Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

Vauban

nigelpm wrote: »

They are taking a consistent approach then - sounds like common practice now then given my experience above.

Initially up to the court to decide if they will stay the case.

Waiting to hear what they plan to do with my case

This is hilarious. It is essential a request to say: can we try to win, and then if we don't, will you set aside our loss so that we can appeal later?

Surely either the case is stayed - if they are arguing for 2 years - or it proceeds. The airline want their cake and to eat it!

jashley_2

Hi everyone looking for a bit of advice please.

We had sent our letter of to claim for a flight delay last year as per the advice off her and the show. Our experience was this:

We boarded our plane to be told that we would have sit and wait an hour while they changed a part. This was sorted and we took off minutes into the flight we were told there was a problem and need to land back at the airport but need to fly "around" for two hours to burn some fuel. We landed and then had to wait for a replacement flight.

Today we have received a reply. The main bit is as follows:

As part of our investigation I have checked our flight reports and can see your flight was delayed due to a technical issue that happened in-flight. The decision was taken to divert the aircraft. Therefore the cause of this delay sits under Extraordinary Circumstances as the technical issue with the aircraft was discovered following the aircrfts pre-flight safety checks.

There was nothing mentions the part they changed before we took off and it says pre-flight checks?? Why did we take off if they knew there was a problem? Just want to know are they correct to put it down as Extraordinary Circumstances and that end or are they just trying to fob us off.

Thank you for any help in advance,

Bonters

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

Typical shoddy reporting from The Daily Mail

Although this allowed them to deny payments to passengers on flights hit by bad weather, it also meant no compensation for passengers on subsequent flights that suffer delays as a knock-on effect.
However, a court in Cheshire has ruled that those on these later flights are entitled to compensation. The case centred on a claim brought by customers of easyJet, however the outcome will apply to all other UK airlines and can be backdated by six years.

This is nothing new, it has always been the case, and obviously this decision won't be binding on other courts

Well it is going to be cited as a precedent in my case! Granted, it is not binding because it is not an Appeal ruling, but can still be cited as a precedent, which must be fairly compelling in my opinion

Vauban

Bonters wrote: »

Well it is going to be cited as a precedent in my case! Granted, it is not binding because it is not an Appeal ruling, but can still be cited as a precedent, which must be fairly compelling in my opinion

You can certainly argue that this is what another DJ thought. But to be clear there is no legal precedent in the Small Claims Court. But by all means cite it all the same - it will do no harm!

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Vauban wrote: »

This is hilarious. It is essential a request to say: can we try to win, and then if we don't, will you set aside our loss so that we can appeal later?

Surely either the case is stayed - if they are arguing for 2 years - or it proceeds. The airline want their cake and to eat it!

Thomson's approach is utterly deplorable and totally laughable.

It is because their toys are so far out of the pram they will never retrieve them.

They were laughable when they cited the made up two year rule, they were laughed out of court in Cambridge and will be laughed out of the appeal I am sure.

The amount of laughablity sums the firm up and also their legal team.

A total joke.

I would never book a holiday with them ever again.

I am simply waiting to go for the jugular now and extort as much cash from them as I can humanly do.

I hate the firm and their legal team with a vengence.

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

Isn't it about time the Small Claims courts set precedents to stop the lengthy wasting of time that seem to go on?

JPears

LULU5779 wrote: »

Due to go to court on Wednesday 25th sept and I have received a letter from Thomson today stating the Dawson case.

"The defendant believes, should the EC defence fail, the the claim should be stayed until such time that the court of appeal gives judgment in this matter"

Is there anything I can do to stop this? Basically if they lose they want to postpone this until this appeal is heard is that correct. Help and advice greatly needed.


Best regards

As mentioned previously, this is a bit of a paradox, either the case is stayed because of 2 year appeal, or it is not. To go through the hearing for you to win, then to say well actually we don't agree because of the two year BS is a sham.
Also don't forget that they must ALSO clear the second hurdle of all reasonable measures to reduce delay, even in the unlikely event it is found to be EC.
I hope you are well prepared to put your case for this aspect too?

nigelpm

They were laughable when they cited the made up two year rule, they were laughed out of court in Cambridge and will be laughed out of the appeal I am sure.

FWIW, that's not a fair summary. I have the wording in front of me from the judge and it was a bit of a toss up between the Montreal convention and the EU rules throughout the piece and the judge's concluding para was :

"In the light of the importance of the decision, I shall give the defendant permission to appeal on terms that no order for costs is sought against the claimant. In that way there can be a decision by a higher court on the issue which will bind others"

So not really "laughed out of court" as Judge Yelton has given them a chance here. If there were no grounds for appeal, the door wouldn't have been open for Thomson to stay every single small claims court still ongoing!

Irritating but nonetheless part of a sensible legal process and I'd rather that happen and be comprehensive about it.

Mark2spark

LULU5779 wrote: »

Due to go to court on Wednesday 25th sept and I have received a letter from Thomson today stating the Dawson case.

"The defendant believes, should the EC defence fail, the the claim should be stayed until such time that the court of appeal gives judgment in this matter"

Is there anything I can do to stop this? Basically if they lose they want to postpone this until this appeal is heard is that correct. Help and advice greatly needed.


Best regards

Well, you can only ask the judge to consider that their request is frivolous, as it has already been appealed to the ECJ in the More case, and the ECJ said that the 2 year limit as under Montreal does not apply. Now a Court in Cambridge has upheld that, - yet Thomson still try and appeal?
Enclose print off and highlighted bits obviously.
All linked in the FAQ's.

nigelpm

Mark2spark wrote: »

Well, you can only ask the judge to consider that their request is frivolous, as it has already been appealed to the ECJ in the More case, and the ECJ said that the 2 year limit as under Montreal does not apply. Now a Court in Cambridge has upheld that, - yet Thomson still try and appeal?
Enclose print off and highlighted bits obviously.
All linked in the FAQ's.

As I've posted above it's not quite as simple as that.

The judge left the door open for them to appeal.