Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

panholio wrote: »

I submitted a claim against Thomson via MCOL on the 11th July.

The claim was issued on the 12th July

Thomson issued an acknowledgement of service on the 17th July.

To date I have heard nothing. It is 31 days since my claim.

Can I go ahead and request a judgement?

I would give them a few more days, and then do so. (Courts seem to cut them some slack, but a week over would be too late - I reckon.)

panholio

Just called the MCOL helpdesk who said they have until the end of the 14th.

Although that appears to be at odds with the claim documents issued to them which say:

You must send either the completed acknowledgment of service form or a defence to the court within 14 days of the date of service. If you send the acknowledgment of service you must send a defence to the court to arrive no later than 28 days from the date of service.

I assume it is 28 actual days and not working days?

CobyBenson

panholio wrote: »

Just called the MCOL helpdesk who said they have until the end of the 14th.

Although that appears to be at odds with the claim documents issued to them which say:

You must send either the completed acknowledgment of service form or a defence to the court within 14 days of the date of service. If you send the acknowledgment of service you must send a defence to the court to arrive no later than 28 days from the date of service.

I assume it is 28 actual days and not working days?

That's correct, it's 28 days actual days.

However, the period only starts running from the date of 'service', not the date of 'issue'.

The date of service is 2 business days after the date of issue. So as yours was issued on 12th July (Friday) it's deemed served on the Tuesday (16th).

I'd request Judgment the day the defence is due, don't give them even a second longer.

jamesh

Settled

I sent the allocation questionnaire the other week, but have heard nothing back and don't have a date for the case yet.

But Thomson called, I agreed to settle with them, I dropped the interest but happy to get it settled without the hassle of making a court bundle and preparing a statement.

:j

Vauban

jamesh wrote: »

Settled

I sent the allocation questionnaire the other week, but have heard nothing back and don't have a date for the case yet.

But Thomson called, I agreed to settle with them, I dropped the interest but happy to get it settled without the hassle of making a court bundle and preparing a statement.

:j

Great result - well done. Do post your experience on the court success thread!

(Is it my imagination, or are the airlines increasingly choosing to settle rather than have the paucity of their arguments exposed in court?)

romanby1

Vauban wrote: »

Great result - well done. Do post your experience on the court success thread!

(Is it my imagination, or are the airlines increasingly choosing to settle rather than have the paucity of their arguments exposed in court?)

You could be right. It would make sense if the claim is genuine, what is the point of spending more in legal staff costs than a claim is going to cost.
It only gives bad publicity on this and other sites.
Many people are beginning to realise they do not have to accept bad service etc.

chezza2524

Hi All,
I have just received Thomson's defence, Here it is:

1) It is strictly denied that the Defendant ('the Airline') is liable for compensation under what it assumed to be the Denied Boarding Regulations 2004 (EC261/2004) ('the Regulations').

2) It is admitted and averred that the Airline operated Flifght TOM2394 on the 13th June 2008 from Corfu, Greece (CFU), to Luton, United Kingdom (LTN) ('the flight').

3) The Claimant is required to prove that she travelled on the Flight. I sent them a copy of the letter given to me at Gatwick on arrival which said we had been delayed.

4) By reason of Article 3 of EC Regulation 2027 as amended, as a matter of Englich law the liability if a Community air carrier in respect of passengers and their baggage shall be governed by all provisions of the Montreal Convention relevant to such liability.

5) The Montreal Convention deals with the liabitlity of the carrier, including (by its Article 19), for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers and baggage.

6) As a matter of English Law, where it is applicable, the Montreal Convention sets out the conditions under which claims to establish liability, if disputed, are to be made.

7) One such condition set out by the Montreal Convention is its Article 35, which provides that:
"(1) The right to damages shall be exringuished if an action is not brought within a period of two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage was stopped.
(2) The method of calculating that period that period shall be determined by the law of the court seised of the case."

8) In the premises: Any claim for 261 Delay Compensation is subject to the conditions set by the Montreal Convention, including that contained in its Article 35, in that it is a claim against a Community air carrier (the defendant) in the respect of the delay in the carriage by air of a passenger (the Claimant). And

9) As a matter of English law any right to damages in respect of 261 Delay Compensation was therefore extinguished if no action was brought against the Defendant in respect of it within two years of the 13th June 2008. No such action was brought within that two year period (this action having been issued on 8th July 2013). Accordingly, the current proceedings fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action and/or are an abuse of the court's process. What does this mean? fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action?

Further and in the alternative

10) It will be said by the defendant tjat the aircraft intended to operate the Claimant's Inbound Flight was subject to an unforseen technical fault, namely damage to the left engine fan blade on its previous sector. An alternative aircraft was sought to operate the Claimant's Inbound flight as soon as possible. We were over 11 hours late leaving and then were taken to Gatwick and had to be bussed to Luton. It is a 3 hr flight so is 11 hrs classes as soon as possible?

11) This resulted in a delay to the departure of the Claimant's Inbound Flight.

) It is averred that the matters pleaded in Paragraphs 10 above were caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken and that, pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Denied Boarding Regulations, no compensation is payable in the circumstances.

13) For the reasons set out above, the claim for 400 Euros per passenger pursuant to the Denied Boarding Regulations is denied.

14) The Claimant is put to strict proof as to their loss.

15) As to the contingent claim for interest, it is denied that 8% is an appropriate interest rate.

What does everyone think? standard defence from what I have read

laticsforlife

I'd say it was a cut and paste job (NB did you retype this or are the spelling mistakes Thomsons?)

Pretty much the only difference between yours and mine is at para 10 where the different one sentence is used to describe what was wrong with our flight.

You are, as many others, seeing a defence against knock-on effects, and as the forum says again and again, this is what Finnair lost their case on - Knock-on effects are not EC's.

delvey

Sent of my mediation questionnaire 2 weeks ago now. Not heard anything yet. Should I phone MCOL?

copbab

Vauban wrote: »

They are fobbing you off.

Thought as much. do you recommend i go back to Thomsons or take it elsewhere?

cheers