Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

richardw

Have a thorough read of the FAQs sticky and this thread and then decide, the answer to your CAA question will also be there.

matt2baker

Miss_Intent wrote: »

Okay and thanks. I am just going off Martin's website and one option after contacting the airline directly, was to write to the CAA and they can investigate. Am I being naive? I don't for one minute think this will be easy and am happy to go small claims but I'd rather not.

What the others who have replied to you are basically saying is FORGET WRITING TO THE CAA!!

Your [STRIKE]two[/STRIKE] three options are
1) take Thomsons to court via County Claims
2) use a no-win no fee firm
3) walk away from the experience

option 2 depends on how much you want to pay a company to win for you......

wozmand

Can anyone recommend a reliable no win-no fee firm for flight compensation, my claim has been rejected but I’m not convinced with what Thomson have cited in their response. I don’t really fancy going down the small claims court route so I would be prepared to pay the commission no win-no fee firms charge.

Cheers
Mark.

Mark2spark

Bott & Co get a few mentions on here. I've no affiliation with them, haven't used them, so can't say any more than that.

http://www.bottonline.co.uk/aviation?gclid=COqv2tqn4rkCFZQZtAodPS8Axw

Miss_Intent

Thanks for the clarity matt2baker. I will now need to decide which option to take.

nuttyports

Hi Guys, we were delayed 24 hours in 2009 due to a flat tyre (which is a standard maintenance procedure so they can't use the exceptional circumstances quote). I have received a response saying the the supreme court in the uk which uses the Montreal Convention states that claims prior to 2 years ago will not be considered. I've heard from the grapevine that something overrules this montreal convention regulation. Can someone please tell me whether there is a template letter back to Thomson to debate this theory or tell me actually what act/regulation overrules this montreal convention one. Thanks guys x
:j

111KAB

nuttyports wrote: »

. Can someone please tell me whether there is a template letter back to Thomson to debate this theory or tell me actually what act/regulation overrules this montreal convention one.
:j

Read through thread yourself and you will find the answer you require.

Mark2spark

nuttyports wrote: »

Hi Guys, we were delayed 24 hours in 2009 due to a flat tyre (which is a standard maintenance procedure so they can't use the exceptional circumstances quote). I have received a response saying the the supreme court in the uk which uses the Montreal Convention states that claims prior to 2 years ago will not be considered. I've heard from the grapevine that something overrules this montreal convention regulation. Can someone please tell me whether there is a template letter back to Thomson to debate this theory or tell me actually what act/regulation overrules this montreal convention one. Thanks guys x
:j

It's the More ruling in the FAQ's.
But debating it with Thomson is futile. See also the Dawson case in the FAQ's.
NBA and Court, or walk away.

nigelpm

Okay and thanks. I am just going off Martin's website and one option after contacting the airline directly, was to write to the CAA and they can investigate. Am I being naive? I don't for one minute think this will be easy and am happy to go small claims but I'd rather not.

This isn't an easy process. Unless you are willing to read through a lot of these forums and spend hours of your time researching and getting to know the EU legislation I really wouldn't bother with it.

You will have to issue Thomson with a small claim.

RM2013

Has anyone won their case and Thomson still don't pay out???