Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

rajivsingh100

I have an interesting query for everyone and one help to ask withmy case.
Point 1
I ve been told that the airlines monitor this site so I ll try to be careful not to forewarn too much but it is quite clear to me that they are stalling everybody, making up stories, denying european law adn deliberately forcing everyone to ocurt, knowing that few of us will.
Would it therefore be reasonable to ask the court to make a punitive damage on top of the fixed penalty and interest? they are wastign a court's time especially after the ruling on their appeal in oct 12. So why not ask for this.
I m sure that if they were penalised in this way, they would have to consider whether they should accept repsonsibility earlier and pay out thus stopping all these court appearances?
Thoughts gratefully received?

Point 2
I ve sent off my forms to court and now have to send my AQ and mediation bit. However presumably it is ok not to hand over all my points and arguments now to Thomson?Can i delay this until my statement presumably once we have a court date? would this be acceptable?

blondmark

rajivsingh100 wrote: »

I have an interesting query for everyone and one help to ask withmy case.
Point 1
I ve been told that the airlines monitor this site so I ll try to be careful not to forewarn too much but it is quite clear to me that they are stalling everybody, making up stories, denying european law adn deliberately forcing everyone to ocurt, knowing that few of us will.
Would it therefore be reasonable to ask the court to make a punitive damage on top of the fixed penalty and interest? they are wastign a court's time especially after the ruling on their appeal in oct 12. So why not ask for this.
I m sure that if they were penalised in this way, they would have to consider whether they should accept repsonsibility earlier and pay out thus stopping all these court appearances?
Thoughts gratefully received?

Point 2
I ve sent off my forms to court and now have to send my AQ and mediation bit. However presumably it is ok not to hand over all my points and arguments now to Thomson?Can i delay this until my statement presumably once we have a court date? would this be acceptable?

Exemplary damages are rare in the county court and where they do occur it is generally for blatant large scale fraud. An award can only be made for a limited set of civil wrongs (‘the cause of action test’) and in only a limited set of circumstances in which those wrongs are committed (‘the categories test’).

These tests fall outside arguing lies and fiction in the alternative as Thomson do, distorting the truth as Thomson do and obstructing consumers who want to claim their legal rights, as Thomson also do. Thomson may be the lowest of the low as airlines go, but that doesn't unfortunately entitle you to exemplary damages.

Judges aren't blind though - they know a dirty trick when they see one, and Thomson's disreputable conduct in court does them no favours. Where the Judge considers that a party is not being truthful about one point, s/he is entitled to conclude that they are also being untruthful about other points. It is for you to get all your evidence together to highlight the lies.

In reply to your second point, a couple of weeks before the hearing you will disclose your documents and witness statements and that's when you spill the beans ... and that's when you'll probably also discover that Thomson have switched their story at the last minute to catch you off guard.

NWSteve

I'm after some advice.

We had a ski holiday flight back in 2010 that had a 7 hour delay going out. Problem is that I can't remember the reason for the delay- who should I contact for that information- Thomson or the CAA?

Many thanks

Orange_Smartie

blondmark wrote: »

A few pointers that may be relevant - a claim for severe delay isn't a claim in contract but is based on a statutory entitlement for compensation. The Regulation stipulates that liability rests with the operating air carrier which is not always the same party you contracted with. But by all means continue your claim against Thomson if they were the operating air carrier.

If a subject access request is ignored by a data controller, the next step would normally be to report the failure to the Information Commissioner. Although you could apply for injunctive relief through the courts, this is unlikely to be heard in the small claims track and may expose you to costs if the Court considers a simple referral to the IC would suffice.

I did consider making an application to add Monarch Airlines to the action to cover all bases. What do you think?

Also, I have reported the failure regarding the SAR to the Information Commissioner and am awaiting a response.

blondmark

Orange_Smartie wrote: »

I did consider making an application to add Monarch Airlines to the action to cover all bases. What do you think?

You may need to if nobody owns up - no doubt if you ask Monarch they will deny it. I see that I already helped someone else draft particulars in an identical situation involving Thomson and Monarch ... it went a bit like this ...

1. At all material times the First and Second Claimants were consumers and passengers travelling together on flight number ****** on **th *****, 20*** which arrived * hours late, entitling each of the Claimants to claim compensation (‘the Compensation’) under EU Regulation 261/2004 (‘the Regulation’).

