Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

xsally83x

Im just doing my claim form for Thomson and is the address i put down the one in Luton - EU Delay Claims,
Thomson Airways,
Wigmore House,
Wigmore Lane,
Luton.
LU2 9TN

Also its asking from which date did they owe me the money im claiming for so i can add the interest. Which date would this be? The date i first made my claim or the date after the 14 days were up where i said i would take further action? I have tried searching this forum but cant see this info.

Do i just use todays Euro exchange rate to calculate the 400 Euros?

laticsforlife

Re: The question of naming the claimants in the N1 form or using the N1CPC form.

I have spoken with a friend who works for HM Courts Service and he has in turn spoken with colleagues who deal with civil claims every day and they suggest my claim (on the N1CPC - essentially the online form), is OK as it stands with me as Claimant termed as the 'leading passenger' entitled to issue a claim on behalf of my party.

This also covers the obvious fact that minor children would have to be done in this way as they couldn't be claimants themselves.

He is going to speak with a District Judge he knows and will report back to me this week, so if anything is different I'll post it here, but so far it sounds OK.

I am about to send off my Court Fee and have until around the end of August to issue my witness statement and bundle for the Court (and I guess Thomson will also wait until around then to issue theirs).

laticsforlife

xsally83x wrote: »

Im just doing my claim form for Thomson and is the address i put down the one in Luton - EU Delay Claims,
Thomson Airways,
Wigmore House,
Wigmore Lane,
Luton.
LU2 9TN

Also its asking from which date did they owe me the money im claiming for so i can add the interest. Which date would this be? The date i first made my claim or the date after the 14 days were up where i said i would take further action? I have tried searching this forum but cant see this info.

Do i just use todays Euro exchange rate to calculate the 400 Euros?

Address is OK as thats what they use back to you - using the registered Office seems also to be OK.

Interest I did up to the date the form was completed, then add the line about adding £0.28p per day thereafter.

Exchange rate should be that in force at the date of delayed travel so use online sources to trace this (just use Google and search for historical exchange rates - there are loads).

Bonters

Jez_Taylor wrote: »

A Cautionary Tale

Commiserations indeed. How disappointing after all that effort, and a judgement which might clearly have gone either way. What surprises me more is the fact that Thomson will almost certainly have spent more on the Barrister than it would have cost to pay you out. Normally companies will take a commercial decision rather than any ethical or principled decision and opt for the route of least cost. But they didn't here. If it took 2 hours for the various representations and another hour for the Judge's deliberations, it was clearly a close call. And you can only put it down to bad luck. Of course, on appeal, the decision may well be reversed, but what about the costs? That's always the problem when funding legal proceedings yourself. It's back to the game of poker. I guess you will cut your losses and leave it at that? A shame, but just as well that folk know it's not everyone who wins. Good of you to share the info. :beer:

David_e

laticsforlife wrote: »

Exchange rate should be that in force at the date of delayed travel

Do you know if this is definitely the case? The compensation is quantified in Euro so arguably should either be paid in Euro or at the exchange rate on the date of payment.

blondmark

David_e wrote: »

Do you know if this is definitely the case? The compensation is quantified in Euro so arguably should either be paid in Euro or at the exchange rate on the date of payment.

Yes courts can make awards in different currencies to reflect the currency of the loss, but when converted to sterling the rate would be that when the cause of action arose (the object of damages to return the claimant to the position he would have been in had the breach not occurred). See Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (Respondents) v. Impregilo SpA and others (Appellants).

blondmark

Grovesye wrote: »

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

If the new guidelines you refer to are those recently published by the CAA, they do not concern time limitations for bringing claims. If you meant case law in the form of More v KLM, this merely confirmed what had always been the case.

Thomson's 2 year rule was a lie in 2009 and it's still a lie today. Nothing has changed.

darkwarrior

What would I argue in response to

10) It will be said by the Defendant that the aircraft intended to operation the Claimant's Inbound Flight was subject to a lightning strike on its previous sector. This resulted in the aircraft being diverted to Luton for inspection. An alternative aircraft was sought to operate the Claimant's Inbound flight as soon as possible.

I assume they aren't any less screwed by act of god then the regular person?

SimonD316

So far all I have had from Thompson is the two year rubbish, even though I have sent them the full More judgement, so I started proceedings on 19th July, it was issued to Thompson on 22nd, they issued an acknowledgment of service on 26th saying they are going to defend all of the claim.

No surprises there!

I thought I would do some more digging on FlightStats, and have found a few more useful pieces of information.....

There was a Thompson Flight on the same route departed on time 15 minutes after my flight was due to depart. Given the next point, could people have been offered that flight, or a larger plane used?

Perhaps more importantly though, according to the Event Timeline (which I have not looked at before) would indicate that the arrival airport (Manchester) knew a full TWO days before that the flight was going to be delayed - My flight was due to arrive at 01:05 AM, but on 4th July at 11:12 PM the "Estimated Gate Arrival Changed To 06/06/10 04:20 AM". Then on 5th July at 2:57 PM the "Estimated Gate Arrival Changed From 06/06/10 05:21 AM To 06/06/10 05:48 AM".

If the Airport knew two days before, surely Thompson would have had more notice, therefore they *could* have made alternative arrangements? I'm more than happy for this to go to court now... I'll update as this progresses.

David_e

blondmark wrote: »

Yes courts can make awards in different currencies to reflect the currency of the loss, but when converted to sterling the rate would be that when the cause of action arose

Thanks for the clarification