Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

happychap7

Hi
Just had Thomson's defence statement. I am fairly confident having just skim read it but would like some views. It contains the usual, prove you were on the flight and its over 2 years ago so I'm too late in claiming.
In the alternative they state ' the defence to the inbound flight is an unforeseeable technical issue prior to departure. The aircraft scheduled to be used on this flight required brake sensor maintenance. As a result an alternative aircraft was sourced. This caused the delay.'
In the alternative to the outbound flight they have a whole paragraph about the ash cloud in 2010 and it resulted in the largest shut down since World War 2 etc etc. They then state ' Subsequent to the volcanic ash an operation involving utilisation all of the defendant flight deck crew was necessary to bring home stranded passengers. As a result the flight deck crew suffered high duty hours. This resulted in a delay to the departure of the claimants outbound flight.
I think they've got the inbound/outbound flights muddled up as at the time the excuse for the outbound delay was scheduled maintenance overrun and the inbound was operational disruption within the Thomson Airways fleet. The outbound flight was the 21/05/10 and although I will do some further research I think airspace had been open for over a week at least at this point.
Any views would be appreciated.

delvey

Need some advice with the defence thomson have sent me. If one of the more legal minded people like centipede or Vauban dont mine sending there email via PM to me so I can send them the document. Thanks

davidbrian55

2 years, again!

thomson are saying 'CJEU at para 32 of More is the courts reasoning. It is stricly denied it amounts to its ruling.
They then comment on more, nelson and sturgeon,

in conclusion, domestic law will determine limitation
montreal says 2 years.

Mark2spark

madrayakin wrote: »

Thanks, its useful to know that the thing with boarding passes is just one of Thomson's typical avoidance tactics. Thinking about it some more, I could always argue 'in the alternative' so if legally it isn't a cancellation I could argue that it is a delay over 3 hours. It seems that Thomson can still (wrongly, IMO) say that it is extraordinary circumstances to get out of paying whether it is a cancellation or a delay though.

You are now debating what you will present to the court, which is many many months away, and Thomsons will in all likelyhood change their stance in the meantime. So just reject their denial by NBA at this stage.

111KAB

happychap7 wrote: »

Any views would be appreciated.

Obviously you have a two fold excuse from Thomson here so you have to tackle both issues. The question of the ash cloud/lack of crew should be easy enough to resolve by looking on the various websites to see what happened and when and build up a position where you can prove there were a considerable number of flights (both by Thomson and others) following the clearance of airspace.

Scheduled maintenance overrun and technical problems are not an extraordinary circumstance.

You will need to ask for proof of when they actioned sourcing another plane ie was it during/prior to the overrun period or last minute.

Mark2spark

laticsforlife wrote: »

NB if people want to include evidence from More v KLM I found this web link that is far more succinct and is only 2 pages - I would suggest that as its a direct press release from the EU it would be fine for the Courts here to use, and it speaks in plain English not legal mumbo jumbo!

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-11/cp120150en.pdf

:rotfl: Did you 'find' it in the FAQ's?
Under the big red: '6 years to claim'
it says:

European court press release on time limits to claim

which is a link to the same press release you have posted.

Whilst you're to be applauded :T for posting the link, it just shows how others aren't making full use of the FAQ's IMO.

It's pretty much all there people.

blondmark

In its quest to deny consumers their legal rights, Thomson often spring a new defence at the last minute that is not contained in their original Defence.

For example your clam may be that your flight landed 4 hours late, but if Thomson did not deny this in their original Defence, they cannot later defend the claim by saying it arrived only 2 hours late (they actually tried this on with me) because:

1. CPR 16.5(1)(a) provides that “In his defence, the defendant must state which of the allegations in the particulars of claim he denies”.

2. CPR 16.5(2)(b) requires the Defendant to state his own version of events in the Defence where it differs from that given by the Claimant.

3. CPR 16.5(5) states that a defendant who fails to deal with an allegation shall be taken to admit that allegation.

Mark2spark

davidbrian55 wrote: »

2 years, again!

thomson are saying 'CJEU at para 32 of More is the courts reasoning. It is stricly denied it amounts to its ruling.
They then comment on more, nelson and sturgeon,

in conclusion, domestic law will determine limitation
montreal says 2 years.

Come to terms with the fact that they will say just about anything to try and win.
The gloves are off.
There's no reasoning with them.
You just have to be prepared to point out the folly of their arguments.

Mark2spark

Blondmark, have you got the link please where it says that judges shouldn't be bound to accept late defence submissions as they are out of time please?

I'll include it in the faq's if there's a printout people can use.

It's just i've observed some judges doing the pompous I'll accept what I want, it's MY court' attitude.
For me, I would point out the timeframe and then ask that the transcript records that out of time defences have been allowed.
I'd follow that up - if it were me - with a piece about the bit where judges are meant to have more time and patience with LIP's
(Litigants In Person)

Mark2spark

matt2baker wrote: »

BTW, the radio prog will only be on the BBC i-player for 5 more days......

Link please?