Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

matt2baker

MDAH wrote: »

Hi I hope you have better luck than I ahve with thompson me and my husband where delayed 29 hours in 2010 and I ahve treis to claim likeMarin lewis said.

I have rec;d a lettter from thompson telling me i cannot claim as it been more than 2 years i am bit confused i thought you could claim from 2007.

I say good luck to you

Hey, you're just the customer that Thomson want and love - those who have given up at the first hurdle!!!! :j

I say read this thread from a few pages back - and then good luck to you when you claim via the courts!

Vauban

MDAH wrote: »

MDAH wrote: »

Hi I hope you have better luck than I had with thompson me and my husband where delayed 29 hours in 2010 and I have tried to claim like Marin lewis said.

I have rec;d a lettter from thompson telling me i cannot claim as it been more than 2 years i am bit confused i thought you could claim from 2007. I have given up

I say good luck to you

I would drop a line to a no-win no-fee legal firm. They will tell you if you have a case, and if you win you'll get about 70% of your award. No hassle for you.

dxc_chappie

darkwarrior wrote: »

I have received a letter from my local court now it has been moved that says:

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. Unless the claimant does by 4pm on 2 October 2013 set out in writing why the Montreal Convention Article 35 does not apply tot his case, which ends rights to compensation after 2 years from the date of arrival at destination, or any other reason why such limitation period should not apply, then the claim will be and is hereby struck.

2. This iorder is made by the court of its own initiative. Any party affected by this order may apply pursuant to CPR 3.5 to have it set aside, varied or stayed. Any such application should be made by application notice in accordance with CPR23 and must be made not more than 7 days after the date on which this order is served.

Dated 12 of mother loving August, so that 7 day thing is probably worthless.

So the Montreal act doesn't apply because it asks for damages doesn't it? And I'm not after damages? What would be a good way to respond here as this judge seems to have already picked a side if its doing this on its own initiative.

In your written response you should include something along the lines of:

1. The Claimant make no claim for loss, damage or delay brought under the Montreal Convention, instead the Claimant rely solely on Regulation (EC) 261/2004 and therefore it is not arguable the limitation period provided by the Montreal Convention could apply.

2. The extent of the time limitation in which a claim for delay under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 was confirmed in the judgment of the ECJ in Case C-139/11 Joan Cuadrench More v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV. The time-limits for bringing actions for compensation for flight cancellation under European Union law are confirmed as being determined in accordance with the rules of each Member State on the limitation of actions, and any argument that is should be two limited to two years is therefore ineffective.

3. Paragraph 29 of the More judgment is specific in that the two-year limitation of Article 35 of the Montreal Convention does not apply to compensation brought Regulation (EC) No 261/2004: "Consequently, the two-year limitation period laid down in Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention and in Article 35 of the Montreal Convention cannot be considered to apply to actions brought, inter alia, under Articles 5 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004."

4. In English law, section 9 of the Limitation Act (1980) provides that "an action to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any enactment shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date of which the cause of action accrued". In light of the More judgment, a six year limitation period therefore applies to claims brought before the English courts.

5. The Claimant say that any clause in the Defendant’s flight conditions of carriage by air which purports to extinguish a consumer’s legal entitlement to access their statutory rights under Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 to make a claim after two years is ineffective because Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 expressly prohibits it: “Exclusion of waiver - 1. Obligations vis-à-vis passengers pursuant to this Regulation may not be limited or waived, notably by a derogation or restrictive clause in the contract of carriage.”

And assuming your case is allowed to continue you should also include the above in your witness statement.
(Credit to Blondmark for most of the above wording.)

Vauban

Might you also add in there that the Civil Aviation Authority, responsible for the enforcement of 261/04 in the UK, also takes the view that the six year period applies?

dxc_chappie

Vauban wrote: »

Might you also add in there that the Civil Aviation Authority, responsible for the enforcement of 261/04 in the UK, also takes the view that the six year period applies?

Good idea. Is there a specific link to the CAA's view on this?

And if other authoritative views are to be included why not include law firm DLA Piper UK's paper and the Travel and Tourism Lawyers' Association's update both of which are linked in Blondmark's post #2314. (Register with Lexology.com and get the original TATLA update in PDF.)

jimcbob

dxc_chappie wrote: »

Good idea. Is there a specific link to the CAA's view on this?

And if other authoritative views are to be included why not include law firm DLA Piper UK's paper and the Travel and Tourism Lawyers' Association's update both of which are linked in Blondmark's post. (Register with Lexology.com and get the original TATLA update in PDF.)

And why not also include the recent County Court judgment on precisely this point, which can be found at "www . bottonline.co.uk/images/news/Judgment.pdf" (sorry, can't post links as new user!)

FoxyDevon

I have sent email to legal department @ Thomson as I was advised to do so, I resent it today, and got the reply that they have sent it to Aftersales Team.....now bearing in mind it was the Aftersales team that told me to send it to the Legal department.... There is a article in the Daily Mail today regarding this so called 2 year ruling by Thomson, and they are looking for people to email them so that they can get some sort of dossier together I assume. As Im new I can not post a link, but if you look on the mail on the money section. I did email them and received a reply straight away.

dean100mc

Hi all,

advise please, we went on a family holiday to Florida in November 2007 with First Choice, on departure from Orlando Sanford Airport to London Gatwick on Thursday 15th November 2007 (with first choice airline which i believe is thomson now) we were delayed 24 hours and was put in a hotel overnight with dinner and breakfast.

Checked flight stats but does not show delay, only shows flight leaving the following day

I have no documents just remember the dates is there any point going through with this? be good to hear peoples thoughts and from anyone on that was on same flight

thanks in advance

Dean

jenn1ewest1

dean100mc wrote: »

Hi all,

advise please, we went on a family holiday to Florida in November 2007 with First Choice, on departure from Orlando Sanford Airport to London Gatwick on Thursday 15th November 2007 (with first choice airline which i believe is thomson now) we were delayed 24 hours and was put in a hotel overnight with dinner and breakfast.

Checked flight stats but does not show delay, only shows flight leaving the following day

I have no documents just remember the dates is there any point going through with this? be good to hear peoples thoughts and from anyone on that was on same flight

thanks in advance

Dean

I was on the flight on the 30th of october 2007 and we were delayed 24 hrs at Gatwick and put in a hotel overnight at gatwick not sure if this could be the same flight as we only went for ten nights
JH

happychap7

darkwarrior wrote: »

I have received a letter from my local court now it has been moved that says:

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. Unless the claimant does by 4pm on 2 October 2013 set out in writing why the Montreal Convention Article 35 does not apply tot his case, which ends rights to compensation after 2 years from the date of arrival at destination, or any other reason why such limitation period should not apply, then the claim will be and is hereby struck.

2. This iorder is made by the court of its own initiative. Any party affected by this order may apply pursuant to CPR 3.5 to have it set aside, varied or stayed. Any such application should be made by application notice in accordance with CPR23 and must be made not more than 7 days after the date on which this order is served.

Dated 12 of mother loving August, so that 7 day thing is probably worthless.

So the Montreal act doesn't apply because it asks for damages doesn't it? And I'm not after damages? What would be a good way to respond here as this judge seems to have already picked a side if its doing this on its own initiative.

Hi
This seems like a good reason to include the More Vs KLM ruling and the limitation Act 1980 re 6 years to claim in the UK on your original N1 form in the particulars of claim section. I appreciate using MCOL there isn't enough characters allowed but using CCMCC there is.