different arguments can be entirely contradictory and some of them may lack merit. However no judge will think any less of you for arguing a claim or a defence in the alternative.

Just start each new argument with the words "In the alternative".

bazaar_2

Vauban wrote: »

the CAA is a waste of time - many people have been waiting for well over six months for them to respond, and often they are not helpful. Court is the only way to go.

Also, the CAA are starting to refer most of the complaints back to the airlines, which pretty much tells you what you need to know

Kaiser_06

richardw wrote: »

Kaiser 06, is it reasonable for them to have a back up system for checking in passengers?

The backup system was to manually check in all passengers. The systems had been down all day according to person at check in desk. Anyone know if this is a genuine EC or something I could pursue?

Thanks

richardw

richardw wrote: »

Kaiser 06, is it reasonable for them to have a back up system for checking in passengers?

...and for such a system to keep delays to less than three hours?

happychap7

Hi
E mailed MCOL the other day explaining I had not included my partner and children's details in the claimant section but had put them in the particulars of claim section instead. They've e mailed me back stating they have referred it to the District Judge for directions and I should get a reply within 3-6 weeks. This is a lot better than when I phoned them when someone told me they couldn't offer any advice and suggested and sought legal advice !

mda1974

Has anyone had any success if appealing a decision by Thomson?
Just had a letter turning down our request for compensation on the grounds of Extraordinary Circumstances.
The delay was caused by a fault to one of the engines which from want I have been able to gleam noes not constitute being extraordinary.

Thanks

Marcus

matt2baker

Kaiser_06 wrote: »

The backup system was to manually check in all passengers. The systems had been down all day according to person at check in desk. Anyone know if this is a genuine EC or something I could pursue?

Thanks

The check-in desks are operated by airport handlers in the main, and not by the airlines. Systems failures at check-in desks are nothing to do with aircraft faults, are they not? More check-in staff and all desks open would help the slow process, but it's not an irregular occurrence that systems have a blip - and check-in staff all have a back-up process in that situation. That means it's up to the airline to claim from the airport handlers for the delays caused to their passengers. They may well have done so, but forgot to tell their passengers that they can claim........

IMHO its nowhere near close to an EC !!