Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

SimonD316

miss1963 wrote: »

SO JUNO if as you say you work for THOMSONS EXPLAIN WHY ON INSIDE CLICK tHOMSON INTERNAL WEBSITE WHY IT CLEARLY STATES THAT WHEN ASKING HOW LONG CAN CUSTOMERS CLAIM IT CLEARLY STATES 6 YEARS HMMMMMM

I think everyone outside Thompson knows this, but Thompson won't admit it publicly. Can you upload a screen shot, or a document confirming this?

LULU5779

Thanks for all you help.

Is the press release 150/12 enough for the 2 year defence.

laticsforlife

LULU5779 wrote: »

Thanks for all you help.

Is the press release 150/12 enough for the 2 year defence.

It should be as it quotes chapter and verse in a slightly more human way.

But for belt and braces it might be an idea to include the full judgement (just more paper to waste).

sue1611

Only my second post but I would be grateful for any advice. Industrial action and weather conditions on the flight prior to mine in 2010 are the reasons Thomson have given for my delay. They state that as this is exceptional circumstances no compensation is due. Flightstats does not really help with this sort of information but is there anyway to check that the reasons given are in fact true as Thomson don't reply to my letters asking for evidence.

jimcbob

So, I had my hearing today. Thomson didn't turn up (having not filed any evidence either). Judgment for full amount claimed, plus interest and court fees, plus an award of costs for their unreasonable conduct.

Edited to add: the judge asked me to take her through the limitation argument anyway, and was satisfied that the 6 year period applied per More and Dawson.

Caz3121

sue1611 wrote: »

Only my second post but I would be grateful for any advice. Industrial action and weather conditions on the flight prior to mine in 2010 are the reasons Thomson have given for my delay. They state that as this is exceptional circumstances no compensation is due. Flightstats does not really help with this sort of information but is there anyway to check that the reasons given are in fact true as Thomson don't reply to my letters asking for evidence.

If it was industrial action and weather then I am assuming yours would not have been the only flight affected. Try using flightstats to find other flights in that time period for both departure and arrival airports and maybe google for any press coverage on industrial action.

However if they are saying that it is not your airports but from where the plane was coming inbound from then you likely still have a case

VOB72

:jWell done on your success. Can you be more specific on the amount of costs awarded for their unreasonable conduct, and what the judge deemed to be unreasonable? It would be useful to others pursuing other airlines if you could copy your success into the court success thread too. Thanks

jimcbob wrote: »

So, I had my hearing today. Thomson didn't turn up (having not filed any evidence either). Judgment for full amount claimed, plus interest and court fees, plus an award of costs for their unreasonable conduct.

Edited to add: the judge asked me to take her through the limitation argument anyway, and was satisfied that the 6 year period applied per More and Dawson.

SimonD316

jimcbob wrote: »

So, I had my hearing today. Thomson didn't turn up (having not filed any evidence either). Judgment for full amount claimed, plus interest and court fees, plus an award of costs for their unreasonable conduct.

Edited to add: the judge asked me to take her through the limitation argument anyway, and was satisfied that the 6 year period applied per More and Dawson.

Fantastic news :beer: Glad to hear you got what you deserved, and yet another judge agrees it's 6 years...

jimcbob

VOB72 wrote: »

:jWell done on your success. Can you be more specific on the amount of costs awarded for their unreasonable conduct, and what the judge deemed to be unreasonable? It would be useful to others pursuing other airlines if you could copy your success into the court success thread too. Thanks

I argued that Thomson had behaved unreasonably by (i) sending pre-action correspondence that was patently untrue (e.g. that the Regulation does not apply to delayed flights, written after Sturgeon), (ii) raising extraordinary circumstances (on which they bear the burden of proof) and then not lodging evidence to even seek to establish that defence, (iii) raising limitation in the face of the decision in More, and (iv) putting me to the cost and time of having to turn up to rebut their positive defences, and then not lodging any evidence or submissions, or turning up themselves. The judge rejected point (iii), but seemingly accepted the other points.

I will not say the amount, but the general principles are set out in CPR rule 48.6, which means that (i) you can claim actual financial loss for the time spent working on the case if you can prove that loss, otherwise £18 per hour; but (ii) you cannot recover more than two-thirds of what you would have been allowed if you had instructed a lawyer to do the same work at commercial rates.

JPears

:j:beer::T:T:T:T
another success notched up.
Appeal anyone?