Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

katmaster

Hi there. I am in the process of taking Thomson to court. I have today received their Defence. In summary they are requiring me to prove I was on the flight and citing the Montreal Convention. How do I go about proving I was on the flight. It was part of a package holiday and I have the email booking confirmation. I didnt keep the boarding pass but I was thinking I could contact the hotel and get confirmation from them that I stayed there (albeit I arrived 12 hours late). Re the Montreal Convention point is there a date yet for the court of appeal hearing. I understand that Thomson are the only airline using this defence. Background is I was flying to the Dominican Republic, toilets were blocked (which they say is an extraordinary circumstance surprise surprise), we have to get a coach from Gatwick to Manchester to board another plane. Coach driver ran out of driving hours so stayed at a motorway service station to wait for another driver. All in all an 11 hour and 45 minute delay.

nigelpm

How do I go about proving I was on the flight. It was part of a package holiday and I have the email booking confirmation. I didnt keep the boarding pass but I was thinking I could contact the hotel and get confirmation from them that I stayed there (albeit I arrived 12 hours late).

This is a very moot point. Booking confirmation should be fine and the fact that you have bothered to take them to court should be enough.

Re the Montreal Convention point is there a date yet for the court of appeal hearing. I understand that Thomson are the only airline using this defence.

Read the last few posts on this board.

In summary Thomson have appealed the judgement that went against them in the Cambridge court and it looks like Thomson are now going to use this across the board against claims older than two years.

Rooonaldo

I have had my (half)day in Court and won.Cheque now received.In my case D was arguing EC because of a hydraulic leak.The day before the hearing I enquired as to whether they would be calling their witnesses and was told they were not as it was not proportionate in a small claim.It was,however proportionate for themto instruct experienced Counsel to argue their case in Court.
I argued this plainly was not EC and in any event they had not taken all reasonable measures.They argued it was because the defect was only ascertained on the "walk around" before the flight and not during routine maintenance.They relied on the Croon paper in support.The judge was interested in exploring the Croon argument which I said made no sense at all and came from someone who was clearly a hired gun.
After some deliberation the Judge found against Thomson.
Think it would be helpful for future cases if one of the experts on here could post a skeleton argument to use to discredit Croon.
I would urge all those who have valid claims not to give up and to take the case to Court if necessary.Don't be put off by D's stalling tactics.Also remember that witness statements are supposed to be staments of fact and not opinion or expert opinion so point this out to the Judge if,as in my case, Thomson try to include opinion in their statements without obtaining permission to adduce expert evidence.
Also remember the burden is on D to prove EC.
Sorry for the length of the post but felt it might assist others.

bettys73

Katmat: the fact you were booked on the flight should be enough - and I assume your passport was stamped on arrival at the Dominican Republic so that surely would prove you entered the country on a particular date. It would be seen as highly unlikely you would (or could) arrange a flight with an alternative airline at such short notice. Perhaps request a passenger list from Thomson (with all the other names redacted). Just my thoughts .......

bettys73

Forgive me if this has already covered but ..... If Thomsons have recently settled some claims more than two years old could this not be cited as their acceptance of the Montreal ruling? Seems like they've created their own precedent here!

David_e

bettys73 wrote: »

If Thomsons have recently settled some claims more than two years old could this not be cited as their acceptance of the Montreal ruling? Seems like they've created their own precedent here!

That is a sensible view - and of course most/all other airlines aren't seeking to apply a 2 year window - although I'm not sure the law works that way. They can put forward whatever rationale they like for having settled out of court and I don't think a legal decision at this (small claims) level creates a binding legal precedent.

At the end of the day, they are wrong so it's just a case of spelling out why that is the case.

nigelpm

At the end of the day, they are wrong so it's just a case of spelling out why that is the case.

Sorry to keep harping on about this but why are they wrong?

EU rules probably have power over the montreal convention but it's not completely cut and dry.

matt2baker

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

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

or we could set a precedent ourselves, and all use one court only that others have won at....................? chances are the same judges will be well-versed in Thomson's antics!

nigelpm

or we could set a precedent ourselves, and all use one court only that others have won at....................? chances are the same judges will be well-versed in Thomson's antics!

Good idea. Does anyone have a list of courts where claims over 2 years old have been won?

wozmand

Hi,


I have just received a response back from Thomson who have rejected my claim for compensation (4hr 50min delay). Thomson advised that the flight was delayed due to a technical defect being detected prior to a previous scheduled flight, this causing a knock on effect to my flight, quite rightly Thomson continue that legally the aircraft is unable to be dispatched with this defect.


Basically Thomson are claiming that this fault was detected just prior to departure and was not something that either ought to have been detected during routine maintenance or which occurred as a result of the failure of Thompson to implement a satisfactory maintenance scheme therefore the circumstances are not of a kind which would fall outside of the definition of extraordinary circumstances.


Does anyone feel I have the right to follow this up further?


Thanks
Mark.