Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

blondmark

romanby1 wrote: »

Write a NBA letter rebuffing their response with a 14-21day response time with an offer or off to court it is.

I think roseandrog48 already issued proceedings, and that work of fiction you read is Thomson's ludicrous Defence. So the only letter required at this stage would be by recorded delivery to Thomson requiring full documentary evidence that the alleged technical fault existed, reasons why pre-flight checks failed to detect it, and the measures, if any, Thomson took to ensure this flight took off as close to schedule as possible.

This request should also go into the Allocation Questionnaire. Thomson will ignore it, but it's for the judge to note the Defendant's total lack of cooperation with the process.

delvey

Quick question
As some may be aware, I was given no provisions from article 9 of EU 261/2004. We were stuck over night in the airport with no accommodation, no food and no drink. In theory, could you claim compensation for this?
I.E my other half had been awake for 26 hours by the time we boarded the flight, over 30 by the time we arrived at our hotel, so emotional distress?

blondmark

delvey wrote: »

Quick question
As some may be aware, I was given no provisions from article 9 of EU 261/2004. We were stuck over night in the airport with no accommodation, no food and no drink. In theory, could you claim compensation for this?
I.E my other half had been awake for 26 hours by the time we boarded the flight, over 30 by the time we arrived at our hotel, so emotional distress?

Yes to a right to care (accommodation, food and drink - receipted of course) but regrettably no to emotional distress.

roseandrog48

Many, but what is an Allocation Questionaire ?

roseandrog48

Apologies if i've repeated myself , but what is an "Allocation Questionaire"

delvey

blondmark wrote: »

Yes to a right to care (accommodation, food and drink - receipted of course) but regrettably no to emotional distress.

Thanks, what would you think would be a reasonable amount?

Vauban

delvey wrote: »

Thanks, what would you think would be a reasonable amount?

Whatever it cost to provide a reasonable level of care. But to be clear you can't claim for what wasn't spent: so if you had to sleep on the airport floor, you cannot claim for extra compensation equivalent to the cost of a hotel room. If you had stayed in a hotel, you could have claimed this cost back, however.

Otherwise, it's just the statutory compensation laid down in the Regulation.

Vauban

roseandrog48 wrote: »

Apologies if i've repeated myself , but what is an "Allocation Questionaire"

It is a (fairly simple) document you are sent, after you have initiated legal action and the other side have submitted their preliminary defence. It is used to "allocate" the case - both to the small claims track, and to a geographical court (usually of your choosing).

roseandrog48

Vauban wrote: »

It is a (fairly simple) document you are sent, after you have initiated legal action and the other side have submitted their preliminary defence. It is used to "allocate" the case - both to the small claims track, and to a geographical court (usually of your choosing).

Thanks again, i guess that the form that i recieved from the court entitled Small Claims Direction Questionaire may be the same document ( known by form No 180), if not is there another form i should expect to recieve, NB i have completed this & returned it with the acceptance of mediation. Seeing that i've posted this already should i send the letter proposed as requesting further info from Thomson also to the Court ?

Jez_Taylor

A Cautionary Tale
I have just spent the morning at the County Court and have lost my case. My case was based on a 20 hour flight delay from last year following the failure of a Hydro Mechanical Unit (it works with the fuel pump).
I had originally engaged the Spanish Aviation Authority but as Thomson refused to engage with them, they found in my favour. Once again I raised the issue with Thomson's but they refused to recognise my claim so I took the case to the Court.
I have been an avid reader of this forum for the past 12 months and there is some very useful material on it. I represented myself in Court. I am not a Solicitor but am no stranger to a court room in a professional capacity so was quite happy to represent myself. Thomson's were represented by a local Barrister who was very well prepared and clearly knew the history and stated cases involving flight delays and compensation.
We spent two hours discussing the case and then waited another hour whilst the Judge reviewed the evidence. In conclusion he found that the technical issues with the Fuel Pump were exceptional circumstances and as such, Thomson's were exempt from payment of the compensation.
The main argument relied on the Wallentin judgement and the interpretation of the meaning of the problem being 'inherent' to the operation of the aircraft. The Judge saw it differently and stated that the failure of the HMU was beyond the control of the air carrier and that Thomson did everything that was reasonably possible the rectify the issue once it had arisen. I obviously disagreed with the conclusion as I was only 2 hours away in Menorca and to wait over 20 hours to complete a 2 hour flight seems excessive.
Anyway as they say that is that. I am more then willing to offer my experiences in greater depth if it helps anyone with their claim. I don't regret bringing the claim and I disagree with the conclusion but that is life.
It is clear to me that Thomson are settling those cases nearer the time that they want to keep out of the court and anything they think is 50/50 they are happy to contest. My case today probably cost Thomson as much as I had offered to settle for but they still insisted on taking it all the way.I think mine is the 3rd case on the forum that has been lost now on Technical Issues relating to EC's. That is balanced against about 30 or so odd victory's.