Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

delvey

I was just wondering how many people have had the excuse of a 'fuel valve' failure. Seems a few. This is there 'excuse' to me yet claim it is not a common occurrence. I would be grateful to who ever has had this excuse to forward me any details e.g. flight number, time of delay etc via PM

jenn1ewest1

delvey wrote: »

I was just wondering how many people have had the excuse of a 'fuel valve' failure. Seems a few. This is there 'excuse' to me yet claim it is not a common occurrence. I would be grateful to who ever has had this excuse to forward me any details e.g. flight number, time of delay etc via PM

mine is quite similar the hydro mechanical unit the component controls the fuel flow to the engine
hope this helps
JH

Camaro3

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

Send Thomson an SAR, this should get you all the details you need.

darkwarrior

dxc_chappie wrote: »

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.)

This is some excellent info as is the post directly below it, if it isn't already I would suggest it be added to the OP as I was looking through the topic for this kind of info. I knew Montreal applied to damages and not compensation but I couldn't have worded it this well. I'm not sure why the court is asking me to justify the law based on their own misinterpretation though, unless they are just rolling with Thompsons interpretation of it.

Vauban

I understand, from someone in court next week with Thomson, that the airline has applied to have the claim stayed whilst an appeal to the Cambridge verdict (on Montreal/2 years) is heard. I can't imagine that this is a one-off, but I wonder how much traction they will get?

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Thomson seem to want to delay proceedings at every turn. If it wasn't two years it would be Extraordinary Circumstances.

They really don't want to pay up do they. Maybe they can't afford to pay all the claims due.

dxc_chappie

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Maybe they can't afford to pay all the claims due.

Well I suppose after barristers fees and £4bn on 60 new 737 aircraft they can't afford to fulfil their legal obligation to compensate passengers for the delays they cause.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Fighting this 2 year 6 year argument must be costing them thousands of pounds yet I find it interesting that it seems no other airlines seem to be doing this and then appealing. Just Thomson.

kevinyork

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

Thomson seem to want to delay proceedings at every turn. If it wasn't two years it would be Extraordinary Circumstances.

They really don't want to pay up do they. Maybe they can't afford to pay all the claims due.

I've got the trio.......... no proof of being on the flight, two years and Extraordinary Circumstances. Other airlines must have taken expert legal advice as well. Strange how Thomson are resisting at every stage despite being able to access the same legal advice.

catoutthebag

Hi everyone.

I've put my claim to the back of the 'to do' list for a few months, due to other things taking priority. I haven't kept up with recent developments - are they now asking for proof?

In the process of N1 form filling (as advised here, due to insufficient space entering both claimants' names onto the online mcol)

So, would be grateful if someone could help with the following so I can get it sent today or Saturday at the latest, now or never as there's £800 total in it!

1) when I sent off all the previous letters, it was under 2 years since the delay...when this N1 gets sent off, it will be just over the 2 years. Now that the 2 year thing is BS, is there any chance they will try to start on that (given the previous correspondence were under 2 years, and that EC had been stated as a defence)?

2) the N1 claim form has a circle with 'SEAL' written inside, in one of the spaces...is that like 'office use only stamp'?

3) can you continue writing onto another sheet of paper, or use the space provided?

4) there's 'brief details of claim' on page1 & 'particulars of claim (attached)(to follow) on page2 with double the space...when should the content in each include?

5) defendants name and addresses...which one do I use? Know there was 2, don't want to write the incorrect one.

6) 'value' on page1 - i) do I put that in euros or pounds, and if pounds, the value on the day of the claim or today, or an average? ii) do i put loss of interest in this bit too at 8% from the day of the delay (or day after) to today...because by the time the hearing is, or compensation is paid, the interest will be higher, so does the court recalculate this for you?

7) also on page1 is box with amounts..'amount claimed' (as per 'value'?), 'court fee' (is this £0 since it may not go to a hearing, or this the same as the application fee/cheque when the form is sent?), and 'solicitor fee' will be £0

FYI, the delay was just over 4 hours on 10th sept 2011, & looking to claim 400euro each, 800 total

Any clarification would be great so I can get this is pre-2years to avoid any other obstacles