Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

jayw996

Well done!!! I might need some advice when my day comes!

LULU5779

on a further note to all with up coming court dates. I was chatting to the barrister outside afterwards and said the would be feeding back to Thomson that their lack of evidence is what lost them the case and that they didn't bring a witness in for questioning.

Their fight was mainly based on acts and case laws not actual evidence for my specific flight delay.

I did ask about interest and it was one thing in there initial defence that we hadn't addressed. The judge said they that is between Thomson and myself to sort out if the Dawson appeal is lost.

Vauban

Well done Lulu! (And a great narrative arc too, you tease!)

LULU5779

Vauban wrote: »

Well done Lulu! (And a great narrative arc too, you tease!)

I wasn't teasing my 4 hours of courts was very much a case of being the out cast and way, way out of my depth. It was only the last 5 minutes of the decision summary that the judge swung my way.

The barrister summed the whole thing up afterwards when we where out side saying judges do like to do x factor style dramatics.

kevinyork

JPears wrote: »

:T:T:T:T:TLulu - well done, I know exactly how you feel. You think you're well prepared but it feels as though you're up against it on the day. Which you are!
Congratulations, shying the pants off of a barrister. It does feel very much as though the relevant parties do "side" as it were. There really should be some sort of limit on the level of legal assistance each side could have, to level the playing field. The Small Claims track works to a degree but it is by no means perfect or even close, balanced in any way shape or form. The complete lack of information the Courts Service provide in respect of legal proceedings and case management is abysmal. Maybe this may change as t'internet and "mass" protests like this push the system.
Again, congratulations and well done.
What about interest? If added at least this will rack whilst the stay is in progress.
Unfortunately I suspect all the other airlines will now jump on the 2yr scam bandwagon.

I think a lot depends on tbe Judge on the day. Ive been to the CC and tbe Judge has been amiable and extremely helpful in redressing the balance between me, an individual, and a legal professional. Ive also had the opposite where the judge was on the other party's side from the off and I felt under a lot of pressure.

Judges should help redress the balance where members of the public are fighting a team of legal experts.

kingy996

This is the second response ive had from Thomson, in my last letter I basically told them the the 2 year rule was nonsense and this was there reply below



Dear Mr King,

Thank you for your further contact and I'm sorry you remain unhappy with the response you've received from After Travel.

Just to give you further information regarding our position, we are acting on the basis of expert legal advice provided by a pre-eminent aviation law QC who has advised us that claims relating to delay, whether under EU regulations or otherwise, must be brought within two years according to domestic law. European case law confirms that it is domestic law that should dictate the time limit and we are, therefore, confident that we are adopting the correct legal position.

Thomson Airways operates a fair and thorough process to deal with claims for delays in line with the regulation. The law in this area is complex and many situations will not result in an entitlement to compensation. I'm truly sorry if this wasn't the outcome you were looking for however I must advise that this is our final position on this matter.

Thank you once again for getting in touch.


Yours sincerely,

After Travel Customer Support
TUI UK & Ireland - Holiday Experience

jimcbob

LULU5779 wrote: »

on a further note to all with up coming court dates. I was chatting to the barrister outside afterwards and said the would be feeding back to Thomson that their lack of evidence is what lost them the case and that they didn't bring a witness in for questioning.

Their fight was mainly based on acts and case laws not actual evidence for my specific flight delay.

I did ask about interest and it was one thing in there initial defence that we hadn't addressed. The judge said they that is between Thomson and myself to sort out if the Dawson appeal is lost.

Congratulations! You will need to look carefully at the order the judge makes, but if the form of the order is (i) Thomson to pay you £X but (ii) stay of enforcement pending Dawson appeal, then interest will run at 8% under the Judgments Act 1838 from today (because, technically, judgment will have been entered so you will get post-judgment interest).

As for pre-judgment interest, unless the judge has (i) ordered it today or (ii) has not entered a judgment today, but has simply ruled on the "extaordinary circumstances" issue such that issues remain open for further argument after Dawson, then I am afraid it is lost.

markavo1

LULU5779 wrote: »

Hi all,

I had my day in court today.

I initially wrote to Thomson on the 31st January this year and received the usual 2 year rule. Then eventually went down the route of MCOL.

I put myself as the claimant and used the claim particulars to state I was acting on behalf of my husband and daughter as a family. I have had no issues with this through I court process. I also made the error of state the defendant was TUI instead of Thomson and had no problems with this either.

Thomson's defence was 2 year, and EC crew hours for volcanic ash.

I received a letter last week saying they would be requesting a stay until the Dawson case is decided.

Today was just me v the barrister they had employed.

First up was the request for the case to be stayed due to the Dawson appeal. I stated my arguments being More and even through in the list of out of court settlements and court wins against the Thomson under the 2 year rule. However the judge said it was out of her hands and would agree for the case to be stayed. Their argument is that the MC then became an ACT in law and therefore over rules More. At this point I could tell the judge didn't take a particular liking to me and I felt the case going down hill from there.

Then she agreed to hear the second part i.e the EC. I felt really unprepared even though I knew my points. I had my arguments which their barrister seem to twist and use to his advantage. He had loads of references and made the whole thing seem very easy. The judge was agreeing with him on every point and but when it was my turned didn't seem to concur with my argument.

