Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

Looks good to me.

FoxyDevon

I have just received an email back from Thomsons saying I am unable to claim for our delay in Nov 2010 as it falls outside the 2 year claim period. Can anyone advise me on what I need to quote to them to say there is no limit please. Thank you

David_e

FoxyDevon wrote: »

I have just received an email back from Thomsons saying I am unable to claim for our delay in Nov 2010 as it falls outside the 2 year claim period. Can anyone advise me on what I need to quote to them to say there is no limit please. Thank you

This by Centipede100 may help:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=57110269&postcount=2634

Specifically:

"The ECJ in the Cuadrench More v KLM as expected ruled that the 2 year time limit expressed in the Montreal Convention does not apply to claims brought under Reg 261/2004 and that it is the time limit which applies in each EU Member State that is the limit for claims under the Reg.

In England/Wales that time limit is 6 years from the date of delayed or cancelled flight whilst in Scotland the limit is 5 years."

FoxyDevon

Hi,

Thank you, I will quote this to them and see what happens :-)

nigelpm

FoxyDevon wrote: »

Hi,

Thank you, I will quote this to them and see what happens :-)

Don't bother. Take the NBA then court action.

akm123_2

111KAB wrote: »

41 Wallentin is the clause you are seeking.

Wallentin in general for the fact that a technical problem does not = extraordinary circumstance but refer to 24/25/26.

Hi thanks for your reply 111KAB :)but what I am specifically looking for is something which says that, once the flight delay is likely, the airline must do all in its power to minimise said delay.

I know I read it somewhere but I have read so much that I can't think where.

David_e

akm123 wrote: »

Hi thanks for your reply 111KAB :)but what I am specifically looking for is something which says that, once the flight delay is likely, the airline must do all in its power to minimise said delay.

I know I read it somewhere but I have read so much that I can't think where.

Not totally sure what you mean but Article 6 of the Reg's deals with obligations on airlines in the event of delay. I may be wrong but by the "all in its power" stuff you may be referring to the Wallentin case which says "all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal" if that's what you are after.

David_e

nigelpm wrote: »

I assume the District judge who struck out the claim is unaware of this.

That would be disgraceful. I'm gobsmacked that might be the case.

nigelpm wrote: »

Although on the flip side the judge may be irritated that Thomson have attempted to use the Montreal convention in their defence statement.

Does the person who signed the 2 year limit defence for Thomson genuinely believe that is the time limit? Presume they have to sign the "believe the facts to be true" declaration in the same way as the claimant. If they do think that's true, they are, at best, badly informed and ought (if there is any justice at all) to be penalised if they make any claim that is manifestly incorrect - whether through ignornance, negligence or worse. Hopefully when the case is reinstated it will cast a cloud over their evidence.

SciTech

AlwaysConfused wrote: »

F
Upon finally boarding our plane the Captain advised us the delay was due to Thomson using the aircraft scheduled for flight TOM2658 to cover for another aircraft.


What was the date of this flight?
I'm in the process of claiming for the same flight number to the same destination but were we flying on the same date?

nigelpm

David_e wrote: »

That would be disgraceful. I'm gobsmacked that might be the case.



Does the person who signed the 2 year limit defence for Thomson genuinely believe that is the time limit? Presume they have to sign the "believe the facts to be true" declaration in the same way as the claimant. If they do think that's true, they are, at best, badly informed and ought (if there is any justice at all) to be penalised if they make any claim that is manifestly incorrect - whether through ignornance, negligence or worse. Hopefully when the case is reinstated it will cast a cloud over their evidence.

Indeed! It's an interesting one.

Don't see how the district judge can be aware though otherwise they wouldn't have struck the claim out.

I think it quite likely they do nothing about my letter (handed in personally at court today) to save face.

If the case isn't reinstated I'll need to look at how I can appeal against the decision - any ideas?

Quite happy to pursue this though as they are clearly wrong.