Flight delay and cancellation compensation, Tui/Thomson ONLY

LULU5779

Delayed in punta Cuna Dom rep 12/05/2010 for 23 hours. The crew had gone out of hours on the flight on the way over so couldn't fly back.

*Sent claim letter 1st February 2013
*Called and chased 22nd February 2013 and was told 56 day response due to case load but they would put a trace of the file to speed it up.
* received blanket 2 year letter 7th march 2013
* sent legal action notice 8th march 2013 and emailed a copy

I will be complaining to the CAA and starting court proceedings on two weeks.

I called TUI after receving the letter for the details of the Supreme Court case number or reference and they couldn't supply the information. That said they aren't privy to that information and I said the Supreme Court cases are all published and update on the website for the world to see and there is no existence of it on there so if they could point me in the right direction. They failed to do so.

andresykes

Hi. Similar story to most people posting on here. What I'm wondering though is what would happen if I take Thomson to court. Just say in court they produce a valid reason for the delay & the claim gets thrown out.

Do you think that everyone receives this letter or do Thomson look at each flight before sending out the reply? Clearly its in everyone's interests that if a valid reason for rejection exists that it should be stated as soon as possible.

andresykes

Forgot to ask. I've no booking reference or ticket but know the flight number & have confirmed it was 6/7 hours late. I made the booking for a party of 12 - myself / wife & 4 kids, my mum & dad (dad now deceased) and my brother / sister in law & 2 kids.

Who should issue the MCOL - me because I booked and paid for it all or each adult individually?

Prof_Ligate

Mark2spark wrote: »

I've had a reply on Thomson's FB page re my ask why they are saying it's two years.

Hi Mark, Thomson Airways use a fair and thorough process to deal with claims for flight delay, we're acting on the basis of expert legal advice given to us by respected aviation lawyers. Our position is that claims can only be made for flight delays 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 this policy is correct. The law in this area is complex and not all claims would be entitled to compensation. ^Adam

I've replied:

Thanks for your reply Thomson_Adam. I don't suppose a link/reference of case number could be provided where the Supreme Court has indicated this please? It's obviously unlike the CAA to get this wrong. It's also surprising that other airlines such as BA or Easyjet are paying out for claims that are older then 2 years as well? Perhaps their lawyers aren't as good as yours huh? (tongue in cheek) lol

It will be interesting to see what they come back with, if they come back at all of course.

Maybe they should take advice from civil litigation lawyers rather than specialist aviation lawyers so that they can interpret the Limitation Act, EU law and the relevant follow up case law correctly (assuming there isn't a Supreme Court case which only Thomson know about).

davidbrian55

I've had the two year letter and responded accordingly giving them 28 days to settle or come up with reasons etc. I will certainly be issuing in the county court, without delay, first week in april. It will be interesting to send in bailiffs should judgement in default be entered.

I too was a regular traveller with them. Surely someone there is reading all this and making note of the number of very aggreived ex customers

Mark2spark

I have been informed that:

"The Supreme Court hasn't heard a EU261 case since the Grand Chamber ruling last year, or the follow up Cuadrench More case a few weeks later, that defined limitations, so any reference to something the Supreme Court has said, is something that it has said in the past, and one would obviously assume that it would have been in reference to a case bought under the Montreal Convention, which typically does contain wording that defines limitations to two years. However, the Cuadrench More ruling has confirmed that EU261 is supplementary to any further case that could also be bought under the Montreal Convention, and that the two do not conflict, with EU261 being operable before the Montreal Convention".

Prof_Ligate

Mark2spark wrote: »

I have been informed that:

"The Supreme Court hasn't heard a EU261 case since the Grand Chamber ruling last year, or the follow up Cuadrench More case a few weeks later, that defined limitations, so any reference to something the Supreme Court has said, is something that it has said in the past, and one would obviously assume that it would have been in reference to a case bought under the Montreal Convention, which typically does contain wording that defines limitations to two years. However, the Cuadrench More ruling has confirmed that EU261 is supplementary to any further case that could also be bought under the Montreal Convention, and that the two do not conflict, with EU261 being operable before the Montreal Convention".

Meaning the Thomson lawyers are working on an out of date approach and ignoring what the More ruling confirmed? i.e. that national limitation rules apply and that section 9 of Limitation Act says that sums recoverable by statute (EU261) can be brought for up to 6 years.

In short, Thomson are BSing?

blondmark

moriarty888 wrote: »

Yes, but they haven't asked me to wait years have they? They asked me to wait for the result of the appeal, which I think is reasonable. Then they started dealing with the claims and asked me to wait a little while to contact people, which I did and they did. They then asked me to wait 56 days to deal with my claim, which I have. I am now giving them a week's grace before acting again.

And yes, I am quite sure about judges getting annoyed when people don't follow internal company procedures before contacting them. I work in the legal profession and look at judgments on a daily basis, and I look at commentary on cases thrown out by irate judges telling people to try and sort things out themselves before bothering them. So as I said, I am quite patient and if it does come to pass that this goes to court, I will hopefully look as though I have behaved reasonably and calmly at all times. Thomson however may not look quite as professional.

Those time frames are absurd and unnecessary.Obviously I used years to illustrate the absurdity of your argument that you are expected to correspond with the airlines' timetables, be it years or several months, when in fact the only timetable you are expected by the courts to follow is clearly set out in the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct.

In the litigation module of my solicitor's training, the Civil Procedure Rules were our bible, and old wives tales and anecdotes about irascible judges don't come into the equation. The fact remains that no court is entitled to criticise a litigant who has correctly followed the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct. The waiting games you are playing win you no brownie points, and only encourage airlines to string claimants along indefinitely.

To recap, the courts are happy if you follow their rules by providing 14 days' notice of the issue of proceedings, and if a defendant requires more time to obtain evidence, the courts only require that you provide a further 14 days. It's all there in black and white.

blondmark

Prof_Ligate wrote: »

Meaning the Thomson lawyers are working on an out of date approach and ignoring what the More ruling confirmed? i.e. that national limitation rules apply and that section 9 of Limitation Act says that sums recoverable by statute (EU261) can be brought for up to 6 years.

In short, Thomson are BSing?

Let's not mince words. Thomson are lying.

Mark2spark

IANAL, but I believe Thomson are going to rely on:

"Section 39 of the Limitation Act stipulates that the Act shall not apply where an alternative limitation period is prescribed by any other statute. Various statutes prescribe different time limits for the bringing of claims. Some of these are significantly shorter than the time allowed under the 1980 Act.

Point 26 on the link below.

http://www.radcliffechambers.com/media/Misc_Articles/Limitation_seminar_-_Dov_Ohrenstein.pdf

Which is basically spinning the ECJ wording of the national law of member states being the time period in which a claim can be bought, which previously, under the Montreal Convention, was 2 years. But the ECJ said that EU261 comes in BEFORE the MC is operable.