Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

kevinyork

dxc_chappie wrote: »

The help your require is in the FAQs on page 1. Despite what T have said in their reply following the Wallentin ruling technical faults are genrally not ECs. Issue your NBA and start reading these threads in detail. For an excellant detailed argument against a defence of tech faults being ECs I would urge you to read Vauban's posts in the Monarch thread.

Thanks for that. Ive searched and searched and cant find the post by Vauban you referred to. You couldnt privide the link or post number could you?

Thomsons EC defence is that the outbound flight that would form our flight home suffered a fault with the slide.

SciTech

Thanks for that. Ive searched and searched and cant find the post by Vauban you referred to. You couldnt privide the link or post number could you?


The posts are around page 73/74 on the Monarch thread.

Vauban

SciTech wrote: »

Thanks for that. Ive searched and searched and cant find the post by Vauban you referred to. You couldnt privide the link or post number could you?


The posts are around page 73/74 on the Monarch thread.

I think you might mean this one?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=61357725&postcount=1909

kevinyork

Vauban wrote: »

I think you might mean this one?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=61357725&postcount=1909

Many, many thanks.

kevinyork

Having read the post linked to above by Vauban I cannot say how useful that info is. I had not read about Wallentin but the content of that decision is so strong. I especially like....

'That party must establish that, even if it had deployed all its resources in terms of staff or equipment and the financial means at its disposal, it would clearly not have been able – unless it had made intolerable sacrifices in the light of the capacities of its undertaking at the relevant time – to prevent the extraordinary circumstances with which it was confronted from leading to the cancellation [or, post-Sturgeon, delay] of the flight.'

Intolerable sacrifices! Excellent.

laticsforlife

Two quick questions,

1. How does one address a District Judge, sir/madam or Your Honour?

2. Having complained in 2008 direct to Thomson, asking for compensation (not under any particular Regulation), and having them say 'no', does that allow me an argument to say I DID commence my claim within two years?

Vauban

laticsforlife wrote: »

Two quick questions,

1. How does one address a District Judge, sir/madam or Your Honour?

2. Having complained in 2008 direct to Thomson, asking for compensation (not under any particular Regulation), and having them say 'no', does that allow me an argument to say I DID commence my claim within two years?

1. Sir/Madam or "the Judge".

2. No.

laticsforlife

Vauban wrote: »

1. Sir/Madam or "the Judge".

2. No.

oh well, here's expecting a stay application.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Centipede could other airlines on the back of Thomsons appeal have older claims stayed until the appeal even though they are not appealing themselves?

If that is the case then Thomson stepping out of the box is doing them all a great favour with free to them legal proceedings.

As a guess how much do you think it is costing Thonson to appeal the recent judgement?

Kew73

Big thanks to all the regulars on here for really helpful advice. I'm ready to issue N1 for a claim from Oct'09 (NBA expires on Monday) - 18hr delay on TOM2730 Mcr to Pathos due to tech fault with engine - but am now wondering whether to wait until after the appeal? What's the view on their chances of success?...and why have they not appealed in this way before?