Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

dxc_chappie

laticsforlife wrote: »

If they can sucessfully convince a judge that the root cause of your delay was the lightning then is suggest you might lose your case as it is essentially an act of god and EC.

I don't agree with this but that was the thinking of my judge and only the fact that they did not convince him that the airplane in question was our plane meant they lost.

Also I don't agree that knock on effects apply, but again the judge said per amble 15 mentions overnight issues so he was seemingly happy to allow knock on effects.

Acts of god are not necessarily ECs, and since aircraft are specifically designed to withstand lightning strikes it cannot be considered to be a meteorological condition incompatible with the flight concerned. So could resultant technical faults - however rare - be considered inherent in the normal operation of the airline? I would say yes.

But if the lightning strike causes a tech fault whilst you are in mid air I would say that falls under the category of unexpected flight safety shortcomings and is therefore an EC. But I also agree knock ons should not be ECs as airlines should have contingency arrangements. (And they should fulfil their legal obligation to pay compo when due and not use tech faults to try to wriggle out of paying.) Just my twopenneth.

kevinyork

You would have thought that the District Judges had internal newsletters or other forms of communication to share common issues and that they would all be aware of flight delay claims. This would ensure consistency on the main issues of 2 years and ECs.

Bonters

matt2baker wrote: »

Would you therefore be advising people who are well within the 6 year time-frame to hold fire on starting court proceedings until the 'appeal' is lost?

On the basis of what laticsforlife is saying, it would appear that Thomson don't have any consistency on the 2 year claim. I'm astonished that they didn't apply for a stay of proceedings on the basis of the pending appeal case, and abandoned the 2 year argument altogether? It might just be that they thought the EC issue was a strong one in that case and so they wouldn't need the 2 year limitation. Equally (and more likely in my opinion), it might be that they are haphazard in their approach and the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing! In view of that I would say commence your proceedings, rather than awaiting the appeal. Worst ways, the case will be adjourned pending the outcome of the appeal, so nothing to lose by forging ahead in my opinion.

puddy1

We was delayed last year Thomson have stated that it was because of the intercom not working and that is a flight safety issue so we could not fly.Is this correct.

kevinyork

puddy1 wrote: »

We was delayed last year Thomson have stated that it was because of the intercom not working and that is a flight safety issue so we could not fly.Is this correct.

Puddy1, you posted this question in the Thomas Cook thread last month. Which is it, Thomson or Thomas Cook. If you read the threads you would know tne answer to your question.

Vauban

puddy1 wrote: »

We was delayed last year Thomson have stated that it was because of the intercom not working and that is a flight safety issue so we could not fly.Is this correct.

Read the FAQs on page 1, Puddy. As you were advised a month ago, you need to do some leg work if you want to make a claim.

puddy1

kevinyork wrote: »

Puddy1, you posted this question in the Thomas Cook thread last month. Which is it, Thomson or Thomas Cook. If you read the threads you would know tne answer to your question.

I tried to get it moved but the mods were not helpful,why do people instead of writing what you should have done just point the person to the correct answer or help them find it.As a lot of people i do not understand the jargon that the airline sends back,so it is helpful if some people help others.

laticsforlife

Bonters wrote: »

On the basis of what laticsforlife is saying, it would appear that Thomson don't have any consistency on the 2 year claim. I'm astonished that they didn't apply for a stay of proceedings on the basis of the pending appeal case, and abandoned the 2 year argument altogether? It might just be that they thought the EC issue was a strong one in that case and so they wouldn't need the 2 year limitation. Equally (and more likely in my opinion), it might be that they are haphazard in their approach and the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing! In view of that I would say commence your proceedings, rather than awaiting the appeal. Worst ways, the case will be adjourned pending the outcome of the appeal, so nothing to lose by forging ahead in my opinion.

I think you are right in so much as they thought that lightning was a strong enough EC to win, thus why argue the other aspects.

BUT I did ask the barrister (of course as its Thomson he may have been a barista, who knows) why they didnt ask for a stay as per the Dawson case but he knew nothing of it and simply said the client had instructed him on what to argue etc.

laticsforlife

I've had some thoughts on how you should prepare for Court.

Legal arguments aside as they are perhaps individual to each case, but do look carefully at which cases Thomson include in their bundle as they cannot rely on any others so ergo must intend using them in your case.

In terms of if you win;

Costs are not part of your initial claim, so are discussed after the Judge says he finds for the Claimant (You).

Take a copy of CPR r. 27.14 about the costs you can claim; I am a bit pi*** about this as I'm sure I was in the right and should have had £90 for loss of leave added but what can you do, the Judge clearly thought I'd won and shouldn't therefore be greedy (I suspect he would have sided with Thomson had their evidence been better). he said that costs were essentially up to him to determine.

Prepare 3 copies of a schedule of the costs you want to claim, and include at the top the €400 (in £GBP @ the rate in force as of the date of your delay - incidentally this should be the same as on your initial MCOL form); then add the costs of getting this far (MCOL fee £80, Track allocation fee £40, Court hearing fee £165).

Then add your interest claim BUT also I would recommend printing off the true interest rates in force for savings in the UK from your date of delay and do some maths as to the realistic amount to claim as even though the HMCS website suggests 8%, Thomson argue its unjust (and it is), so instead of having a block 1.5% foisted on me, I may have gotten a little more if I had prepared a full schedule of interest.

Of course you only need to present this if the sum offered is less than what you think is due.

The Judge will probably find it hard to deviate from something in writing, and I suspect Thomson will just say pay it.


Edit;

as per here http://www.swanlowpark.co.uk/savingsinterestannual.jsp

Savings Interest rates are a damn site higher than 1.5%, so I reckon I've been done out of another £47 since 2008 = DO YOUR RESEARCH, and BE PREPARED.

Why not print this website out and present it as evidence.

ruthiec1972

bazaar wrote: »

as long as your claim is not allocated to a track, then file a CPR 18 with them, requesting all the evidence. Ill put a draft up sometime soon, but use this and make sure you insist on a statement of truth from the airline,

Hi Bazaar, would you have a moment to put the draft for the CPR18 up or point me in a direction where I could get a rough idea for myself?

Thanks

RuthieC