Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Jez_Taylor

Vauban wrote: »

You didn't have to pay any of Thomson's costs then?

Unlucky all the same - my commisserations.

No, there are no legal costs in the Small Claims Court. You CAN end up paying expenses for the other side if you lose is my understanding but as they didn't bring their two witnesses, this was not an issue

Mark2spark

My commiserations Jez. Of course you had a case, and of course you should have won. Now and again, a judge is going to pop up that doesn't understand the full scope of the rulings.

David_e wrote: »

Aeroplanes are very complex and so technical issues are to be expected.

Exactly. But that's not all, even if it is so remotely unexpected it become 'extraordinary'.
There is a 2nd test of the airline doing all it could to minimise the delay further. And a 20 hour delay is indefensible IMO.

MrsChewy

Re the point regarding the delay being of 20 hours. In the letter from Thomsons they have said "its important to note that the all reasonable measures test applies to the occurance of the EC and not the delay that may have been its effect". Which in this case the court appears to have done in discounting the length of the delay as a factor.

Although its obviously not what we are after lost cases when reported help future cases. I think people need to know its not like PPI claims and in my opinion its best to think that all technical issues are going to be EC and build your case around this. I can't see the airline going to court if the plane going tech is due to a problem found during maintenance etc. which they know you will come back with the relevant bit of case law on.

Vauban

MrsChewy wrote: »

Re the point regarding the delay being of 20 hours. In the letter from Thomsons they have said "its important to note that the all reasonable measures test applies to the occurance of the EC and not the delay that may have been its effect". Which in this case the court appears to have done in discounting the length of the delay as a factor.

But I don't think this is right, or should be conceded. Wallentin para 41 is clear that the "reasonable measures" test relates to the impact of ECs on the punctuality of the flight, not the effect on the ECs (which by definition have to be outside of the airlines' control):

"41. That party must establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able – unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time – to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation of the flight."

Whilst I can see the Thomsons might want to argue their point, but I really don't think there is much ambiguity if you stick to the core principles of Wallentin (accepting that a minority of judges will take a different view).

darkwarrior

Jez_Taylor wrote: »

Original fee was £70 then £110 for the court and another £40 or so to amend the claim from Thomson Holidays to Thomson Airways.

How come you had to pay for the court? The site says low cost claims don't cost anything.

Vauban

darkwarrior wrote: »

How come you had to pay for the court? The site says low cost claims don't cost anything.

It depends on the value of your claim. If it's a lot, you pay a higher fee. For some smaller claims, I believe you don't pay a hearing fee at all.

Grovesye

Apologies if this has already been discussed recently but I'm having trouble finding an answer.
I had a claim from 2009 rejected by Thomson a few months agai due to their '2 year' rule!
Now there are new guidelines should I write to them again? Or am i likely to get the same response.
If not was thinking of going through a claims company as don't have the time to do all the leg work myself..
Thanks In advance

jackoonline

I am claiming for a 10½ delay to flight LBA - Palma in May 2013. I wrote to Thompson initially asking for an explanation for the delay - no response. I sent a second chasing letter, no response. I have since sent an NBA letter and their 14 days are overdue now and still no response.

I therefore want to start court proceedings, but still unclear as to why we were delayed. Hearsay on the day was that a previous flight had technical issues, so our plane was stuck in Dublin and was used for another flight.

What should I write in my MCOL if I'm not sure that I'm claiming against EC conditions?

romanby1

jackoonline wrote: »

I am claiming for a 10½ delay to flight LBA - Palma in May 2013. I wrote to Thompson initially asking for an explanation for the delay - no response. I sent a second chasing letter, no response. I have since sent an NBA letter and their 14 days are overdue now and still no response.

I therefore want to start court proceedings, but still unclear as to why we were delayed. Hearsay on the day was that a previous flight had technical issues, so our plane was stuck in Dublin and was used for another flight.

What should I write in my MCOL if I'm not sure that I'm claiming against EC conditions?

State, Thomsons are ignoring your requests for information on the delay and the info you have is not an EC. Problems with other flights is not an EC.
My case was similar and the settled out of court.

Vauban

jackoonline wrote: »

I am claiming for a 10½ delay to flight LBA - Palma in May 2013. I wrote to Thompson initially asking for an explanation for the delay - no response. I sent a second chasing letter, no response. I have since sent an NBA letter and their 14 days are overdue now and still no response.

I therefore want to start court proceedings, but still unclear as to why we were delayed. Hearsay on the day was that a previous flight had technical issues, so our plane was stuck in Dublin and was used for another flight.

What should I write in my MCOL if I'm not sure that I'm claiming against EC conditions?

Have a look at the thread "Taking the Airlines to Court" that has a template for the MCOL submission - but you really don't need to get into any level of detail. The airlines have to prove the existence of ECs - and their failure to respond to you will not be appreciated by the court. When you prepare your fuller witness statement (which will not be for several months), make sure you make this point. (By that time, however, the airline will have been forced to send a preliminary defence - so at least you'll know what you're dealing with.)