I was then asked for my final statements so I couldn't think of anymore to say. Way out of my depth and fully defeated. So I just said my points again and stated that Thomson had no evidence that they the did everything they could to stop this delay. Their only evidence was an fleet report for the days surrounding our delay, no crew hours log, no crewing report or and explanation about what had happened to our crew. And I suggested some measures they could have taken to stop this delay. From my days of cabin crew in my youth. Also the ops managers who signed a witness statement wasn't there to answer question or had provided any evidence for us.

Then it was their barrister turn, he again smashed my arguments out if the park coming back the ash cloud and how the whole thing was an EC and weeks surrounding that where all considered as EC because the whole world was effected. Referencing statements to back everything up.

The judge the asked us to leave while she made her decision. The barrister said in the waiting room that he thought it could go either way and she had her poker face on. I told him I knew I had lost.

When we returned the judge summarised and was agreeing with every point of EC and Thomson's defence for some 20 minutes I was almost going to leave And felt very frustrated until she said however Thomson have failed to bring any evidence of crewing or what had happened to our crew or to prove that out flight delay was unavoidable.

So therefore I won, compensation grated not EC.

That is until the appeal for Dawson is heard. If the out come of that is 6 years then Thomson have to pay my the compensation if it's 2 years my win is nil and avoid.

I would like to thank everyone for their help. The main forum advice givers and anyone who has posted advice on here. You have all help in so many ways. I stuck to my points and that won through in the end.

Fingers crossed for the Dawson appeal they said by the end if this year or early 2014.

I will still be watching this forum with great interest and would strongly recommend any one with a claim to not give up.


Best regards

Massive congratulations. I have my court date on Friday. Fingers crossed

Thesiteagent

Congratulations LULU5779.
I have my day in court next month. last week was the last day to provide the docs to rely on in court. Living not far from Luton I delivered by hand to Thomsons,(very friendly security man let me in).
I have so far (A week later) received nothing from Thomsons. I guess this means they will just be asking for it to be stayed.

happychap7

LULU5779 wrote: »

Hi all,

I had my day in court today.

I initially wrote to Thomson on the 31st January this year and received the usual 2 year rule. Then eventually went down the route of MCOL.

I put myself as the claimant and used the claim particulars to state I was acting on behalf of my husband and daughter as a family. I have had no issues with this through I court process. I also made the error of state the defendant was TUI instead of Thomson and had no problems with this either.

Thomson's defence was 2 year, and EC crew hours for volcanic ash.

I received a letter last week saying they would be requesting a stay until the Dawson case is decided.

Today was just me v the barrister they had employed.

First up was the request for the case to be stayed due to the Dawson appeal. I stated my arguments being More and even through in the list of out of court settlements and court wins against the Thomson under the 2 year rule. However the judge said it was out of her hands and would agree for the case to be stayed. Their argument is that the MC then became an ACT in law and therefore over rules More. At this point I could tell the judge didn't take a particular liking to me and I felt the case going down hill from there.

Then she agreed to hear the second part i.e the EC. I felt really unprepared even though I knew my points. I had my arguments which their barrister seem to twist and use to his advantage. He had loads of references and made the whole thing seem very easy. The judge was agreeing with him on every point and but when it was my turned didn't seem to concur with my argument.

I was then asked for my final statements so I couldn't think of anymore to say. Way out of my depth and fully defeated. So I just said my points again and stated that Thomson had no evidence that they the did everything they could to stop this delay. Their only evidence was an fleet report for the days surrounding our delay, no crew hours log, no crewing report or and explanation about what had happened to our crew. And I suggested some measures they could have taken to stop this delay. From my days of cabin crew in my youth. Also the ops managers who signed a witness statement wasn't there to answer question or had provided any evidence for us.

Then it was their barrister turn, he again smashed my arguments out if the park coming back the ash cloud and how the whole thing was an EC and weeks surrounding that where all considered as EC because the whole world was effected. Referencing statements to back everything up.

The judge the asked us to leave while she made her decision. The barrister said in the waiting room that he thought it could go either way and she had her poker face on. I told him I knew I had lost.

When we returned the judge summarised and was agreeing with every point of EC and Thomson's defence for some 20 minutes I was almost going to leave And felt very frustrated until she said however Thomson have failed to bring any evidence of crewing or what had happened to our crew or to prove that out flight delay was unavoidable.

So therefore I won, compensation grated not EC.

That is until the appeal for Dawson is heard. If the out come of that is 6 years then Thomson have to pay my the compensation if it's 2 years my win is nil and avoid.

I would like to thank everyone for their help. The main forum advice givers and anyone who has posted advice on here. You have all help in so many ways. I stuck to my points and that won through in the end.

Fingers crossed for the Dawson appeal they said by the end if this year or early 2014.

I will still be watching this forum with great interest and would strongly recommend any one with a claim to not give up.


Best regards

Hi
We'll done. Thomson are using the ash cloud/crew hours and 2 year limit for my claim so that's promising for me as well. I'm going to use Thomson tactics now and wait until the last minute to submit allocation questionnaire and then hopefully my court case will be in 2014 after the Dawson appeal has been heard. This way I won't risk losing my court fees on top of everything else if Thomson win the appeal.