2. The Operating Air Carrier (‘the OAC’) is responsible under the Regulation for the payment of the Compensation, however the First Defendant states that the Second Defendant is the OAC and the Second Defendant states that the First Defendant is the OAC. In the premises the Claimants aver that each of the Defendants is fully aware which of them is the OAC, but are mischievously conspiring together to circumvent the authority of the Court by refusing to disclose their respective roles for the purpose of this action.

3. The Claimants therefore respectfully request that the Court order the Defendant responsible for obstructing due process to pay any costs associated with verifying the identity of the OAC.

At least this way you're trying to guard against a costs order in respect of the incorrect defendant.

Orange_Smartie

blondmark wrote: »

You may need to if nobody owns up - no doubt if you ask Monarch they will deny it. I see that I already helped someone else draft particulars in an identical situation involving Thomson and Monarch ... it went a bit like this ...

1. At all material times the First and Second Claimants were consumers and passengers travelling together on flight number ****** on **th *****, 20*** which arrived * hours late, entitling each of the Claimants to claim compensation (‘the Compensation’) under EU Regulation 261/2004 (‘the Regulation’).

2. The Operating Air Carrier (‘the OAC’) is responsible under the Regulation for the payment of the Compensation, however the First Defendant states that the Second Defendant is the OAC and the Second Defendant states that the First Defendant is the OAC. In the premises the Claimants aver that each of the Defendants is fully aware which of them is the OAC, but are mischievously conspiring together to circumvent the authority of the Court by refusing to disclose their respective roles for the purpose of this action.

3. The Claimants therefore respectfully request that the Court order the Defendant responsible for obstructing due process to pay any costs associated with verifying the identity of the OAC.

At least this way you're trying to guard against a costs order in respect of the incorrect defendant.

So should I write a letter before action to Monarch giving 14 days and then if no satisfactory response seek to add them to the proceedings?

Bit puzzled as to why Thomson didn't just blame Monarch in the numerous items of correspondence prior to the instigation of legal proceedings. Also, why if the sub charter was arranged before the flight date did it carry a Thomson reference?

Bonters

2013archers wrote: »

Laura EUClaim (Bott & Co) are only interested if you can make it very easy for them i.e., documentation etc.,

I understand where you're coming from, but that's a rather harsh assessment in my opinion. At the end of the day, the fewer cases they take on, the less money they make so they have a fair incentive to continue. At the same time, in the case of no win no fee, they will not be over keen on anything they consider borderline, for fairly obvious reasons. Anyone continuing on their own behalf after being rejected by the likes of EUClaim, do so at their own risk, albeit I do realise that most of the airlines crumble at the 11th hour and are actually none too keen on defending in court. They are using the same commercial principle as the NWNF people really. This whole business is pretty much a game of poker and a question of who's gonna keep their nerve. On the way, the airlines are extremely good at bluffing

darkwarrior

blondmark wrote: »

Thomson's defence as it stands is defective as it merely purports to deny claims for 200 Euros per person but does not deny the claims you made for £320 per person.

Also the following para in their defence is inappropriate:

"14) The claimant is put to strict proof as of their loss."

Claims for severe delay under 261/2004 are not claims for loss; they are statutory claims for compensation.

So I should just fill out the N180 and continue the process then? Sounds like their legal department just prints out a letter with "INSERT NAME HERE" and calls it a day.

pymers

hi all
I am going to write back to Thomson today concerning my letter I got back from them (I put the letter up on a previous post on here)
my first question I am going to sak them is why the c-ducts were not check as it is to do with the airflow !!!!
2) why did they not have a stand by crew when they knew that the crew they had would be out of hours I was going to walk away from this but have decided to take it further I will give them notice of intent that unless I have this sorted out in the next 28 days I will be taking it to court any advise would be appreciated of what to put in my letter to Thomson
thank you

blondmark

darkwarrior wrote: »

So I should just fill out the N180 and continue the process then? Sounds like their legal department just prints out a letter with "INSERT NAME HERE" and calls it a day.

Sure - your claim isn't about loss, and if Thomson fail to protect themselves with a proper defence that's a matter for them.