Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Mark2spark

Re: The use of Finnair.
As I've posted before, I'm in agreement with Blondmark's angle on it.
There was a recent airline success (can't remember who/what/where) but basically the airline's barrister managed to flummox the judge by quoting all sorts of things and mostly out of context.
So IMO you have to go to court and be prepared to argue that the impossible also applies to your case, if need be.

In Finnair, the wise old heads of the ECJ refer to the preambles of the Reg (14 & 15?) in their summing up, and state that, clearly, the intention of the reg is that EC's only apply to the flight concerned, and as the reg applies to both denied boarding and cancellations (a 3 hour plus delay equals a cancellation as per sturgeon), then the meaning of the pre amble applies to both scenarios.
That's how I would argue it.

joolywooly

I am awaiting a court date for my claim and am wondering whether I do actually need to submit an SAR to Thomson. They have stated in their defence that I need to prove that I was on the flight - I have email booking confirmation but no boarding passes (the flight was 6 years ago). I gather from previous threads that they are not quick at replying to requests (surprise surprise) - what would happen if they haven't provided the information by the time the case comes to court? Many thanks for any advice...

Mark2spark

Ask them to prove you wasn't on the flight.

friendofbillw2

Mark2spark wrote: »

Ask them to prove you wasn't on the flight.

As I've said before Mark, that's pretty lame on the basis that you can't prove a negative, and the emphasis is very much on the claimant to prove the basis of their claim in all respects. Being on the flight is about as fundamental to the claim as it gets.

In the absence of boarding passes, passport stamps or receipts / credit card transactions at both ends of the journey, the only way forward is a Data Protection SAR.

friendofbillw2

joolywooly wrote: »

I am awaiting a court date for my claim and am wondering whether I do actually need to submit an SAR to Thomson. They have stated in their defence that I need to prove that I was on the flight - I have email booking confirmation but no boarding passes (the flight was 6 years ago). I gather from previous threads that they are not quick at replying to requests (surprise surprise) - what would happen if they haven't provided the information by the time the case comes to court? Many thanks for any advice...

If you haven't got a court date yet you have more than enough time to do a SAR. They must reply within 28 days I believe.

Vauban

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

If you haven't got a court date yet you have more than enough time to do a SAR. They must reply within 28 days I believe.

I do not know for how long an airline is expected to keep its passenger manifests for. It may not be 6 years, however.

Let's also be precise about the legal test. As I understand it - which is code for saying I may have made this up - the airline does NOT have to prove you were not on the flight. Rather it is for the claimant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that s/he was. That is quite a different proposition.

If the airline no longer holds any personal data on you, I am certain a booking itinerary would more than meet this requirement. Luggage tags would be good too. Other evidence I am less certain about.

joolywooly

Thanks - although I think it's 40 days they have so think I might be cutting it fine. I guess that if it does get to court before I get their reply then I can produce a copy of my request or maybe submit it in the court bundle...

darkwarrior

Vauban wrote: »

I do not know for how long an airline is expected to keep its passenger manifests for. It may not be 6 years, however.

Let's also be precise about the legal test. As I understand it - which is code for saying I may have made this up - the airline does NOT have to prove you were not on the flight. Rather it is for the claimant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that s/he was. That is quite a different proposition.

If the airline no longer holds any personal data on you, I am certain a booking itinerary would more than meet this requirement. Luggage tags would be good too. Other evidence I am less certain about.

If the airline doesn't have data on you though where would the booking itinerary come from? I am in this situation as my flight was 6 years ago and I have no ticket stubs.

Does anyone know what department you should be sending an SAR to at Thompsons? I thought them not denying I was on the flight would have been evidence enough but now I am concerned.

bazaar_2

chezza2524 wrote: »

Hi All,

Just a quick question, I have submitted my MCOL and Thomson's defense should be filed at latest tomorrow (haha), now my sister and her partner were on the same flight and have also gone through the process of a complaint although Thomson have never told me the reason for the delay apart from Tech Fault, whereas they have sent my sister a letter saying
'In case of your flight, the cause of the delay was due to a delay to another aircraft, due to "unexpected flight safety shortcomings" arising from the discovery of a technical defect that doesn't fall into the category of something that was or ought to have been discovered during routine maintenance.'

If it goes to court can I use this letter or my sister as a witness, as we all know knock on effects are not EC's?

Thank you

play your vour cards close to your chest for now, that infi is good once you start

bazaar_2

friendofbillw2 wrote: »

As I've said before Mark, that's pretty lame on the basis that you can't prove a negative, and the emphasis is very much on the claimant to prove the basis of their claim in all respects. Being on the flight is about as fundamental to the claim as it gets.

In the absence of boarding passes, passport stamps or receipts / credit card transactions at both ends of the journey, the only way forward is a Data Protection SAR.

sorry, just me two bobs worth, time it right and ask for the manifest as part of discovery, no need for SAR,